Posted on 05/31/2003 8:02:47 PM PDT by Happy2BMe
Reuters
Saturday, May 31, 2003; 7:15 PM
By Mike Peacock
ST PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted on Sunday that Britain and the United States would unearth evidence of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" and make it public before long.
In an interview with Britain's Sky Television at a Russia-European Union summit, Blair said he had already seen plenty of information that his critics had not, but would in due course.
"Over the coming weeks and months we will assemble this evidence and then we will give it to people," he said. "I have no doubt whatever that the evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction will be there."
Months before war was launched, Blair produced what he said was intelligence that Saddam Hussein could launch biological or chemical weapons at short notice, in Iraq or at its neighbors.
That became London's justification for joining Washington's war in the Gulf. But weeks after the conflict finished, no such weapons have been found.
Widespread international cynicism about British and American motives for the war was stoked this week by a BBC report that an intelligence dossier had been altered, at the request of Blair's office, to make it "sexier" by adding that Iraq's weapons could be readied for use within 45 minutes.
UNREPENTANT
Blair publicly made that assertion as he argued Saddam had to be tackled. But he was unrepentant on Sunday.
"Those people who are sitting there saying 'Oh it is all going to be proved to be a great big fib got out by the security services, there will be no weapons of mass destruction', just wait and have a little patience," he said.
"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."
Blair has recently raised fresh justifications for toppling Saddam, pointing to his oppressive regime and its documented atrocities. But his political opponents will continue to hound him over the original reason he gave for war.
Blair took a big gamble backing a war which was heavily opposed by Britons before it started. Polls later turned in Blair's favor but the issue has the power to return and bite him.
The controversy has been fueled by comments from the two top U.S. defense officials that the American decision to stress the threat of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons was taken for "bureaucratic" reasons, and that Iraq may have destroyed them before the war.
The UK government on Saturday denied a report that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his U.S. counterpart Colin Powell had serious doubts about the quality of intelligence they received on Iraq's weapons programmes.
The Guardian, quoting a diplomatic source, said the pair had met shortly before a crucial U.N. Security Council meeting in February and both expressed their "deep concerns about the intelligence" they were getting on Iraq.
A Foreign Office spokeswoman said the report was "untrue."
Boyes anti-tank rifle. Used to could order them, along with such neat things as 20mm cannon, out of comic books back when I was a kid. About 30 bucks (which was a pretty fair amount of money for a kid then. that's why I never got to get one).
Then there is this gem of a claim by Reuters: "The controversy has been fueled by comments from the two top U.S. defense officials that the American decision to stress the threat of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons was taken for 'bureaucratic' reasons."
I don't know who the second "top defense official" was, but if Reuters is referring to the Vanity Fair interview with Paul Wolfowitz, they are piling one falsehood upon another. Here's the truth:
Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine took place on MAY 9th. As is common in the news mag business, selected inflamatory parts were released in advance of publication so as to drum up interest in the article (purpose: to increase sales). However, Vanity Fair "interpreted" Wolfowitz's statements to make it seem as though he was saying, essentially, that the Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq. THIS MOST EMPHASTICALLY IS NOT WHAT WOLFOWITZ SAID OR INTENDED. See for yourself:
Friday's Washington Post online had this article (click). Here are the key paragraphs:
WP article, what Wolfowitz actually said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of the interview.
WP article, how VF rephrased his statement: "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Also from the WP article, this paragraph: In the interview, Wolfowitz cited one outcome of the war that was "almost unnoticed - but it's huge": it removed the need to maintain American forces in Saudi Arabia as long as Saddam was in power. Vanity Fair interpreted Wolfowitz to say that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia was a reason for the war. (The latter sentence is from the WP article. I added bold red for strong emphasis.)
By subtly and slyly rephrasing and "interpreting" what Wolfowitz actually said, Vanity Fair put a completely false spin on the story.
It's these kinds of lies — rather than the Jayson Blair sort — that are all too common in the media, and are extremely damaging to our nation's public discourse. Like some viruses, once in the political bloodstream such lies are all but impossible to kill.
Yep - as much as you do >> #: )
"It's these kinds of lies — rather than the Jayson Blair sort — that are all too common in the media, and are extremely damaging to our nation's public discourse. Like some viruses, once in the political bloodstream such lies are all but impossible to kill." Yep - and you can apply that to the majority of media. These worms are all trained by the same socialist gurus who won't graduate them until they are thoroughly indoctrinated into reporting the "truth."
About the only good thing(s) I saw coming out of Reuters during Iraqi Freedom were the war footage coming out of their embedded reporters... they had no choice in those matters and it is very hard (not beyond them though) to alter raw war photos.
Best... (and thank you for your very truthful thoughts)
Ahh masterful use of quotation marks, here and throughout the article. Let's see if I can do it:
Reuters is a "professional" organization dedicated to bringing you "accurate" news from around the world.
| Actor Sean Penn Bashes Bush, Iraq War in Newspaper |
||||||
| Posted by Happy2BMe to MEG33; MeeknMing; O.C. - Old Cracker; darkwing104; beckett; blam; Archie Bunker on steroids; ... On News/Activism 05/30/2003 11:25 PM PDT #51 of 69 Hehe... just how much CROW can one Hollyweed Maggot eat!!??
Now, about that Crow . . .
 |
||||||
Although it will make us feel vindicated it will not effect them. They will just change the subject to some other criticism of Bush and keep right on trucking like nothing happened.
Sounds like Crow may be served soon!
Bush Doctrine Unfolds :
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Bush Doctrine Unfold | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.