How many more stories like this before the left stops with the incessant “Bush lied to us” chorus that is reaching a crescendo:
British military officers have uncovered an attempt by Saddam Hussein to build a missile capable of hitting targets throughout the Middle East, including Israel, The Telegraph can reveal.
Plans for the surface-to-surface missile were one of the regime’s most closely-guarded secrets and were unknown to United Nations weapons inspectors. Its range of 600 miles would have been far greater than that of the al-Samoud rocket – which already breached the 93-mile limit imposed by the UN on any Iraqi missiles.
Oh- that smoking gun.
Dean
John,
I’ll assume the question is rhetorical.
Response to this newest finding:
Since no one knew about it, it can’t be used as a justification for the war.
Besides, why would anyone want to JUSTIFY a war? It’s bad for small children and other living things, after all….
Barney Gumble
Oh, another Daily Telegraph story.
Richard Perle is one the independent directors for The Daily Telegraph. That’s Bush adminstration insider Richard Perle.
And so what if a Bush administration insider is a director the most conservative of the English newspapers?
The Daily Telegraph “found” documents on the floor of the looted Mukhabarat intelligence headquarters. After it had been looted for two weeks. Documents that our own military and CIA did not find.
And what a wish list of documents it was:
***George Galloway, the Labour backbencher, received money from Saddam Hussein’s regime.
***France colluded with the Iraqi secret service
***Iraq’s intelligence services bought gold jewelry that they planned to give to the wife and daughter of Scott Ritter
***Iraqi intelligence reports showing links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda
What a fortunate co-incidence, huh?
And now you want to add missiles to the list? Yawn.
http://mwowatchwatchwatchwatch.blogspot.com/2003_05_25_mwowatchwatchwatchwatch_archive.html#94910245
HH
So I suppose Richard Perle runs the Christian Science Monitor…
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0425/p01s04-woiq.htm
And Fox…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85274,00.html
Links between Saddam and al Qaeda aren’t exactly a Telegraph exclusive and neither is Ritter’s acceptance of money from Iraq.
Dean
Interesting, innit?
Richard Perle’s links to the Daily Telegraph are of greater import, are more likely to have an effect, in the worldview of the “Barney Gumbles” than links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
I guess Saddam, a real dictator in the Stalinist mode, just has random terrorists wandering through his country, w/ subordinates meeting them, ‘cuz he doesn’t know any better? That’s the ticket, yeah. I mean, ‘cuz Richard Perle, he probably personally inserted documents into those boxes in Baghdad. Yup. Yup.
HH
Actually he is on the board of, not the Telegraph itself, but the company which owns it, along with Henry Kissinger, who one Josh Marshall argued, even after a NY Times correction, was against the war in Iraq.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/apbiz_story.asp?category=1310&slug=Hollinger%20Meeting
HH
“Last night Mr Ritter said that the Iraqis had tried more than once to compromise Shifting Sands [his film]. He confirmed that officials had offered a gold bracelet for his wife and had volunteered to finance the film, either directly or via a French oil company.”
An even bigger coincidence that the evil Richard Perle would be able to forge documents that Scott Ritter would confirm…
HH
The all-powerful Perle infiltrated even the Guardian!
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,944479,00.html
Barney Gumble
HH: The CS story: While a different source, it doesn’t do anything for the credibility of the Telegraph.
The fox story: “A report last night claimed documents found in the headquarters of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi security service,…”
Those are the Telegraph documents.
HH: “Actually he is on the board of, not the Telegraph..” you are correct, but it’s a distinction without a difference.
HH: “He confirmed that officials had offered a gold bracelet…”
again, the only source is the Telegraph (and the WT and WND, who got it from the Telegraph).
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/04/writt04.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/04/ixnewstop.html
Let’s recap.
1. First we bomb a whole lot of Baghdad.
2. Two weeks goes by.
3. Then in their version of the CIA building,
4. Presumably ALREADY searched by our own intelligence and military unless they are incompetent to a level that defies credibility,
5. We let foreign reporters wander around the building. (But from papers that back Bush)
6. Where they find the evidence, in the rubble on the floor, that Bush wants most of all in the whole wide world, the link between Bin Laden and Saddam?
7. And more evidence that is just a wish list for the Bush & Blair: discredits Germany, Chirac, Putin & Galloway?
8. Did I mention that they expect us to believe that they had two weeks to search the intelligence headquarters, missed it, and some journalists just found it on the floor?
If this evidence was any more of a plant it would be green and have leaves on it.
additional info: http://www.unknownnews.net/0526-1.html
HH
Er the CSM story is working from separate documents. Nice try.
Actually if you bothered to read the Telegraph stories (there were more than one) all your questions are answered (though I don’t see any evidence that the Christian Science Monitor is anything like the Telegraph… certainly the Observer isn’t right wing). In fact it’s quite consistent with what we’ve been hearing about Iraq.
