Planting evidence: A Stroll Down Memory Lane

July 16, 2003 9:38 PM

Planting evidence: A Stroll Down Memory Lane. Would the Bush administration attempt to plant WMDs in Iraq in an effort to fight off "Iraqgate" and gain some credibility? I don't know, but there certainly is precedent as outlined by this VIPS article.
posted by skallas (28 comments total)

Will people ever stop posting inflammatory, irritatingly political questions with FPPs?

yeah, dumb question. heh.
posted by angry modem at 10:00 PM on July 16, 2003

I can't comment on this any better than by quoting the main link: "The Bush administration’s refusal to allow UN inspectors to join the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in US-occupied Iraq has elicited high interest in foreign news media. The most widely accepted interpretation is that the US is well aware that evidence regarding the existence and location of such weapons is “shaky” (the adjective now favored by UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix), and that the last thing the Pentagon wants is to have Blix’ inspectors looking over the shoulders of US forces as they continue their daunting quest.

Administration leaders will not soon forgive Blix or Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for exposing to ridicule the two main pieces of “evidence” adduced by Washington late last year to support its contention that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons development program: (1) the forged documents purporting to show that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger, and (2) the high strength aluminum rods sought by Iraq that the US insisted were to be used in a nuclear application. That contention was roundly debunked not only by IAEA scientists but also by the international engineering community."

Strolling right along........
posted by troutfishing at 10:06 PM on July 16, 2003

they forgot the bits about fdr and pearl harbor...
posted by dorian at 10:17 PM on July 16, 2003

skallas is a about 3-4 months ahead of the "smoking gun" soon to be found.

fortunately the cat is already out of the bag...
posted by specialk420 at 10:53 PM on July 16, 2003

angry modem,

The question begs to be asked.
posted by wsg at 11:02 PM on July 16, 2003

I thought CommonDreams links were the equivalent of LGF links, so politically biased as to not be worth posting?
posted by jonson at 11:03 PM on July 16, 2003

CommonDreams did not create the linked piece, VIPS did. They are only hosting it. I'm sure if you googled you could read it on other sites.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:05 PM on July 16, 2003

It disturbs me that the U.S. is so powerful now that it hasn't even bothered to plant evidence. It's like they don't care anymore.
posted by bobo123 at 11:15 PM on July 16, 2003

tempest in a teapot to bush. all he has to do is sacrifice a federal building or two and americans will forget all about this abomination and fall to thier knees wailing for dubco to save them.
posted by quonsar at 11:25 PM on July 16, 2003

It disturbs me that the U.S. is so powerful now that it hasn't even bothered to plant evidence. It's like they don't care anymore.

Haha... So now the US doesn't care because they haven't planted evidence yet? That's fresh.

Y'all are really going have another WMD/Dubya/Iraq blah blah blah thread? Unbelievable.
posted by Witty at 11:57 PM on July 16, 2003

Now that Bush has wholely pissed off the CIA by forcing Tenet to fall on his sword, they will publicize any and all deceptions the hawks hope to foist on the world. Also, the US certainly has committed frauds and ham-fisted propaganda campaigns before, but usually those were solely for domestic consumption. The Iraq II war mongering involved every government with a seat at the UN and they are watching Bush's moves even closer than Americans. If Bush plants any weapons it will come to light very quickly.
posted by raaka at 11:58 PM on July 16, 2003

Has anyone addressed the fact that any and every scandal in the news has "-gate" appended to it? Just in the last two weeks I've seen such wonders as UraniumGate, this IraqGate, and the ever-puzzling KobeGate. I don't even really care that most of them (MonicaGate) don't approach the seriousness of their namesake, but does originality count anymore?
posted by themadjuggler at 12:13 AM on July 17, 2003

Y'all are really going have another WMD/Dubya/Iraq blah blah blah thread? Unbelievable.

Hey, Witty, why not just reuse some of your previous witticisms and save yourself the obvious effort of coming up with a new one every time?

