Hey!
Let’s not forget John Stewart!
The point is that is was pure propaganda that was presented as fact by the mainstream media. I’m sure that at the time you sat in your chair cheering them on and thinking it was real. No doubt that for you it also justified the invasion. Now that it’s been proven as faked it’s a little harder for you to stand up and wave your flag, so you back away – that’s ok… it’s a start at least.
If you haven’t heard any of this before, you don’t need me – you need to expand your information resources.
“Staged” does not equal “faked”.
For example, none of those Iraqis present were forced to be there.
And I understand that some enterprising Iraqi man melted down a good bit of one statue and another statue that honors the US Army.
Finally we can agree on something – I think he’s brilliant too!
Maybe there’s no hope for you.
Excerpt from John Stewart’s interview with Nancy Soderberg, former aide to Bill Clinton, about her book, ‘The Superpower Myth’:
Stewart: This book–it talks about the superpower myth of the United States. There is this idea, the United States is the sole superpower, and I guess the premise of the book is we cannot misuse that power–have to use it wisely, and not just punitively. Is that–
Soderberg: That’s right. What I argue is that the Bush administration fell hostage to the superpower myth, believing that because we’re the most powerful nation on earth, we were all-powerful, could bend the world to our will and not have to worry about the rest of the world. I think what they’re finding in the second term is, it’s a little bit harder than that, and reality has an annoying way of intruding.
Stewart: But what do you make of–here’s my dilemma, if you will. I don’t care for the way these guys conduct themselves–and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, “Oh my God, this is working,” and I begin to wonder, is it–is the way that they handled it really–it’s sort of like, “Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I’m getting.” You know what I mean? Like, you don’t like the method, but maybe–wrong analogy, is that, uh–?
Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don’t want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don’t want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can’t credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what’s happening in Lebanon is great, but it’s not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily.
Stewart: Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen–not only the invasion but the election which followed? It’s almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy–something’s going on over there. I’m smelling something.
Soderberg: I think partly what’s going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they’re–people are sort of sick of that, and saying, “Wait a minute, that’s a stretch too far.” So part of what’s going on is they’re just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them.
Stewart: Do you think they’re the guys to–do they understand what they’ve unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, “Here’s my plan: I’m going to invade Iraq. We’ll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp”–if they hadn’t done the whole “nuclear cloud,” you know, if they hadn’t scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I’d almost–I’d have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings.
Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process–they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole–
Stewart: This could be unbelievable!
…
Yeah, that John Stewart, he’s something alright. I give him credit for seeing the forest for the trees. Maybe he should be Dan Rather’s replacement. 
So the Iraqis were forced to be there?
The Iraqis that were there on those days were acting? They were “faking” it, as you claim?
And the bronze statues melted down and re-made into a statue for the US Army - that was ‘faked’ too - it doesn’t exist?
Spare me the parsing of words. You seem to be just another “Bring Back Saddam” type.
Pay attention now – I don’t want to have to start repeating things. If you look at what I posted on the subject you’ll see that the Iraqis were militia soldiers that were flown in for the event. Americans were led to believe the event was spontaneous.
Listen, IRtradRU? (or whatever your name is) if you’re going to ignore what’s already been covered and keep rebutting what’s already been proven there will be no point in continuing the discussion with you.
Hardly… I think it was a tragic mistake for the US to facilitate him coming to power in the first place and then prop him up and arm him like we did. The last thing I want for Iraq is a dictator let alone a US puppet dictator.
Gee, that’s odd - I recall that there were some pretty young children in that crowd… I guess they were militia, flown in too, right?
No need to repeat things, if you look at what I posted you’ll see that you’re avoiding the “were they forced to be there?” question.
And you’ve avoided the topic of what became of those statues as well.
gilder, frankly I don’t give a rat’s ass if the whole thing was staged or not. In so many ways, the event was televised (even on al jazeera) so as to get the message out in the most efficient manner possible: SADDAM IS HISTORY.
I guess those were “fake” smiles and cheers, too?
jaysus, what a cynic you are. Cheer up, gilder - there’s always North Korea (in the words of Nancy Soderberg).
Heh heh heh… ever what you say.
In the article I posted on the previous page it said, “The Marines brought in cheering Iraqi children in order to make the scene appear authentic, the study said.”
That’s the last bit I’m repeating, you’re on your own now.
Again, the point is that it wasn’t spontaneous, as the media led us to believe.
What became of those statues is irrelevant.
The point of bringing it up was about how the US mainstream media is a mouthpiece for US government propaganda. Al Jazeera has aknowledged that the event was staged by the US military, US mainstream media remains silent.
Like I said, I don’t give a flip whether it was staged.
I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re an incurable cynic, and frankly, I’ve no more interest in wasting my God-given time on your problems.
I choose to see the positive in things, tough as that may be, in the face of constant criticism from those that think the way you do. You offer nothing but criticism, and offer no alternatives for improvement. What a waste.