The fact that Ritter confirmed the Telegraph story and had ample chance to challenge them during his many interviews this week just this week when it was brought up pretty much blows your skepticism on that count out of the water. If Ritter had been misquoted in any way, you’d have heard about it from him.
“a distinction without a difference.”
I disagree of course.
Randolph Fritz
Actually, I started out believing that Saddam had or was trying to have some sort of nuclear weapon. It appears that report, at least, was disinformation.
But maybe he did. The Telegraph is not terribly credible, but maybe their story will check out. Even so, the “peace” in Iraq is turning out, as I foresaw, to be a mess. I thought containment was the superior strategy before the war and watching what the peace is becoming, I still think that.
HH
“Containment” with mass graves and people being fed into paper shredders… I’ll take a disorderly peace a mere 6 weeks after the fact over that thanks.
barney gumble
Thanks to the CSM, Guardian and Observer, I could be persuaded that Galloway is toast.
But it’s hardly unusual to put real information into forged documents to give them credibility.
Similarly
“An even bigger coincidence that the evil Richard Perle would be able to forge documents that Scott Ritter would confirm…”
Documents were written *afterward*
“Mr Ritter said that he had rebuffed each attempt and filed reports on the approaches to the FBI. He had also filed reports to the US Treasury when he was raising the money for Shifting Sands.”
Putting pre-existing information into fogeries isn’t a new idea.
—
“a distinction without a difference.”
I disagree of course.
Why?
—-
“Actually if you bothered to read the Telegraph stories…”
Weeks ago.
—-
“mass graves and people being fed into paper shredders”
Isn’t it odd that we only care about human rights in petroleum exporting countries that aren’t named Saudi Arabie?
HH
“Isn’t it odd that we only care about human rights in petroleum exporting countries that aren’t named Saudi Arabie?”
Straw man, what’s this we stuff?
I want Saudi Arabia freed from tyranny too.
I disagree because his position shows how much influence he exercises and I think that’s less than actually directly running the paper. The rest of your stuff is becoming a bit of a stretch to say the least.
Dean
I find it amusing (if sad) that the primary reportage coming out of Congo is from “disreputable” sources like the Daily Telegraph.
No doubt Richard Perle’s behind those stories, too. One wonders what the likes of “Barney Gumble” think of those—more grist for the American Empire mill?
Barney Gumble
“I want Saudi Arabia freed from tyranny too.” An admirable position. We have to free ourselves from oil-dependency to due it, I think, but that’s another discussion. I still think you should install commenting at tvh.
“I disagree because his position shows how much influence he exercises and I think that’s less than actually directly running the paper.”
The boss’s boss has less influence than the boss?
“I find it amusing (if sad) that the primary reportage coming out of Congo is from “disreputable” sources like the Daily Telegraph.”
They’re still a newspaper-nothing prevents them from straight reportage when they don’t have a dog in the fight.
JKC
Hmm… lets see what actually pans out. I’d hate for Dean and HH to get all embarassed if this turns out to be another balsa wood and duct tape drone.
Now the link below is interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967548,00.html
As is this one:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2083760/
Look, I’m glad SH is out of power: he’s a real ratbastard. But the American public (and the Coalition of the Willing) were told we needed to go to war because of the imminent threat from Iraq’s WMD’s. The ones that have disappeared into… what? Syria? A quantum singularity? A Ryder truck? If there aren’t any WMD’s, then I think we deserve to know what happened. Did DOD get bad intel? Did DOD see red and call it green? Was the President misled by his advisers? Or did he knowingly lie?
I’m not judging the outcome… yet. It seems to me, though, that if the WMD meme was.. hmmm, let’s say “overzealous marketing” then you can stick a fork in our credibility abroad, ’cause it’s done. No more coalitions, willing or unwilling. The next adventure is entirely on Uncle Sam’s tab, both bodies and treasure.
Randolph Fritz
Lt. General Conway (USMC) has said that the intell. on CBW was bad (LA Times). Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Tenet are spinning as fast as they can.
Reporting from Rwanda is from many sources, not just the Telegraph.
The problem with claiming the right to declare a nations government “illegal” and attempting to replace it, as the USA has done in Iraq, is that there is nothing to stop other nations, or even random groups, from doing it.
And the Shiites in Iraq are doing fine.
Mark S.
I found this one quote to be a little more “eyebrow raising” actually..
“I certainly do know some of the stuff that has already been accumulated…which is not yet public but what we are going to do is assemble that evidence and present it properly.” – Tony Blair
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2856360
HH
Being on the board does not make you the boss’ boss, it makes you an advisor to the boss.
The “balsa wood and duct tape drone” stuff was later revealed to be yet another reporter trying desperately to please the Baath’ist propaganda machine with uncritical “reporting,” who unfortunately for him, was kicked out because of use of a cellphone or somesuch.
HH
The LA Times is hardly any more trustworthy than the NY Times these days so I wouldn’t take that at face value either, just like the Vanity Fair article.
