DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 367, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/12/2005 12:10:21 PM · #1
//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

//www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN. Continue reading...
01/12/2005 12:12:43 PM · #2
Probably a good time to do that considering the other recent event(s) in the world. A natural smoke screen if you will.
01/12/2005 12:14:21 PM · #3
This was from some time ago. Don't know why it was never reported.

//www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm

Check out the second picture.
01/12/2005 12:18:26 PM · #4
Have they done independent tests to confirm they were Sarin gas?
Do you know for a fact that they came from the Hussein regime?
Very doubtful that the Iraqi Survey Team would have ignored these supposed viles of sarin since they come from the Bush administration...the Iraqi survey team, that is.

Originally posted by bbower1956:

This was from some time ago. Don't know why it was never reported.

//www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm

Check out the second picture.


Message edited by author 2005-01-12 12:19:27.
01/12/2005 12:22:52 PM · #5
W's Mass Deception
01/12/2005 12:23:02 PM · #6
Originally posted by orussell:

Probably a good time to do that considering the other recent event(s) in the world. A natural smoke screen if you will.


Interesting observation.
01/12/2005 01:38:41 PM · #7
I'm wondering if the Bush administration also payed out bribes to various news media outlets to get them to run favorable news stories for going to war with Iraq, just like they did by paying sydicated broadcaster, Armstrong Williams, to promote the No child Left Behind program. The US government paid him over a quarter of a million dollars, and big money to other broadcasters as well, so they would get out the propoganda to get the public's support for what they want to do. The government also produced prepackaged video news releases and required these broadcasters to air them as real news, which they were not. Isn't this against FCC rules?
You can read about it Here.
01/12/2005 03:14:13 PM · #8
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I'm wondering if the Bush administration also payed out bribes to various news media outlets to get them to run favorable news stories for going to war with Iraq, just like they did by paying sydicated broadcaster, Armstrong Williams, to promote the No child Left Behind program. The US government paid him over a quarter of a million dollars, and big money to other broadcasters as well, so they would get out the propoganda to get the public's support for what they want to do. The government also produced prepackaged video news releases and required these broadcasters to air them as real news, which they were not. Isn't this against FCC rules?
You can read about it Here.

Interesting.
1) What is "big money"?
2) What "other broadcasters" were paid this "big money"? Name them or withdraw the accusation.
3) What broadcasters were "required" to air them as real news? Name them or withdraw the accusation.

If the accusations ARE true, then yes, it probably IS against FCC rules. But I don't think that your accusations ARE true. But you have an opportunity to prove me wrong.
01/12/2005 03:21:57 PM · #9
Mad - are you involved in your local government at all? Or politics of any kind?
01/12/2005 07:55:08 PM · #10
Originally posted by hopper:

Mad - are you involved in your local government at all? Or politics of any kind?


Yes, as should everyone in times like these.
01/13/2005 02:01:15 AM · #11
No, Ron, you are correct, I can not name the additional broadcasters besides Armstrong Williams that took money from the government to promote their agenda. I was going by an informal interview I read in The Nation Magazine in which Williams stated to David Corn, "This happens all the time,"... "There are others." Williams has refused to identify who those others are, but hopefully, there will be a formal investigation and we will find out. Article here.

In the meantime, the government paid one million dollars to the public relations firm, Ketchum, to also produce fake, prepackaged news stories (VNRs) that aired as news, and not as paid propaganda. The government used the same strategy to promote their Medicare prescription drug plan. The GAO called it illegal use of tax payer money. The government did it again with the Office of National Drug Policy in which they produced a fake, prepackaged story meant to look like real news, about the dangers of marijuana use.

Steve Rendall, of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states: "the government, is running a domestic propaganda operation secretly targeting the American people." He goes on to say: "...it's illegal because the government is using taxpayers' money without the con – without congressional permission to – to run these operations. Two, from what I understand, it is illegal for the U.S. government to run propaganda campaigns that are not identified as – or to run campaigns selling policy that are not identified as coming from the government."

In the wake of these unethical government-media practices, as well as, how wrong they were about Iraq on all counts, and how almost all of the American media backed their claims regarding Iraq and sold us the war, I can't help but feel that there's a lot more to this story as to how the American people have been duped.



Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I'm wondering if the Bush administration also payed out bribes to various news media outlets to get them to run favorable news stories for going to war with Iraq, just like they did by paying sydicated broadcaster, Armstrong Williams, to promote the No child Left Behind program. The US government paid him over a quarter of a million dollars, and big money to other broadcasters as well, so they would get out the propoganda to get the public's support for what they want to do. The government also produced prepackaged video news releases and required these broadcasters to air them as real news, which they were not. Isn't this against FCC rules?
You can read about it Here.

Interesting.
1) What is "big money"?
2) What "other broadcasters" were paid this "big money"? Name them or withdraw the accusation.
3) What broadcasters were "required" to air them as real news? Name them or withdraw the accusation.

If the accusations ARE true, then yes, it probably IS against FCC rules. But I don't think that your accusations ARE true. But you have an opportunity to prove me wrong.


01/13/2005 04:30:42 AM · #12
I am not a supporter of this Republican administration (far from it) but in fairness I want to point out that the folks OPPOSED to their programs pay out big bucks to PR firms to sway public opinion against these programs. So the issue is, does the government have the right to use the same tools of persuasion as the opposition does?

I'm not taking a stand, just asking the question.

Robt.

