Today on Blogcritics
Home » Wag The War: How to Fabricate a Real War with Real Bogus Proof

Wag The War: How to Fabricate a Real War with Real Bogus Proof

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

What’s smaller than a mushroom cloud but bigger than a smoking gun? George Tenet’s post-war placation of the press in the form of a book: At The Center Of the Storm: My Years At The CIA. This article is based on his May 6th interview on “Meet The Press” with Tim Russert. It is about what George said about his book and his role in planning the Iraq war.

But first the latest on the war: The Senate just passed Bush’s Iraq funding bill just as they passed his “surge” of troops bill. That’s not news.

But what is news is:

That both Senators Clinton and Obama voted “no” on the bill.

That the war death count for our troops is 3,441 and counting. That more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed.

That “dire warnings”, as predictions, about ensuing chaos and retaliation by insurgents were ignored by the Bush administration.

I hate thinking about war, or watching the gory photographic reports about what is going on over there. We all know that we are just getting a small part of the carnage on our big screen TV. I still cringe hearing the words “Vietnam” because of the atrocities and the death toll to men of color.

But this Iraq war and the man behind it I just cannot ignore. This happened in the age of the web log or blog and many raised hell, including myself, when we saw it coming. But to no avail. Everyone now seems to think the problem with Iraq is that “we are losing the war.” I don’t oppose it because we might loose it—but because in my opinion we are losing ourselves as a nation through this war.

The “decider” was in office and told everyone to shut up because he was the decision maker. So what was the role of the CIA? What did the two Georges do in the war? I wanted to know. However, we may never know what really happened.

Tim starts out the discussion on May 6th with the “slam dunk” thing. George says that this has been taken out of context, but then he reneges on that view later on.

Tenet: “Did we believe there were weapons of mass destruction?” “Yes.” Bob Woodward quoted the “Don’t worry it’s a slam dunk!” he said. He also said that it was Bob who put the emphasis, the exclamation mark with the raised arms and the happy hands to it. It was Bob, no doubt who made the slam dunk sound like a Michael Jordan charge. That style was not George’s he complained to Tim. No, he did not raise his arms, did not shout, did not use an exclamation point to make his point of “it’s a slam dunk.” Did he say it? Yes he did.

It was only when George Bush, at a joint meeting, pressed for deeper assurances (I don’t blame him. If someone said “slam dunk” to me I would ask “have you got anything else?”) on WMD intelligence. But George continued to chime at George Bush: we thought, we believed that WMD are in the possession of Sadaam Hussien. He could not say 100%. Instead he knew that the weapons’ development were 5-7 years away. He knew and he kept silent. So why back then did he not say “we know nothing”? And why is he saying that very thing now? We must all be deeply suspicious of his tale in a 568 page book.

George Tenet continued to ply Tim with more lies: the notion that we falsified the evidence, and went ahead with this war, and foresaw the post-war mismanagement is not true. He said that despite appearances there was no lie, no cover up and most of all, no exclamation point behind his words: slam dunk. How does that statement help the dead and war wounded on both sides?

Tenet told Tim: “We were not marketing the war.” But why does it seem that they were? He continued to defend his misgivings about the war and why he allowed Colin Powell to tell those lies to the American public. He sat behind him during his delivery. He regrets that move now. And tells Tim that he allowed his own misgivings to remain in play because “it’s due to the gravity of war.” He said “we can’t rewrite history.”

That said, why did he write a book? He said that it was his duty to write it. By his own admission he did not oppose the war with his counsel to the President. He did not speak up at all. He scores a zero therefore on his biggest test as director of the CIA. A zero. He admitted that his silence was equal to consent to the war.