Andrew Lazarus
I count five WMD “smoking guns” retracted already, and I imagine if I bide my time, this one will follow suit.
Barney Gumble
If by “advisor” you mean, “can hire and fire the CEO”, then yes.
HH
Except he can’t do that singlehandedly, just like he can’t singlehandedly pull off what you were talking about… but now we’re going in circles.
I’ve seen a lot of people biding their time on the bio-labs for weeks now.
Barney Gumble
I think that we who investigate from behind a keyboard can’t be too invested in believing we know what the “ground truth” is. We can’t “know” what he can or can’t do. It could have been as simple as Perle handing David Blair a manila envelope filled with the finest forgeries the CIA can make. It may have happened as reported-unlikely as I consider that to be.
Toren
That SH was trying to develop nuclar weapons is beyond argument. Not only did he himself say it, but read “Saddam’s Bombmaker” by Khidhir Hamza for proof.
Again, as I have said to every lefty I have argued the WMD canard with, “YOU are the people making that claim. You show me where the Bush Aministration said, point-blank, ‘The only reason we are attacking Iraq is to eliminate the WMDs we know he has’ and I will apologize.” But they never said that–you fucking lefties made it up from misquotes and fragments of fact so you’d have something to bitch about ex post facto. So all I ever get is a screaming change of subject.
So shut up and go protest the Congo war or something.
JKC
Toren, Toren, Toren. Relax, sit down, and have a glass of water before you stroke out.
I’d refer you to Billmon’s chain of quotes from various administration officials, but I don’t think you’re in the mood to read them. Point is, WMD’s were the justification for war as far as Tony Blair is concerned, and that was the selling point in the UN.
I’m getting tired of repeating this, but what the heck: this “lefty” is glad SH is gone. May he rot in hell. The problem with lying about WMD’s (IF that’s what happened) is that it destroys our credibility in the world. We’re already seeing the results of this in the lack of peacekeeping troops being volunteered by our allies. Seems the attitude is “you broke it, you bought it.” Ask the 3rd ID when they’re going to get to come home.
Susie
As Barney Gumble has proved by his above posts, no amount of proof will EVER be enough for the lefties. We could find 5000 Sarin gas canisters tomorrow, and they will say it is just “the finest forgeries the CIA can make.”
HH
Indeed.
JKC
Susie, HH:
I’d feel better if someone found ONE canister of Sarin.
We could find 5000 canisters of Sarin tomorrow. I could find the keys to a Ferrari on my kitchen table, too. Both look damned unlikely.
Ikram Saeed
Jonh Cole — don’t you want a wait a bit before crowing. consider the number of ‘early reports’ of WMD that have been debunked. For a while after the war, I felt like they were coming one a day.
I don’t think GWB only lied to the world. I think he also lied to himself. If you believe a lie — is it still a lie?
Of course, you caoudl say taht GWB was not lying, but the all the WMD have disappeared, perhaps to Syria, perhaps to ALQaeda. But I’d prefer to think that GWB is a liar, not an incompetent.
Barney Gumble
Susie: “no amount of proof will EVER be enough for the lefties…”
Yet you say this after I conceded in this very thread:
“Thanks to the CSM, Guardian and Observer, I could be persuaded that Galloway is toast.”
Toren: “You show me where the Bush Aministration said, point-blank, ‘The only reason we are attacking Iraq is to eliminate the WMDs we know he has’ and I will apologize.” But they never said that–you fucking…”
Amateur rhetoric.
“That SH was trying to develop nuclar weapons is beyond argument.”
If you had said ‘has tried’ I could agree with you. That’s what bombing the Osirak reactor was about, after all. Post-1991 is a different story. If their best evidence was aluminum tubes, the poorly forged Nigerian documents (bad research-at the time they were signed, the minister who had supposedly signed them had been out of power for 10 years) and the “fresh” research that was actually plagiarized from an old student paper-then they have no evidence.
“So shut up and go protest the Congo war or something.”
Would I be the first to suggest you switch to decaf?
Jon
Con Coughlin, the author of this Telegraph article, is regarded in England as perhaps the country’s least credible journalist. The Telegraph in general and Coughlin in particular are well known for passing along disinformation from British intelligence agencies. (For some background on this, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/shayler/article/0,2763,339990,00.html.) That’s why (as far as I know) no other news agency has picked up this story. They’re well aware it’s almost certainly bogus.
Barney Gumble
Great article Jon, I only skimmed it but I’ll read it in more detail later.
HH
So the Guardian, hardly a paragon of honesty and integrity makes this charge. Next.
HH
Interesting that even in a hit piece on its competitor, the Guardian stresses that they are not attacking Coughlin’s credibility at all. Again I say, next.
HH
The evil Richard Perle strikes again!
HH
Well, looks like the CSM documents were forged, but the Telegraph’s were authentic.