Saddam was gonna spray Lyme Disease buggaboos on East Coast using Model Airplanes?!?

November 12, 2005
http://benfrank.net/blog/2005/11/12/recall_the_uav_claim/
Who told the Senate that Saddam had WMDs capable of attacking the East
Coast?
Filed under: Iraq, US Govt, media silenced, headline news, Peace MP3s - ben
@ 12:45 pm
Direct evidence of LIES. Somebody tell the mainstream media.

1. "Someone"
took the Senators into a closed door session and told them Saddam had UAVs
capable of hitting the East Coast. shortly after they voted on the
Resolution.

Senator Bill Nelson (FL):

I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure room of
this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of mass
destruction-specifically chemical and biological-but I was looked at
straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of
delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by
unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, I was
looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could be launched from
ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United
States. Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the
United States?

As far as I know, it has never been revealed who that "Someone" was that
told the Senators about this threat. was it Cheney? They always say he's got
'gravitas'.

Bush also claimed (threatened):

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet
of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse
chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that
Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United
States."

mp3 audio - or - slideshow format

2. *** Cheney
If you missed the Downing Street Memo Hearings, this is from CIA veteran Ray
McGovern's opening statement:

On August 26, 2002, less than 5 weeks after the briefing at 10 Downing
Street, Vice President Cheney gave a major speech in which he said, "We now
know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among
other sources, we've gotten this from the first-hand testimony of defectors
including Saddam's own son-in-law."

This was a lie.

Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, told us just the opposite when he
defected in 1995. Again, he told us just the opposite. You can find it on
page 13 of his debriefing report. He said, "All weapons, biological,
chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed." How did Kamel know this? He was
in charge.

They were destroyed in July 2001. I'm sorry, in July 1991 at his order.
Why? To prevent the U.N. inspectors from finding them after the war. And
everything else, everything else Hussein Kamel told us checked out to be
true.

Cheney's lie would have been able to stand were it not for the conscience
of another patriotic whistle-blower who gave the text of Kamel's debriefing
to Newsweek 4 weeks before the war as the drumbeat for war got louder and
louder in early-2003. Newsweek broke the story on February 24, 2003, several
weeks before the attack, but the information was suppressed by U.S. media.

mp3 audio of this statment

3. Bush
10/01/02 "Of course, I haven't made up my mind we're going to war with
Iraq." - list of such lies

This theme was a huge part of selling the war. At the time, they were
claiming that "war was a last resort" often, this vote in Congress was
supposed to scare Saddam into disarming, it was not a "vote to remove Saddam
from power", as Bush claimed.

11/11/05 "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power,
Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

Again, the vote was not to remove Saddam from power- this is a HUGE lie.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone in the media would actually call him on that
lie in a tv interview.. I dream of the day that a tv journalist decides to
risk their career and really grill Bush, not just move on to the next
question.

4. Condoleeza Rice
get the video

"The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we
had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda
and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would
go after al Qaeda.or we could take a bolder approach."

That's not how they sold us the war!

It wasn't like, "let's spend $300 billion to remake the Middle East" - it
was "We don't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a Mushroom Cloud."
(mp3)

Bush told us there were killers, "barbaric killers planning to attack us"
(mp3) - now Condi says they decided to take a bolder approach to sponsor a
US makeover of the entire Middle East?!

5. Rumsfeld
(mp3 audio)

"So the money's gonna come from Iraq's Oil Revenue as everyone has said.
They think it's gonna be something like $2 billion this year, they think it
might be something like 15. 12 next year, they think it might be something
like 18 to 20 plus. 19? - the next year."

The war has already cost US $300 Billion. with all $300 billion going to
weapons makers like the Carlyle Group, Lockheed Martin and to rebuilding
firms Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. the Military-Industrial Complex has 'earned
' $300,000,000,000 attacking and occupying a country that was not a threat
to us, and American citizens are suffering as a result, though not nearly as
much as Iraqis. These Bush Admin Lies have damaged America.

Wake up media. Stop being mouthpieces writing articles like: Bush says he
didn't Lie, Hadley says Bush didn't lie, Cheney says they didn't lie. they
did lie and as a result 100,000 are dead and we're out $300 Billion. Do you
really believe that, "they're lying again to stay out of prison" is an
absurd notion?

------

Hitler called it "The Big Lie"
the little people will never suspect "the complete reversal of facts".

Other sources proving Bush's claim (that Congress had same intelligence) to
be false- ie a flat out lie. But the mainstream media reports it as if it's
true, just like they did with the pre-war lies.

Bush Resurrects False Claim That Congress Had "Same Intelligence" On Iraq

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

A great collection Iraq WMD Lies: The Words of Mass Deception

Rep Waxman's Iraq on the Record- 237 misleading statements in a searchable
database


Tags: bush, attack, iraq, oil, lies


* * *
12 Responses to "Who told the Senate that Saddam had WMDs capable of
attacking the East Coast?"
1.. Anonymous Says:
November 13th, 2005 at 8:22 am
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday,
countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the
intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue,
some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb
Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons
of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our
executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by
policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our
inquiry."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html

There seems to be a disconnect here. The White House is confused and they
think by lying that they are somehow going to change reality. If they have
nothing to hide, why do republican controlled committees keep voting down
investigations into intelligence, like the recent Resolution of Inquiry into
the WHIG documents? If they want to illustrate their credibility why not
support an investigation proving their innocence?