On the “deep disagreement” between himself and others (before the war, but after 9/11) on the terrorism connection between Iraq and al-Qa’ida: he saw NO complicity, NO connection between Iraq and al-Qa’ida! Now, there’s the slam dunk if you will—there’s the Tenet smoking gun. Because he admitted, and this was in the press, that Iraq was at least 5 years away from having WMD. That they were not an imminent threat. They in fact were NOT thinking about attacking the U.S. And most of all they were not cozy with the terrorists of Bin Laden. What has been whispered is now shouted from the rooftops: we made the first strike against Iraq without U.N. sanction or approval.

How much more proof does this country need in order to know that this was a real war fabricated with bogus chain letters from someone in Italy about something that never happened in Africa? They were sent, for good measure, to various governments around the West. So that they could say that this was somehow real. My final question: exactly whose interest did George Tenet and the CIA serve when wholesale they sold this nation down the dreaded river?

Powered by

About Heloise

  • http://www.thechurchofanswers.com Heloise

    “5-7 years ago” should read “5-7 years away” can an editor please fix?

    thanks

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    How much more proof does this country need in order to know that this was a real war fabricated with bogus chain letters from someone in Italy about something that never happened in Africa?

    Heloise. Are you not aware that Iraq did in fact buy yellowcake from Niger on two prior occasions and approached Niger about buying more in 2001? The only thing fabricated in the Italian letter was the specific dates and details. While that particular attempted purchase did not happen, other purchases and negotiations did take place, and Iraq likely didn’t need much more uranium because they had such an enormous amount already.

    Iraq had in its possession 1.8 metric tons of yellowcake at the time of the invasion, plus 50kg of highly enriched reactor grade uranium and an unknown small amount of weapons grade uranium.

    Dave

  • http://www.thechurchofanswers.com Heloise

    Dave that does not change the case of fabrication. If a letter is altered or misued or misguided to support facts that are unsupportable then it was bogus.

    At one point Tenet did say that if some extraordinary thing happened, then yes they could immediately build a nuclear bomb. But that DID not happen. I was aware that they had uranium or yellowcake. Because at some point they said it was to make nuclear reactors for generating power. Is that true? That’s my understanding for the reasons they gave.

    The intel was always that it was 5-7 years away, in the normal course of events that Iraq would have the bomb. Besides, Iraq had been our friend in the past. Why would they kill the goose that laid their golden egg? We, the US had far more to gain with SH out of the way and Iraq in our possession.

    If they did have yellowcake was it found on inspection? And if it was found on inspection why did the Intel still give the red light in terms of Iraq not being a threat?

    Thanks

    Heloise

  • http://www.thechurchofanswers.com Heloise

    Here’s Judith Miller’s review of the book and of Tenet. I forgot to read it before I wrote this. But that being so, we do agree on many things. That GT did not illuminate the case. But he did line his pockets with millions in advance money.

    Heloise

  • methuselah

    George Tenet, Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, all the republican party, 3/4 of the democratic party, all the FoxNews guys, most of the WaPo and NYT people, ALL were whores to what they ASSUMED would be an easy victory against Iraq, and all must hereforward be regarded as having poor judgement and Not To Be Trusted.

    Add some of the whores from BC to that list. You know who they are.

  • Marcia L. Neil

    These wars might be easy to fabricate using a telephone/occult call-demand strategy–budding music students are asked to reply to the question “Do you want to/will you perform for the USO?”. Any slackers become subject to demands and explanations elicted. Considering the fact that an informal/quasi-legal poll might attract untold numbers of aspiring musicians, some way to funnel them into USO territory has been devised–i.e., proposed study of the music culture of different nations (also demanded). Then, when nations perceive that their participation cannot be refused, skirmishs now common among U. S. soldiers who are trained to march-a-lot during military drills and cause scuffles among their own citizens more accustomed to strolling or other forms of casual walking. When war results, the musicians get their wish–to audition to entertain the USO.

  • Sylvia Muffaleto

    “can an editor please fix?”

    so rather than email the editors, you think commenting on your own post is the best way to contact them? what an amateur!

