Really, now? These links are going to come up in my own response to you anyway, may as well get them out now.
UNMOVIC found no evidence of WMD's, nor attempt to produce or stockpile them, nor even capacity, during its 2002-3 inspections pursuant to UN Resolution 697.
UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES AS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
05/06/2003Press ReleaseSC/7777 Security Council 4768th Meeting* (AM) UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES AS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL Says New Environment in Iraq, with Full Access and Cooperation, Should Allow Establishment of Truth...
Neither did the IAEA.
The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq | IAEA
Not even the CIA -- you might know them as "the people who were there to fabricate the evidence if necessary" -- were even capable of finding any.
Twenty years ago in Iraq, ignoring the expert weapons inspectors proved to be a fatal mistake
In this SIPRI Essay, former nuclear inspector Robert Kelley describes how the case for invading Iraq in 2003 was built on false claims about weapons of mass destruction.
The "aluminum tube" and "yellowcake" stories were practically instantaneously discredited by actual weapons experts, in real time and publicly, long before March 2003. Hell, the CIA kept the yellowcake story from the IAEA to prevent them from debunking it, until it was leaked by somebody in the State Department.
There's some of the hard evidence. Then, of course, there's also this:
We were to buy the leader of a Ba'athist party who had been referred to by bin Laden as "new Hitler", had clandestine connections to and support for al-Qaeda, a Salafist organization? Bin Laden hated Hussein, and so did al-Qaeda: Ba'athism is a socialist, but more importantly secular, ideology; Salafism is a reactionary, fundamentalist theocratic, ideology. The two could not have been further apart, nor more diametrically opposed, and the idea of any form of alliance between the two is as laughable now as it was in 2002.
For shit's sakes, the entire reason Osama bin Laden masterminded 9/11 in the first place was because Saudi Arabia bribed the US into participating in the Gulf War, and the US never withdrew its forces.
So, how were Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei represented in Western media at the time, again?
Here, have a time capsule:
One last warning from the man who made an enemy of Bush
UN weapons inspector says Iraqi guilt is still not proven.
www.theguardian.com
And if that's not too on the nose,
And as for the Egyptian IAEA Director-General at the time,
Neocons Attack Egyptian Dissident Mohamed ElBaradei, Again
The Egyptian opposition leader debunked hyped intelligence that led the US into war in Iraq. It's no surprise that war cheerleaders are now attacking him again.
www.thenation.com
Once again, I'll make the point since you seem to have ignored that I said "editors, producers, and executives" as well. The press chose to ignore counter-evidence. The press chose to refuse equal coverage for and against the war. The press chose to deplatform and defame critics. The press chose to forsake impartiality and due diligence. All those are quite deliberate, editorial, choices made by the press and those of it.
Groupthink -- the comfortable blanket of delusion which "former" Iraq war hawks throw over their heads to deny culpability -- is neither mitigating nor exonerating. Lies are lies, whether they're lies by omission, lies by suppression, or -- such as the case here -- repeating known falsehoods.
20 Years Later, the Stain of Corporate Media's Role in Promoting Iraq War Remains
"It should not be forgotten that this debacle of death and destruction was not only a profound error of policymaking; it was the result of a carefully executed crusade of disinformation and lies," said one prominent critic.
www.commondreams.org
Oh, it's "both sides are bad" now that I'm calling you out on your ignorance of the political controversy over which you're calling me a "fantasist amateur"?
"Blairites said and did a bunch of despicable shit while Corbyn was party leader, tried to blame Corbyn for it, and got busted by Al Jazeera bringing receipts" is a quite strange definition of "complex shitshow".
And to think, you're the one accusing me of projection.
I'll certainly agree there's one fantasist amateur in this thread.
You mean "things Democrats say they want to do to keep people voting for them, but will do literally anything in their power to avoid doing those things, while actively campaigning against people who will", right? But it's not like Democrats weren't throwing the sum weight of their party and accumulated donors behind pro-life candidates against pro-choice primary candidates, right smack dab in the middle of uproar over Roe being overturned last year, or anything.
That is, when they aren't lining up around the block to vote for the Hyde Amendment, even with majorities and supermajorities, whilst whining about it in the news.
Last edited:
