The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Agree. But not finding significant WMD to date does not mean they don't
exist, though many insist that it does.

Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq. the Bush regime claimed to have
specific evidence of WMDs and nuclear programme. So much so that it was an
immediate threath, with Hussein capable of launching such weapons within 45 minutes.

Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq, the USA was systematically discrediting
Hans Blix and the UN inspectors stating that they were incompetent and
couldn't find anything. Yet Blix has stated that every piece of evidence that
was handed to him by the USA turned out to be a total waste of time because
there were no signs of any illicit activity.

So it would seem that the USA didn't have any real evidence and just
fabricated stuff to make it appear to be a real threath. This was well known
outside the USA. Media outside the USA were quick to provide complelling
reasons why the Februiary 5th 2003 evidence prsented by Powel at the UN was
not credible. Yet in the USA, the media took Powel's speech as a bible and
never questioned the validity of the presented evidence.

When a few weeks later, ElBaradei, in front of the security council, announced
that they had obtained proof that the so called evidence on nuclear weapons
had been ***fabricated*** , neither the USA media nor the democrats pounced on
the Bush regime. That alone should have started impeachement process with a
Ken Star to investigate the activities of the Bush regime.

Finding out who fabricated the evidence should be been the top stories in the
USA media until it was resolved.

And now that it is evident that there are no WMDs left in Iraq and that 9
months of inspectiosn by thousands of americans have yielded nothing, don't
you think that the regime which made all those claims to justify its
unprovoked invasion of Iraq should be held accountable for its lies ?

This isn't some financial fraud that caused shareholders to lose money. This
is the destruction of a country's infrastructure and the loss of about 10,000
lives, 3 times more than were lost on Sept 11.

You say Bin Laden is a terrible butcher. Well, Bush killed 3 times as many for
no reason. He should be labeled a terrorrist too. His motives were just as
false as Bin Laden's motives were.

And consider this: Americans despise Bin Laden for what he has done to the
USA. Arabs despise the USA just as much as Americans despise Bin laden. And
guess what that means: more arabs will be motivated to join terrorist
organisation to fight back.

What is needed in the world now is some military balance. Either the USA's
military must be crippled, or other countries must mount a military that can
stop the americans from abusing their military power.

Why do you think Rumsfeld was ****ting in his pants when he heard thaty the EU
wants to build its own military that is separate from NATO and thus not
controlled by the USA ?