Home > Bush Forcibly Attacks Iraq Critics ‘rewriting history’ - what about the UAVs (…)
Bush Forcibly Attacks Iraq Critics ‘rewriting history’ - what about the UAVs Mr. Bush?
by Open-Publishing - Saturday 12 November 20052 comments
Wars and conflicts International Governments USA
The truth is that virtually everything Bush says is the exact opposite of the truth. The Patriots fighting to stop this war, this killing for profit, are not rewriting history- Bush is. Bush claims he didn’t lie, they used the best intelligence... bull- they lied, here’s some proof.
1. "Someone"
took the Senators into a closed door session and told them Saddam had UAVs capable of hitting the East Coast... shortly after they voted on the Resolution.
I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of mass destruction—specifically chemical and biological—but I was looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United States. Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the United States?
As far as I know, it has never been revealed who that "Someone" was that told the Senators about this threat... was it Cheney? They always say he’s got ’gravitas’.
Bush also claimed (threatened):
"We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned http://wwwand unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."
mp3 audio — or — slideshow format
2. Dick Cheney
If you missed the Downing Street Memo Hearings, this is from CIA veteran Ray McGovern’s opening statement:
On August 26, 2002, less than 5 weeks after the briefing at 10 Downing Street, Vice President Cheney gave a major speech in which he said, "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we’ve gotten this from the first-hand testimony of defectors including Saddam’s own son-in-law."This was a lie.
Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, told us just the opposite when he defected in 1995. Again, he told us just the opposite. You can find it on page 13 of his debriefing report. He said, "All weapons, biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed." How did Kamel know this? He was in charge.
They were destroyed in July 2001. I’m sorry, in July 1991 at his order. Why? To prevent the U.N. inspectors from finding them after the war. And everything else, everything else Hussein Kamel told us checked out to be true.
Cheney’s lie would have been able to stand were it not for the conscience of another patriotic whistle-blower who gave the text of Kamel’s debriefing to Newsweek 4 weeks before the war as the drumbeat for war got louder and louder in early-2003. Newsweek broke the story on February 24, 2003, several weeks before the attack, but the information was suppressed by U.S. media.
3. Bush
10/01/02 "Of course, I haven’t made up my mind we’re going to war with Iraq." - list of such lies
This theme was a huge part of selling the war. At the time, they were claiming that "war was a last resort" often, this vote in Congress was supposed to scare Saddam into disarming, it was not a "vote to remove Saddam from power", as Bush claimed.
11/11/05 "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."
Again, the vote was not to remove Saddam from power- this is a HUGE lie. Wouldn’t it be nice if someone in the media would actually call him on that lie in a tv interview.... I dream of the day that a tv journalist decides to risk their career and really grill Bush, not just move on to the next question.
4. Condoleeza Rice
"The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda...or we could take a bolder approach..."
That’s not how they sold us the war!
It wasn’t like, "let’s spend $300 billion to remake the Middle East" - it was "We don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a Mushroom Cloud." (mp3)
5. Rumsfeld
"So the money’s gonna come from Iraq’s Oil Revenue as everyone has said. They think it’s gonna be something like $2 billion this year, they think it might be something like 15... 12 next year, they think it might be something like 18 to 20 plus... 19? - the next year."
Forum posts
13 November 2005, 20:10
Charley Reese, a staunch conservative, who was selected a couple of years ago as the favorite columnist of C-Span viewers, wrote that a U.S. attack on Iraq: "is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire. Overextension – urged on by a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn’t know one end of a gun from another – has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the costs in both blood and treasure."
Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the highest-ranking Treasury Department officials under President Reagan and now a nationally-syndicated conservative columnist, wrote: "an invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history."
James Webb, a hero in Vietnam and President Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy, wrote: "The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years."
It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge deficit spending.
18 November 2005, 06:17
When bush gave his speech in the prelude to his mass murder spree in Iraq, he spun one of his biggest and most blatant lies to the world when he made his incredible claim that Iraq possessed UAV’s that could be loaded with chemical or biological weapons and could be flown from ships parked just offshore from the east coast of the U.S. to deliver their deadly cargo of death and destruction. It was a very melodramatic and strident speech contending that america was in imminent danger of being destroyed by robotically piloted Iraqi aircraft unless america and the world reacted immediately and removed that threat (which never really existed). We would all be wise to remember that on september 27, 2001, bush made a speech in front of a large group of airport and airline employees at O’Hare international airport outlining his proposals to make airport and airline operations safer from the supposed threat of terror hijackings in the future.
Below is an excerpt from that speech
We will invest in new technology for aircraft security, with grants to develop transponders that cannot be switched off from the cockpit; video monitors
in the cockpit to alert pilots to trouble in the cabin — (applause) — and we will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe — and for example, including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control. (Applause.)