  • MBD

    Nalle says…

    “Iraq had in its possession 1.8 metric tons of yellowcake at the time of the invasion, plus 50kg of highly enriched reactor grade uranium and an unknown small amount of weapons grade uranium.”

    Wrong.

    What Iraq had in its possession was 1.8 metric tons of coffeecake at the time of the invasion, plus 50kg of highly enriched Wheaties and an unknown small amount of high calorie Gatorade.

  • MBD

    Oh, I forgot to mention that the coffeecake was so stale it was worthless and had to be thrown away.

  • http://www.thechurchofanswers.com Heloise

    Sylvia I did both okay to ensure it gets fixed. What did you do besides take a cheap shot?

    Heloise

  • methuselah

    Where did this info come from? The Bush administration? The Tenet CIA?

    “Iraq had in its possession 1.8 metric tons of yellowcake at the time of the invasion, plus 50kg of highly enriched reactor grade uranium and an unknown small amount of weapons grade uranium.”

    Why would anyone believe it?

  • Dr Dreadful

    MBD –

    Damn, that’s the last time I go to Iraq for my coffee. I’m sticking to Starbucks from now on!

  • sr

    It’s a slow night on BC.

  • sr

    Just read on the AP that San Fran was just nuked at eleven EST. Is this true? Let me know.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Well, as I live only about 100 miles away I probably would have heard the bang; to say nothing of the facts that (a) the internet, phone and power lines are still working and (b) given the prevailing winds, the fallout would have reached here by now; so all things considered, I think that you are very probably talking out of your…

    Excuse me for a moment. I appear to have grown a couple of extra fingers.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Where did this info come from? The Bush administration? The Tenet CIA?

    No, it came fromt he IAEA – you know, the UN group which sent in the inspectors. You can get the full report on their website. I’ve also seen photos of the thousands of barrels of yellowcake recovered after the invasion.

    Why would anyone believe it?

    Because they’re not morons?

    Dave

  • MBD

    The story begins in 1991 at the end of the first Gulf War when inspectors found a 500 ton cache of refined yellow cake uranium at Iraq’s primary nuclear research facility in Al—Tuwaitha outside of Bagdhad. The cache was part of a huge inventory of nuclear materials discovered by UN inspectors that included low—level radioactive material of the type used for industrial and medical purposes as well as a quantity of highly enriched uranium suitable for bomb production.

    This HE uranium was shipped to Russia where it was made relatively harmless by a process known as ‘isotopic dilution’

    So, who’s a moron?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    MBD, I don’t know where you get your info, but it’s neither accurate nor complete. You can find full detail on the amounts of yellowcake and more highly processed uranium in Iraq in the IAEA report, and the fact that the higher grade uranium was removed by the US after the war is addressed in this BBC article.

    Dave

  • daryl d

    Heloise:

    I’m at Ohare Airport now listening to how the Dept. of Homeland Security has raised the warning level to “orange” and am laughing my head off. They should just be honest: George W. Bush’s approval rating has hit an all-time low and we have to promote fake fear. I voted mostly Republican in 2000 & 2002 and will NEVER vote for a Republican again (besides Arnold) unless they admit the war was a mistake. Also: why do we call the fighters in Iraq insurgents? They are protecting their own land! If a country invaded the United States and we fought back, would we be refered to as insurgents?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Propaganda, Daryl. What you call them depends on which side you’re on. The ‘insurgents’ in occupied France during World War II were regarded as terrorists by the Nazis. To the Allies, they were the Resistance.

    On a point of order, though, many of the fighters in Iraq are actually foreigners. As such, they’re not ‘protecting their own land’ in the patriotic sense, although perhaps they are if you view them as resisting Allied incursion on the sovereign territory of Islam.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Dr. D writes,

    “On a point of order, though, many of the fighters in Iraq are actually foreigners. As such, they’re not ‘protecting their own land’ in the patriotic sense, although perhaps they are if you view them as resisting Allied incursion on the sovereign territory of Islam.”

    And neither are they insurgents then, if they’re foreigners.