Here, I've rounded up a few recent ones for you:

Fucking pathetic... a dead link post? A DEAD LINK POST? But I will admit, it pretty cute watching you people spin this into some conspiracy to "hide the truth".
posted by Witty at 12:54 AM JST on July 14

Now that that's been settled, IJR can safely shove this thread up his elitist ass.
posted by Witty at 1:07 AM JST on July 15

It's like watching (or reading in this case) pigeons feeding on bread crumbs in the park. "Bush said this" qualifies for a front pager? And damn near 100 posts. Suckers. I hear Ari is going to take a piss sometime tomorrow. I'll get a rough draft of the accompany FFP ready.
posted by Witty at 6:42 PM JST on July 3

posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:21 AM on July 17, 2003

ar! ar! ar!
that witty sure makes me laugh bark like a seal.
posted by quonsar at 12:36 AM on July 17, 2003

skallasfilter.
posted by Joeforking at 3:00 AM on July 17, 2003

CommonDreams did not create the linked piece, VIPS did.

Oh, well, I guess that eliminates any arguments of bias. Except not:

VIPS does not seem to have a website, but its email is [e-mail], and their open letter appears to have been published at CounterPunch (run by Alexander Cockburn, the Nation columnist), an outfit whose staple is stuff comparing Bush to Hitler. VIPS also published an open letter in opposition to the war at Common Dreams back in February. The spokesman for VIPS is Raymond McGovern, a retired CIA analyst. McGovern's email is also at CounterPunch. He is giving a briefing today [Tuesday] with Rep. Dennis Kucinich. McGovern has compared the Iraq war to Vietnam, even saying that it could lead to nuclear war. He has charged that if WMDs are found in Iraq, they may well have been planted. He believes Tenet's job is safe because if Tenet were fired, he would reveal that the White House ignored intelligence warnings pre-9/11. McGovern has urged CIA analysts to illegally release classified documents to show what he believes to be true, specifically citing Daniel Ellsberg.

Another member of the VIPS steering committee is William Christison, who among other things believes that the Bush administration is attempting to colonize the Middle East, jointly with Israel. He believes that the war on terror is being used to turn the US into a military dictatorship. He is also a backer of the left-wing UrgentCall, along with people such as Noam Chomsky, Barbara Kingsolver, Julian Bond, and Jonathan Schell.

Not that there's anything wrong with any of that, per se. It's just that arguing "this is not CommonDreams, it's VIPS" is like arguing "this is not LGF, it's the John Birch Society."
posted by pardonyou? at 6:10 AM on July 17, 2003

But Bush still lied, right? Just like his daddy?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:18 AM on July 17, 2003

It's funny...while I agree that this link is worth reading, I hate the fact that this subject matter deserves YET ANOTHER thread. 9 of skallas' past 14 threads have been Iraqi/Bush related. You certainly aren't hiding your bias, skallas, but surely you're losing any credibility as a poster who understands both sides.

And the same posters who have always filled these threads with partisan gibberish are back in full force. I'm not sure what the point is, exactly...no one's mind is being changed and the front page is cluttered with second-rate links.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:52 AM on July 17, 2003

does originality count anymore?

It brings to mind the infamous words of Tricky Dick, when he lost the California Governor race in 1962: “You won’t have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore." Little did he know that it would not only turn out to be inaccurate, but that his scandal's name would become the defining term for decades.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:58 AM on July 17, 2003

I love this article.

It can be summarized as "Bush hasn't planted phony WMDs in Iraq, and we don't think he will try to do so in the future, but we know that he wants to, because people like him have done so in the past, so let's vilify him as if he did actually plant them".

And it's made by the very same people who complain about that very same reasoning being used for the war against Saddam!
posted by Jos Bleau at 7:05 AM on July 17, 2003