The speech is at the following web address:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010927-1.html
The U.S. possessed this technology for many decades up to that point already and it has perfected it to an amazing degree of sophistication since its inception in the early decades of the 20th century. The american people in large part placed their trust in bush in both instances based on the illogical assumption that he was being truthful to them and believed that Iraq possessed the technology and the resources to mount an attack against america by remotely piloted drones while poor america was still years away from obtaining the same technologies. The implications of this situation are mind boggling: the citizens of the most technologically advanced nation on earth were duped by a pathological liar and megalomaniacal drug/alcohol abusing madman hearing voices from God in his head into believing that a bombed out and ravaged third world nation in the middle east had technology that the U.S. didn’t. Was bush really that profoundly ignorant of the current state of technological advancement in robotic aircraft in the U.S. when he gave that speech in 2001? Or did he intentionally engage in a strategy to deceive the american people in the hope that he would be able to convince them that a lie was the truth? Sudden and violent incidents trigger a fear reaction that inhibits the rational thought process and gives primitive emotions like anxiety/need for security/revenge lust first priority in human beings and people who seek wealth and power know this and exploit it. The second rate sovereign named bush and his regime needed a “new Pearl Harbor style surprise attack” to speed up their timetable for going to war and we are expected to believe arab terrorists were considerate enough to cooperate with them? Who in their right mind would be stupid enough to believe that arab terrorists would be insane/imbecilic enough to do something to piss off the U.S. into blasting its way further and further into their region when their stated political objective was to expel the U.S. from their world? Why would they enrage a superpower into charging into their holy lands with all guns blazing and turning everything into swiss cheese with depleted uranium munitions that would poison their lands for billions of years and bring slow agonizing death to their peoples. Only people with simple minds and simple world views would unquestioningly accept this cartoon-like premise from a two-dimensional tyrant like bush . Iraq had gone through a decade of war with Iran in the 1980’s. Then it was pummeled by a war started by bush’s father as president. After that, there were 12 years of punishing sanctions imposed by the U.S. and Britain on Iraq that devastated it further. The U.S. had not experienced war on its home soil since the civil war and has never been beset by murderous sanctions imposed on it in modern times. The U.S. flew unmanned spacecraft to the moon and mars during the 1960’s-1970’s by remote control(an incredible feat of technological prowess considering the immense distances involved and the relative primitiveness of the technology then compared to its state of the art now). In the time period of the late 1950’s when the cold war was running hot, the U.S. Air Force instituted a program called SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment)the goal of which was to create a formidable defensive perimeter that was totally computer controlled to provide a deterrent against Soviet nuclear bomber attack. The Convair F-106 Delta Dart interceptor jet fighter was selected as the aircraft to be fitted with remote control systems so that it could be flown via ground based control on intercept missions. Even back then, the technology was sufficiently advanced enough that the aircraft could be remotely directed on interception missions to the exact locations of intruding soviet nuclear bombers with the pilot only on board to handle take offs and landings or take over control if a malfunction occurred with the automation systems. The FAA and NASA conducted a joint test program in 1984 called the “Controlled Impact Demonstration” whose purpose was to evaluate a new jet fuel additive designed to resist exploding into flames during a crash. They fitted a Boeing 720 jet aircraft(similar in design to the 707) with remote control flight systems so that it could be flown totally by ground based remote control from takeoff to arrival at a precise coordinate and intentionally crash landed.
The addresses of the NASA/FAA CID experiment are below:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/index.html
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/HTML/EM-0004-01.html
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/HTML/EM-0004-03.
In the latter part of the 1980’s and much of the 1990’s, the U.S. Air Force converted retired F-106’s as well as other types of fighter aircraft into remotely controlled target drones to test the ability of heat seeking missiles to lock on and destroy simulated enemy aircraft. These aircraft were piloted from the ground through the entire flight regime totally by remote control from takeoff to entering the simulated combat airspace to landing back at its base if it managed to avoid being destroyed. This is all proof that remotely piloted aircraft have existed long before bush gave his speech claiming that america would invest in the development of future remote control flight systems for airliners to deter hijackings. To bush’s supporters and many americans in general, the very suggestion that the 9/11 airliners may have been hijacked and slammed into buildings by electronic means seems like something that belongs to the realm of demented fantasy or crackpot science fiction from the 50’s and elicits either an eyes glazed over boredom or a defensively dismissive response bordering on hostility. It seems that americans are more inclined to give credence to the idea of ghosts of dead pilots flying aircraft than the idea that remotely piloted airliners were flown into the twin towers and the pentagon. What is truly amazing is that this is the case even though scale model aircraft enthusiasts have been flying radio remotely controlled model aircraft for many decades in public. The american people were tricked into believing such obviously imbecilic lies and were conned into backing a lying dictator’s agenda for going to war against a nation that was never a threat in any conceivable way and surrendering their freedoms to fascists without even realizing what they were doing. A president(dictator)like bush that claims he would kill others for his own people is also capable of killing his own people to get what he wants if he believes that such a thing is necessary. Americans should not kid themselves into believing that a president being an “american” is any guarantee that he will not murder his own citizens to acquire absolute power. It is because the people of america refused to consider this horrific potentiality four years ago that we now find ourselves trapped in this appalling predicament in Iraq and at the mercy of a demented Hitler channeling psychotic and his fascist regime.