    Can Islam be said to have “territory?”

  • Dr Dreadful

    Again, depends on your viewpoint, Clav. Many religions regard certain areas of the globe as ‘homelands’, ‘heartlands’ or ‘God’s own country’ – as I’m sure Ruvy would tell you.

    To the Iraqi insurgency, we’re certainly trespassers – although whether we’re trespassing on land or on souls is a debatable point.

  • Lumpy

    As usual, when the iraqi insurgency comes up there are lots of misconceptions. Yes an awful lot of the insurgents are not iraqis. even more significantly they aren’t primarily targting americans. They are targeting other arabs. Americans just get killed when they get in the way. What we have there isn’t even an iraqi civil war. It’s more like a war between sunnis and shiites from all over the region or between saudi arabia and iran. It’s just convenient as hell for them to fight in iraq.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    “Many religions regard certain areas of the globe as ‘homelands’, ‘heartlands’ or ‘God’s own country'”

    If the legitimate government of the “homeland” in question is in agreement with the religion claiming the “territory,” as in Israel, no one outside of that territory should even have a voice in the issue.

    Obviously, some Islamic countries, where the mullahs are running the government, as in Iran, are similar; but offhand, I can’t think of any other examples where the religion is in charge and can legitimately claim territory, except for the Vatican.

  • http://www.thechurchofanswers.com Heloise

    “War Made Easy” book and now a documentary. Check out Democracy Now! I just watched it and it was spellbinding. From Johnson, did not include JFK, to Bush II, how they have with the media “been spinning us to death” is the subtitle.

    The patterns are clear: first get into the war, by any means necessary, then stay in the war by spinning, lying and reciting party lines such as: peace, more peace and we want peace. Imagine using PEACE as their war cry. That’s too much.

    Saying they are trying to keep peace at the same time killing civilians. THat toll has gone up to 90% in this latest Bush war…90% nearly 600,000 people, regular people killed by Bush.

    Heloise

  • MBD

    Nalle says… “I don’t know where you get your info, but it’s neither accurate nor complete”

    And your info is based on what the DOE claims after they classified the info so it could not be verified.

    An independent third party with more credibility, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, said the Energy Department’s information is vague.

    Vague… a polite way to say it’s not believable.

    So much for your reliance on the BBC article. All that was reported was what our “truthful” government wanted to reveal.

    And your IAEA reference also refutes your neocon propaganda. The materials were acquired by Iraq between 1979 and 1984, and discovered by the IAEA after the 1991 war, not in 2003.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    MBD, I never once referenced the DOE, so how do you conclude I’m basing anything on it. The figures for material stored in Iraq come from the IAEA, and the fact that the materials were still there after the 2003 invasion comes from reports in the BBC. The materials may have been discovered by the IAEA in 1991, but they remained in Iraq until 2003 and were never removed. All that was done was to put a lock on the door of the warehouse which anyone could have cut at any time.

    Dave

  • MBD

    Nalle, why don’t you read the articles you reference.

    You now say… you never once referenced the DOE.

    You had written, “the fact that the higher grade uranium was removed by the US after the war is addressed in this BBC article.”

    And this BBC article states…

    “The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.”

    Is it too much for your neocon brain to figure out that the DOE is the Energy Department?

    You also say … “the materials may have been discovered by the IAEA in 1991, but they remained in Iraq until 2003 and were never removed… All that was done was to put a lock on the door of the warehouse which anyone could have cut at any time.”

    Radioactive materials such as Uranium decay with time and temperature. Temperature variations such as those in the Iraq desert where the day and night temperatures can vary from 120 degrees to below 30 degrees Fahrenheit plus any exposure to air quickly reduces the strength of the radioactive material and it becomes worthless, Considering that the materials in question were in the desert for about 20 years, whatever was left there in 2003 was junk.

    Why does your fevered little neocon brain never stop trying to spread your distorted neocon propaganda bullshit?