In short - you are interminably boring.
In other words – I have too many facts that you can’t refute. That’s ok – you gave it your best… bye.
:roll:
Only in your small mind.
(noting that you again avoid the fate of the statues, the free election within 2 years of the removal of Saddam, the overwhelming turnout on their election day, etc. etc. etc.) while blindly using the commentary of someone (Scott Ritter) whose character is beyond repair, due to 2 arrests for attempted pedophilia, and accepting bribes from Iraqis. Shameful, really.
You may as well keep focusing on the negative. I’ve come to conclude that with nothing good to offer, it’s all you’ve got.
I think the facts speak for themselves. Intelligence gathering, never an exact science, led the US government to believe that Iraq had biological, chemical and possibly the beginnings of nuclear weapons, and given the fact that they were actively](http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm%22%3Eactively) training terrorists, supporting](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm%22%3Esupporting) Palestinian murderers by paying for suicide bombing, and had a history of attacking](http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html%22%3Eattacking) innocent people with chemical weapons, they figured it was neccessary to stop Saddam from going any farther. The fact that the intelligence was mistaken in a disturbing amount of details is an unfortunate by product of the nature of the game, but it does not amount to intentional deceit, except in the minds of those who have made their decision before seeing the facts. Like you, evidently.
That is categorically not a personal attack. I am pointing out the fact that, in a serious discussion, if you start to join the “Tin Foil Hat Club,” you lose credibility. It is tough to take the “facts” someone is purporting to elucidate as such if they insist, say, that the CIA killed Kennedy. If you want to have those kinds of discussions, go right ahead, but I’ll not be joining you.
The US was well aware of Saddam’s weapons program. Besides helping him build it up, they also had the benefit of the testimony provided by Kammal, Saddam’s son in law and head of his weapons program, who had defected to Lebanon. In his testimony he told the US where the programs were based and what they consisted of. This was a valuable resource that facilitated the weapons inspectors. This evidence was also presented in Colin Powell’s arguments for war to the UN Security Council. What was conveniently left out was that Kammal testified in the same document that Saddam had ordered the weapons destroyed to take away a pretext for war by the US.
The US has a history of exploiting situations to create a pretext for war. In 1991 when Iraq indicated to the US ambassador that they intended to invade Kuwait over an age-old oil field dispute. The US ambassador contacted James Baker, acting Secretary of State, and informed him. Baker sent back a telex that said, “We don’t have a problem with that.” But when Iraq carried out its intentions – they went to war with them. I guess they had a problem after all. Baker denied having sent the telex, but in 2003 the actual telex surfaced proving he had lied. (another lie that resulted in war… sounds like a pattern doesn’t it?)
When Iraq gassed the Kurds they used helicopters supplied by the US government and US spy satellite intelligence as well. When the UN condemned Iraq for these heinous atrocities the US was quick to veto it. Shortly after the gassing there’s a photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam where he was overheard by a reporter saying, “It’s great to have friends like you on our side.” US complicity with Iraq’s crimes against humanity doesn’t give the US any license to suddenly pretend like they’re the good guys and they’re going to right the wrongs.
The US has a long history of training and supporting terrorists and terrorist organizations in the Middle East, not to mention everywhere else around the globe, so they don’t have any ground to stand on there either. The US has complicity with the Israeli government’s use of terror and murder against the Palestinian people. Sounds like the US should invade itself and turn the country into a democracy.
My decisions are based on 30 years of study… sorry. I’ve just demonstrated that the US was deceitful about the WMDs based on tangible evidence that was intentionally withheld. They knew that the only way they could possibly convince Americans to go to war was to show that Iraq presented a threat to Americans directly. Condi’s proof in a mushroom cloud is a perfect example of that.
The BBC is as guilty as the US mainstream media on the lies leading up to war. Of course you’d expect it since Blair was riding shotgun with Bush. As bad as the BBC is, it’s still miles ahead of US media with programs like Newsnight and reporters like Greg Palast. But I’m not only relying on the BBC or US media to get my information. Instead I read papers from all over the world, and I pay special attention to independent news sources that are free of government and corporate funding and censoring.
Hey, I’m just a guy with a computer and I knew there would be no weapons found in Iraq long before they went to war. If I knew that – the US government would have to have too. They knew, but they knew they had to use deceit to get Americans to believe there was a threat before they would go along with their war plans.
Their war plans were outlined in a secret document known as “The Project for the New American Century” written in 1991 and commissioned by the current members of the Bush Administration. The document was discovered and exposed in 2002 by the Irish Sunday Herald, but to this day Americans have no idea it exists. Project Censored voted it #1 top censored news story of 2003. If you read it you’ll find out just what they intend to do, and have carried out so far. They even mention in there that the only way Americans will go along with their plans is if a “Pearl Harbor type event” were to take place. Hmmm…
Who elected you as the one to decide what is or isn’t credible? Should we email you first before we post anything from now on?