2.. AWTD Says:
November 15th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Of course they lied. The real question is why.

A Zionist alliance with al Qaeda would be a total threat to the Western
world. Especially if those Zionists had an agenda of spreading extreme
anti-Semitism (to gather more sympathizers) and portraying Israel as an
untrustworthy rogue state (in order to sabotage the road to peace) wherever
possible.

Once you're in that zone, you'll be asking questions like why was Chandra
Levy in Israel the week before she was murdered? Whose flag was being flown
in this false flag operation against US intelligence overseer Gary Condit?
After Monica Lewinski, a lot of Democrats would secretly suspect sexual
espionage. Who wanted that?

Why would Israelis at the O-Pee-Chee bubblegum factory in Brooklyn, New
York want to be seen filming (and LOUDLY celebrating) the World Trade Center
inferno? Whose flag is being proudly flown there? Why? Once you've
established what, the next logical step is determining why.

3.. marla Says:
November 15th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
on the whitehouse website Ari admitted they were keeping information from
congress.

"Q: It seems to be any classified information. So that's anything that the
White House decides should be classified and they don't want to share with
Congress.

MR FLEISCHER: The classification decisions are made by the appropriate
intelligence officials. And, again, the President is going to make certain
that this information is provided to the Congress so the people who need to
know it will have full ability to have it, and he wants to make certain that
the circle is diminished, so that nothing inadvertent can happen.

Q: Isn't it a huge shift of power to the Executive Branch?

MR FLEISCHER: That's correct - that's what the President has decided."

4.. apollonian Says:
November 17th, 2005 at 9:58 am
This all ("war on terror") is just Orwell's 1984 playing itself out. Jews
(Pharisees) and "Sadduceans" of modern-day, Falwell, Robertson, and Limbaugh
(who's actually a Jew, I now understand) leading the corrupt elders in
support of Bush and "neo-con" conspirators. I'm afraid this forest fire will
continue until it just burns itself out. Otherwise "elders" need to learn
and find out "Judeo-Christianity" is contradiction in terms; Christianity is
supposed to be antisemitic and designed to protect us fm Jew lies. But
"fools die" and unfortunately there seem to be so many left, as I say. God
help us. A.

5.. Patriota Says:
November 17th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Benjamin Netanyahu Testifies About Iraq to Congress

Aired September 12, 2002 - 14:32 ET

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: . form our own judgment
today.

Did Israel launched that preemptive strike because Saddam had committed a
specific act of terror against us? Did we coordinate our actions with the
international community? Did we condition this operation on the approval of
the United Nations? No, of course no. Israel acted because, it understood,
we understood, that a nuclear- armed Saddam would place our very survival at
risk. And today the United States must destroy the same regime because a
nuclear-armed Saddam will place the security of our entire world at risk.

And make no mistake about it: If and once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the
terror network will have nuclear weapons. And once the terror network has
nuclear weapons, it is only matter of time before those weapons will did he
used. You cannot prevent a dictator who has used terrorism in the past, who
cavorts are and supports and encourages terror organizations from using this
weapon by giving it to someone, by having them threaten to use it against
his enemies. Once one of the terror regimes, once one of the principal
regimes in the terror network, has nuclear weapons, you cannot prevent the
terror network from having nuclear weapons.

Two decades ago, it was possible to thwart Saddam's nuclear ambitions by
bombing the single installation. But today, nothing less than dismantling
his regime will do because Saddam's nuclear program has fundamentally
changed in those two decades. He no longer needs one large reactor to
produce the deadly material necessary for atomic bombs. He can produce it in
centrifuges the sizes of washing machines that wan be hidden throughout the
country.

And I want to remind you that Iraq is a very big country. It is not the
size of Monte Carlo; it is a big country. And I believe that even free and
unfettered inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites
of mass death.

So knowing this, I ask all the governments and others who oppose or
question the president's plan to look at it from the other end of the logic:
Do you believe that action can be taken against Saddam only after he builds
nuclear bombs and uses them? And do the various criticism, specially
overseas, believe that a clear connection between Saddam and September 11
must be established before we have a right to prevent the next September 11?
Well, I think not.

I'll try to try give analogy. All analogies are imperfect, but here's one.
If you try to defeat the mafia, you don't just go after the foot soldiers
who carried out the last attack or even stop with the apprehension of the
particular don who sent them. You go after the entire network of organized
crime - all the families, all the organizations - all of them. Likewise, if
you intend to defeat terror, you don't just go after the terrorists who
carried out the last attack, or even the particular regime that sent them.
You go after the entire network of terror. All the regimes that support
terror, all the organizations that they harbor - all of them.

