Vorsicht, Falle!

(By Paul13)

Telepolis

Die von der US-Regierung gerne benutzten Aussagen von Informanten aus den Reihen der Exil-Iraker, vor allem vom Iraqi National Congress (INC), waren meist falsch und auf politische Bedürfnisse zugeschnitten. Mit ihnen wurde die zweite Lüge gezimmert, die angebliche Existenz von Massenvernichtungswaffen oder zumindest von laufenden Programmen zu deren Herstellung. Damit ist nun gewissermaßen amtlich, dass die Bush-Regierung den 11.9. für den Krieg gegen den Irak instrumentalisiert und dazu "Beweise" fabriziert hat oder, will man unrealistisch gutgläubig sein, zu nachlässig mit der Verifizierung der Informationen gewesen ist.

Auch mehr als 3 Jahre nach dem Irakkrieg ist Heise noch kein bißchen weise. Denn nur wenige Monate bevor die ersten Bomben fielen gab der US-Präsident folgende Erklärung ab, die Telepolis-Autor Florian Rötzer offenbar entgangen sein muß:

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian

make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

[…] My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

Und in seiner Rede an die Nation zu Beginn der Kampfhandlungen stellte der Präsident noch einmal mit deutlichen Worten klar:

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." the president said.

[…]

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," the president said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said the president.

The president also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, the president said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," the president said.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, the president said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," the president said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

The president said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said the president. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

The president also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," the president said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, the president said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces. […]

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

Wo bitteschön hat Bush da vorsätzlich die Unwahrheit gesagt? Und wieso glauben alle, daß ein demokratischer Präsident wie Clinton die Sache besser gemacht hätte?

Comments

[WhatDoIKnow]

Laut dem Bericht des US Senats (Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence) gibt es keine Beweise, dass die Bush Regierung Druck geübt hat auf Geheimdienstanalysten damit sie "Beweise" fabrizieren oder damit diese ihre Meinung zu Gunsten Bush ändern. Demokraten und Republikaner haben diesem Berich zugestimmt.

Jeder der sich nur ein bisschen mit der US Politik beschäftigt weiss, dass die Demokraten sich nichts anderes wünschen als ein "smoking gun" zu finden, der eindeutig beweisen würde, dass Bush Beweise fabriziert hat. Trotzdem haben sie diesem Bericht zugestimmt.

Wahrscheinlich glauben die meisten im Heise-Land, dass die USA eine Diktatur sind und die Demokraten nur als Bush's Pudel agieren. Nur so könnten sie diesen Bericht völlig ignorieren und einfach weiter in ihren Phantasien leben.

Die Wahrheit sieht aber viel langweiliger aus. Bush hat nichts fabriziert. Die Geheimdienstinformationen die sowohl er, als auch Clinton erhalten haben waren meistens alt oder einfach falsch. Das hat der Bericht herausgestellt. Nichts anderes. Jeder der etwas anderes glaubt ist entweder falsch informiert oder krankhaft.

[Gabi]

Aus Köhlers Rede für all diese Halb- und Eingebildeten in unserer Welt:

"Zuallererst hilft gute Bildung uns, das zu entwickeln, was in jedem einzelnen von uns steckt; ... .

Bildung bedeutet nicht nur Wissen und Qualifikation, sondern auch Orientierung und Urteilskraft. Bildung gibt uns einen inneren Kompass. Sie befähigt uns, zwischen Wichtig und Unwichtig und zwischen Gut und Böse zu unterscheiden.

Bildung hilft, die Welt und sich selbst darin kennen zu lernen. Aus dem Wissen um das Eigene kann der Respekt für das Andere, das Fremde wachsen. Und sich im Nächsten selbst erkennen, heißt auch: fähig sein zu Empathie und Solidarität. Bildung ohne Herzensbildung ist keine Bildung.

Erst wenn Wissen und Wertebewusstsein zusammenkommen, erst dann ist der Mensch fähig, verantwortungsbewusst zu handeln. Und das ist vielleicht das höchste Ziel von Bildung."

Das nur zum Aufschrei in Deutschland und anderswo, als Bush von Gut und Böse redete.

Wir sehen uns einer Flut von Informationen gegenüber und überlassen denen das Feld, die hetzen und einseitig berichten wie Rötzer und andere. Wenn Journalisten ihre eigene Propaganda erkennen lernen, können sie sie erst abstellen. Dazu braucht man allerdings Bildung.

Wenn der Journalismus seine Verantwortung erkennt, wird sich das Klima in der Welt auch wieder verändern.

Deshalb: Danke an David und Ray und so viele andere, die mithelfen, Lügen und Ideologien zu entlarven.

[clarsonimus]

Unlike the US President, I cannot categorically reject arguments that objective reporting in Germany is unattainable due to Germany's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up.

[James W.]

"Die Wahrheit sieht aber viel langweiliger aus. Bush hat nichts fabriziert."

Sometimes I ponder whether it would have been an easier path for the US to travel... by planting WMD's in Iraq. Does anybody believe that had we legitimately found WMDs in Iraq, that the moonbats wouldn't have accused the US of planting them anyway?

Of course, to conceal an operation of that proportion would surely have been difficult (understatement?).

[Carl Spackler]

@James W.,

About you saying, the US planting WMD's

Lets review the abilities of the CIA historically.

