Add a Comment
- Posted by deemsnyd at 12:36 PM : Jan 29, 2008
We have approximately 160,000 soldiers that have covered that country from one piece of sand to another. They have not found one single shred of evidence that there were WMD''s, and maybe one place where they might possibly have been making biological weapons. Plus, don''t you think an Iraqi somewhere wouldn''t have come out by now and pointed to exactly where they were??? Our government would''ve paid MEGA bucks to anybody that could show them such evidence of WMD''s. - Reply to this comment
- To lowhand, If we did not give those gas canisters to Saddam, who did? Where did he get all of his weapons? Is our memory so short that we forget that Saddam was our man fighting against Iran?
I afree with those who chide CBS''s 60 Minutes for shoddy reporting. - Reply to this comment
- This guy is an American version of the Chinese guy in the original "The Manchurian Candidate"
- Reply to this comment
- This report is like some Orwellian nightmare. How does CBS think it can get away with re-writing history. How can Pelley ask "So why keep the secret?" and suggest Saddam pretended he had WMD''s despite the U.S. at the door.
That''s not what happened at all. Saddam did say there were no WMD''s. He did invite in U.N. inspectors. They were there, inspecting. There was no secret, no pretending. The Bush Administration ignored Saddam''s claims and the U.N. reports. Did you forget the international outrage: Germany, France (freedom fries?), Canada refusing to join the charade? Is this all new to you? Most of us still have our memories intact. This is also the internet age. The news reports are recorded everywhere.
60 Minutes used to be a shining example of journalistic integrity. I can''t believe that such reporters could be this incompetent to get history from only 5 years ago so wrong. The only alternative is that it is an intentional fabrication in the Orwellian sense which is far more scary.
60 Minutes has lost my confidence, respect, and viewership. I can''t stand to watch it turn into a slimy propaganda house. Nothing short of a full public apology for this raping of journalistic integrity could get me back, combined with a follow-up report showing the true events leading up to invasion and why CBS was reporting it so incorrectly.
I can''t imagine how you can call yourself journalists anymore. Does integrity mean nothing to you anymore? - Reply to this comment
- FBI agent George Piro anyone wonder why this Piro guy is allowed to talk but Sibel Edmonds is not?
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sibel Edmonds: ''Buckle up, there''s much more coming.''
In the last few weeks, UK''s Times has run a series of articles about the so-called ''Sibel Edmonds case.'' (''For sale: West%u2019s deadly nuclear secrets, ''FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft'' and ''Tip-off thwarted nuclear spy ring probe'')
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds stumbled into a world of espionage, nuclear black market, narcotics trafficking, money laundering, and corruption at the highest levels of the US government.
I interviewed Sibel yesterday regarding the current investigation and reporting by the Times, the failures of the US media, and last week''s decision by the Bush administration to legalize the sale of nuclear technology to Turkey, in an apparent effort to exonerate prior criminal activity by officials in his administration.
Sibel also has some urgent ''action items'' so that we can stop these dangerous nuclear proliferation activities. I urge you to act on her suggestions.
http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/2008/01/sibel-edmonds-buckle-up-theres-much.html - Reply to this comment
- Ron Paul anyone?? of course not. Who is he? We don''t know because for some strange reason, he gets no publicity and is rarely invited to the debates. Gee, I wonder why that is??
- Reply to this comment
- Posted by pammms at 12:52 AM : Jan 29, 2008
So, you think we could have been diplomatic with Saddam, do you? And I don''t know how much we''ve been lied to by this administration, but I kinda doubt they were the first. It will never end until we throw over the democrats and Republicans and go with something more along the lines of a libertarian system. - Reply to this comment
- Why are you still perpetuating the lie about Saddam''''s WMDs? On Dec. 7, 2002, Saddam sent a 12,000 page document to the UN, outlining how his WMDs had been destroyed. UN inspectors were sent in to Iraq, they confirmed Saddam''''s words, but by March 2003,the inspectors were called out by Bush, because he wanted to attack. Whay can''''t you bring yourself to tell the truth???????????
Posted by mariark at 12:30 PM : Jan 28, 2008
Wasn''t there a time when Saddam wouldn''t let inspectors come in. He kept stalling and by the time they got there, there were no WMD? Could it possibly be that the countries that had helped him with his weapons, ie..Russia, etc...helped him again by taking them back because they were not suppose to have sold them to him anyway? My point, I guess, is who the heck knows? All we have to go on is what we''re fed by the government and the media. How can the average lay person Joe Schmo know about any of this for sure? I think most people just read/watch/and believe the way they want to anyway. - Reply to this comment
- Seems to me that this article (if accurate)indicates that we should have invaded iraq. We just shouldn''t have adopted them.
- Reply to this comment
- Within our systems, folks knew that Iraqi Chatter about WMD''s was psyops against the more aggressive Persians. It is disengenuous for the FBI and CIA to assert anymore than they were verifying military functional analysis. We must clearly purge the intelligence processing, this is what happened to Germany ... England undermined their intelligence systems, in particular the Abwehr agency structures.
- Reply to this comment