And doing this always entails the need to act before additional attacks
are carried out. When the security of a nation is endangered, a responsible
government has to take the actions that are necessary to protect its
citizens and eliminate the threat that confronts them. And sometimes, this
requires preemption.

I have to say that in the history of democracies, preemption has been, in
my mind, the most difficult choice for leaders to make, because at the time
of the decision you could never prove the critics wrong, you could never
show them the great catastrophe that was avoided by preemptive action. And
yet we now know that had the democracies taken preemptive action to bring
down Hitler in the 1930s, the worst horrors in history could have been
avoided.

PHILLIPS: Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu testifying
there before the House Government Reform Committee. A hearing is taking
place entitled Conflict With Iraq, an Israeli Perspective. The former prime
minister basically coming out and saying that weapons inspections have been
ineffective. He believes they would continue to be ineffective, and that if
Iraq were to even attack Israel, Israel would respond - making the final
point that if you intend to defeat terror, you go after the entire network
of terror, and that includes Saddam Hussein.

6.. rob Says:
November 17th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
The beef of this report IS we are threatened by MODEL AIRPLANES? Or we
think we may be at risk of attack by model airplanes? Or attack is emminant
by model airplanes? This is NOT even close to being in the same league as
Pearl Harbor.??

7.. AWTD Says:
November 18th, 2005 at 10:09 am
(For Apollonian.) Christianity is the religion of the multicultural Roman
Empire. A mass tendancy to believe in Christianity is only possible under
the cirumstances of extreme stability.

Judaism is the religion of ancient Israel, a one nationality state. A mass
tendancy to believe in Judaism is only possible when extreme
protectionist/isolationalist policies can be practiced by the state.

Islam is the religion of the Arabic peoples who have historically been
under siege. Mohammed's word is the general who will lead his followers out
of the grasp of Islam's besiegers.

The words and stories of Jesus aren't merely an assault on Judaism, but on
all the protectionist/isolationist religions of the caesarean era.

8.. Vic Says:
November 18th, 2005 at 11:17 am
You wrote: "In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that the masses could
easily be fooled because, "they would never credit others with the
possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts" - the
Big Lie."
If you are going to accuse anyone of lying I would suggest that you put
your own house in order first. The above quote is an attempt to defame a man
who had more integrity in his toenail than all the present leaders of the
"free" world put together. By sellecting, and then also distorting, only a
part of what was written you have placed yourself in the same camp of those
you accuse of lying. As it appears you have never read Mein Kampf and your
quote is but the parroting of what you have heard, I suggest you read the
whole passage and then be honest enough to correct it online.

9.. Lou Says:
November 18th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
The US decision to stress the threat posed by Iraq's supposed weapons of
mass destruction above all others was taken for "bureaucratic" reasons to
justify the Administrations real reasons for preemptively going to war with
Iraq, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted in an interview
with Vanity Fair as saying:

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass
destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Wolfowitz admitted that from the outset as U.S. inspectors were failing to
find weapons of mass destruction within Iraq contrary to so many claims from
the White House, Iraq's supposed cache of WMD had never been the most
important casus belli. It was simply one of several reasons.

The only reason for the Iraqi War was because it was "politically
convenient" to Bush and his administration after the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001.

The attacks were the huge excuse the administration needed and would use
to legitimize the preemptive war on Iraq and we all know the lies they used
to sell their agenda to the congress, America and the world.

Americans are finally waking up to the fact that they have been and still
are being duped and lied to by this Bush administration and it is showing in
an ever growing lack of trust for Bush and his cabal of loyalist.

Is there any question that Bush, Cheney, rumsfield, Powell, Rice and
others in the administration outright lied to get us involved in this war
with Iraq, NONE WHAT SO EVER, OF COURSE THEY LIED, RIGHT FROM THE START !

Fanatics just don't live in the mid-east, obviously their are some right
in the White House !

10.. annwho2 Says:
November 18th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Whatreallyhappened.com link to Shock and Awe gallery is an eye opener
about these dangerous people (Iraqis) and how Our nation invaded them,
attacked their lives, their homes, their families on the workds of these
leaders, who have made a fortune for the military industrial complex. Take a
moment to view the real scenes. These are people who have every right to the
promises our leaders have been spewing, selling and that we will ultimately
pay for. We cannot distance ourselves from this horror much longer. The debt
in money and Karma comes back to the backs of the American people who have
been goaded into this mess.

11.. J. Galt Says:
November 18th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
In the last 70 years, America has hit the skids - particularly in the last
40.

Why?

People are animals, and they subsist in subspecies (races) that fight for
territory and power. One of the most parasitical, conniving, and destructive
(to other subspecies) are jews. Read Professor Kevin MacDonald's academic
book "The Culture of Critique," or go here:

go.vnn.com

12.. Steve Says:
November 18th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
All this is well and good and I hope that my countrymen will finally wake
up and see the truth..But the bottom line is no matter what is done to the
current administration for their treasonous acts, the legislation passed
during their reign will not be changed, which is the puppetmasters
intent..the administration is expendable..


.