It’s predecessor the WWII ‘OSS’ dropped agents by parachute in Europe and Asia. Most were rounded up in days.
After the war the OSS dropped agents in Eastern Europe, North Korea and China. Most were captured in day or even met on the drop zones.
The CIA failed in its prediction when the USSR would get nuclear weapons by ten years.
The CIA was surprised by China getting nuclear weapons.
The CIA was surprised by India and Pakistan getting nuclear weapons.
The CIA was surprised by the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
The CIA was surprised by the North Korean invasion and later the Chinese invasion in support of North Korea during the Korean War.
The CIA was surprised by Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in Gulf War I.
The CIA said that East Germany had a economy the size of West Germany.
The CIA was surprised by the fall of the Wall, and the collapse of Communist east Europe and the Soviet Union.
The couldn't invade, overthrow Cuba, or kill Castro.
During the Vietnam War the CIA was very busy, and worthless.
During Gulf War I, General Swartzkoph said that the CIA advice was so vague and qualified as to be useless.
It is reported that after ten years of conflict in and about Iraq, the CIA didn’t have one agent/spies/informants in the Iraq power elite.
The CIA said that Iraq had WMD’s.

If the CIA were weather reporting service, all boats would be sunk at sea, all roofs on houses would be blown off, farms would be oceans of dust, and the CIA would be out of business.

I don’t think the Agency, or the US could fake WMD’s.

[James W.]

Damn Carl, that list of CIA failures could almost compete with the list of UN failures! :-)

Honestly, I agree that planting WMDs would have been nearly impossible...but explain logical thinking to a moonbat. Just the thought alone of what an operation like that would entail, should bring most sane people to wipe away the idea of such a conspiracy. In the months leading up to the war,I remember some of my colleagues (Germans and other nationalities--to include an American) implying that if WMD's in Iraq were found, that they most certainly had been planted.

[blue]

None of the cites IS by G.W.Bush as you imply, both your cites are by Clinton and date back to 1998!!! Please state so.

The "Let me be clear" quote is by Bill Clinton, October 31, 1998
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Excerpts of the "The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors" can be found here:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
cnn, December 16, 1998

As I see it, the Bush administration believed the worst of Saddam (rightly so) and interpreted all info available in the worst possible light. It did not help, that quite a bit of it was fabricated (think of that British "current" intelligence report, which turned out to be plagiarised from a thesis about the 90/91 Iraq/Kuwait).

What I resent in Bush is, that he repeatedly mixes different issues in a sentence, leaving it up to the listener to make a connection between them, which is not there. An example: connecting the Iraq under Saddam and 9/11 at a press conference by G.W.Bush.

THE PRESIDENT: [...] You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
Please go there to read the quote in full context.

No, Bush does not say Saddam was behind 9/11, but sentences like "The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East." do make people connect them, if they hear this pattern over and over again.

[flux]

@blue

You may want to take a second look at the title...

[blue]

Nochmal auf Deutsch:

"Denn nur wenige Monate bevor die ersten Bomben fielen" - das war 1998.

"Wo bitteschön hat Bush da vorsätzlich die Unwahrheit gesagt?" In keiner der beiden Reden, denn beide waren von Clinton.

Google hilft.

[blue]

@flux
"Caution, Trap." German idiom, picked up by the old TV program "Nepper, Schlepper, Bauernfänger."

I thought this title were to refer to the telepolis article, I did not expect bait.

[Paul13]

@ blue

As the title said, it was a trap. It was my intention to create the impression that this might be a Bush quote though I did not say so explicitely. The only thing I really "faked" is that I left out those parts which would have revealed the time or date of Clintons statements and that I changed the name "Clinton" to "the president".

All I wanted is to find out in how far Bush bashing has a rational background (of course it hasn't any but sometimes I just want to have some fun ;-) and what all the people who speak now about Clinton as a saviour really know about their hero. And to be honest, it worked as designed (have a look at the commentary section of my own blog).

Some people who hate Bush should now admit that fact instead of hiding behind silly phrases like "it's not about America, if the president would be Clinton and not Bush everything would be fine". Bush was right to topple Saddam just BECAUSE he fought for ideals which once were also those of the reasonable part of the left.

It's time for the Democrats to realize that and to remember where the evil NeoCons came from and why they had left the Democrats in the 70s and 80s. Maybe one day they will be able to get rid of their loony left and learn to be a bit more grateful that a Republican president defended their own values when they had betrayed them.

[blue]

@ Paul 13:
Fair enough, though stating "Auch mehr als 3 Jahre nach dem Irakkrieg ist Heise noch kein bißchen weise. Denn nur wenige Monate bevor die ersten Bomben fielen gab der US-Präsident folgende Erklärung ab, die Telepolis-Autor Florian Rötzer offenbar entgangen sein muß:" in reference to a September 2006 article positively identifies "Irakkrieg" as the 2003 war. Plus Clintons words were adressed to a very different issue (selective strike vs. liberation of a country by invasion). "Wo bitteschön hat Bush da vorsätzlich die Unwahrheit gesagt?" puts Clinton's words straight into Bush's mouth, as well. You did more than just "create the impression".

In 2006 50% of the US population believed, that Saddam had WMDs at the time of invasion (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=684) and that in February 2005 47% of the US population were convinced, that Saddam helped to plan and supported the 9/11 hijackings and mass murder (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544). Where does this disinformation come from?

This is not my type of fun, but your mileage may vary.