01/16/2005 03:35:58 PM · #13
Perhaps the Bush Administration would have more luck finding 10 scores in DPC challenges than it has finding WMDs in Iraq. :)
01/16/2005 08:03:44 PM · #14
I'm not sure which "opposing" groups you are refering to that pay out "big bucks" to PR firms but whatever they pay out is a drop in the bucket compared to what big business pays out, not only to PR firms, which is quite a lot, but also monies that they pay out to politicians through PACs and special interest groups, as well as, campaign contributions. There are even companies that require their employees to shell out towards the campaigns of those candidates they want elected.

If the government wants to use taxpayer money for public relations messages, then it's required by law, as I understand it, to give notification that it was a paid for production of the government. This was not done in either the Armstrong Williams case or the VNRs that were produced by Ketchum PR firm for the government regarding different issues. These, and other incidents have been cited on more than one occassion by the GAO as being illegal and unethical.

Originally posted by bear_music:

I am not a supporter of this Republican administration (far from it) but in fairness I want to point out that the folks OPPOSED to their programs pay out big bucks to PR firms to sway public opinion against these programs. So the issue is, does the government have the right to use the same tools of persuasion as the opposition does?

I'm not taking a stand, just asking the question.

Robt.
01/16/2005 08:13:22 PM · #15
Senator John Kerry and loser of the presidential election also thought there were WMD's.

Oh well, a war based on nothing but crappy intelligence.

Sorta sad really.

BTW, I voted for Bush and support him....but thats messed up.
01/16/2005 09:17:01 PM · #16
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

<<< There are even companies that require their employees to shell out towards the campaigns of those candidates they want elected. >>>



How about some links documenting this.
01/16/2005 09:17:21 PM · #17
Originally posted by Riggs:

Senator John Kerry and loser of the presidential election also thought there were WMD's.

Oh well, a war based on nothing but crappy intelligence.

Sorta sad really.

BTW, I voted for Bush and support him....but thats messed up.


Watch the PBS Frontline movie Truth, War and Consequences for a little more insight into that "bad intelligence".

Classic though, the "oh well, now civilians and US troops are dying for nothing and we can’t say we are protecting our Freedom in Iraq anymore since there was no WMD danger, and we have successfully further destabilized the Middle East and created an even greater hate towards ourselves because of it."

Oh well.

Message edited by author 2005-01-16 21:17:49.
01/16/2005 11:22:15 PM · #18
]Read this article

Originally posted by frychikn:

[quote=Olyuzi] <<< There are even companies that require their employees to shell out towards the campaigns of those candidates they want elected. >>>



How about some links documenting this. [/quote
01/17/2005 04:58:52 PM · #19
Copied this from one of the Joke-of-the-Day mailings I get:

Received from: B.B. { Readers' Rating: 50.00% } { Total votes: 72 }

CONSTITUTION

They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.
01/17/2005 05:42:06 PM · #20
And whose fault is that? I blame the liberal courts, judges and congress.
01/17/2005 05:52:19 PM · #21
Originally posted by GeneralE:


CONSTITUTION

They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.


Funny because its true; sad because its true.
01/17/2005 06:53:08 PM · #22
Originally posted by David Ey:

And whose fault is that? I blame the liberal courts, judges and congress.

Most of the judges and all of the Congress are "conservatives" who want to undermine 200-plus years of dedication to the rights of the citizen in favor of establishing an economic oligarchy dedicated to protecting the rights of corporations.

Nowhere in the language of the Constitution are corporations afforded any rights whatsoever -- those currently "practiced" were inserted into the language of a District Court opinion by a law clerk (probably in the "employ" of the railroads) after the judges had written it. It was never approved by any judges at all, yet our current political process is held hostage to the entirely false premise that a corporation has the same or greater rights under the Constitution than a citizen -- a situation I am pretty sure the Founding Fathers would find abhorrent if they could even conceive of it.

Message edited by author 2005-01-17 18:54:41.
01/17/2005 07:12:48 PM · #23
Originally posted by GeneralE:

our current political process is held hostage to the entirely false premise that a corporation has the same or greater rights under the Constitution than a citizen


This is one of the ultimate truths that, if we wish to advance in the world sustainably, absolutely must to be dealt with and corrected. Justice and equality can never be reached as long as corporations and corporate interests drive government policy.
01/24/2005 09:41:25 PM · #24
The official reasons the US government invaded Iraq according to
Whitehouse.gov
and I don't see anything in it about human rights violations or democracy. Why on earth is this still up on an official government web site???

From the web site:

Disarm Saddam Hussein

The gravest danger we face in the war on terror is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm all weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement.

Three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam his final chance to disarm. He has shown his utter contempt for the U.N.

The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:
-26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people
-38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
-500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents

Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents
From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on methods of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government. He has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons, according to our intelligence sources. Yet he has not credibly explained these activities.

Thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors.

Iraqi officials accompany all inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the U.N.

Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with the UN be killed, along with their families.

Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including al-Qaida members. He could provide hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

The United States will ask the UN Security Council to convene next week to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. We will consult. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we will act for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world.
01/24/2005 10:46:29 PM · #25
I posted this about 3 months ago and considering the thread I believe it to be relivent if anyone cares to detail that "bad intelligence" problem the Whitehouse keeps blaming the chaotic Iraq situation on.
How the White House Embraced Disputed Iraqi Arms Intelligence Picture to go along with here: Aluminum Tubes
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 09/26/2021 03:20:59 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/26/2021 03:20:59 AM EDT.