pardonyou? I'm sorry, but commondreams is not the equivalent of LGF. That's indymedia maybe. I'm not sure what the right's "commondreams" is, but it sure isn't LGF.
Also the report is listing facts, not simply presenting opinions.
About Raymond McGovern: everything you quote describes someone from the left, knowledgable about CIA / covert operations. This is not Ann Coulter we're talking about here (a know-it-all from the ivory tower of far-right thinktankland) but (as you mention) "a retired CIA analyst". I really don't understand what's extreme in invoking Ellsberg, but let me repeat this is an ex-CIA employee so his opinion has more weight and is more informed than the average guy's in the street.
About William Christison is, as is mentioned in the entry from AtlanticBlog you quote, also a former CIA analyst. The entry links the outlandish claim that WC "believes that the Bush administration is attempting to colonize the Middle East, jointly with Israel" (which, if true as such would, I agree, disqualify him from serious consideration) to this article. The only passage in this document even remotely connected to the original AtlanticBlog description reads as follows:
The latter two regressive ideologies [Jewish and Christian fundamentalism] will likely unite with the Bush administration to propagate, in Christison's words, "a new colonialism in the [Middle East], dominated by…the U.S. and Israel."
This is a quite different statement - poor reading comprehension skills?
Compare also: "He believes that the war on terror is being used to turn the US into a military dictatorship" with the linked article:
The intention here is less to argue that the Bush administration is intentionally driving to create a military government in this country, than to predict that its actions, unless countered, will inevitably lead to this result.
As for "Urgent Call": leaving aside the "guilt by association" part - if "Support the rule of law and abide by our treaty commitments" and "Work with other countries to resolve regional conflicts and build cooperative regional security systems like the OSCE" are considered radical these days, then what is moderate?
Sorry for the length of this rant.
posted by talos at 7:06 AM on July 17, 2003

talos - you forgot to mention (in lambasting pardonyou?'s comment) that Ray McGovern was the CIA analyst who had the job of briefing George W. Bush, when Bush was VP under Ronald Reagan I believe.

McGovern, as head of VIPS, is no "fringe" leftist - as a matter of fact he spent several years rubbing elbows with GW's pappy. Heart 'O the establishment.
posted by troutfishing at 7:35 AM on July 17, 2003

pardonyou?:
VIPS have credentials of their own. If you reject them, than cool. But that is like me deciding I hate the Packers because Fox News did a piece on them.

Do you have any beef with the credentials of those who wrote the piece in the FPP?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 8:20 AM on July 17, 2003

Our lives in CNN Polls:

* Do you believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the war? (July 14) 87% No
* Should the United States launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea? (July 15) 79% No
* Should further tax cuts be delayed in light of the record federal deficit? (July 15) 65% Yes
* Is it time to bring the troops home from Iraq? (16 July) 65% Yes
* Are you surprised that U.S. combat deaths in Iraq now equal those from the 1991 Gulf War? (16 July) 83% Yes
* Where are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? (16 July) 66% Didn't have them
* Do Internet chatrooms need more regulation? (July 15) 56% Yes
posted by VulcanMike at 8:35 AM on July 17, 2003

A completely uninformed observation:

Seems to me, having lived through three of these in my lifetime (Watergate, Lewinski, Iraq II) that there comes a point where, as Yeats would have said,

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold"

Semi-scandals, like Iran-Contra, were contained - whether you like it or not, there was never a time when you felt the sweat on the President's neck. The walls held.

I'm not feeling that this time. For the last two weeks, it seems like the tide has turned, and even if there's no litigation or political guillotining, the Administration has reached the event horizon. There's no coming back from this now.

Even if further tax cuts Are delayed, it will become "we shouldn't have had any in the first place."

Even if Some WMDs are found (or "Found"), it will be a question of quantity and the likelyhood of the promised immenent threat."

It may have been controllable, before. If Reagan had been in with his people, it probably would have. But the desperation on the faces backpedaling on "Face the Nation" and "Meet the Press" is obvious - they just aren't cool enough to pull it off. They're like crooks under interrogation, dancing the buck and wing. They may not have been pinned down (yet), but the demeanor and the cracking veneer is saying almost as much as an admission would.

And the people are noticing. En masse.

Thank god.
posted by Perigee at 9:23 AM on July 17, 2003

You certainly aren't hiding your bias, skallas, but surely you're losing any credibility as a poster who understands both sides.

This doesn't make any sense at all, any more than the other charges of "bias" do. The VIPS group, and skallas, are taking a position. That's what you do in an argument. If they have taken that position in the past, that means they're consistent. If they took a different position in the past, you'd simply charge them with inconsistency (justifiably) and use their earlier arguments against them (very sensibly).

The bias charge is garbage -- they're not debate moderators or news editors, they're stating a position.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:50 AM on July 17, 2003

Thanks stravos... any publicity is good publicity.
posted by Witty at 10:42 AM on July 17, 2003

You're right, skallas.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:52 PM on July 17, 2003