Stop MSM from saying "Everyone thought he had WMDs" BS

[edhopper]

For those of us in the anti-war camp. We always said there was a lack of evidence on WMDs. And certainly after the inspectors went in, there was no justification for the war on the basis of invisible WMDs. Everyone DID NOT think he had them!!
So can we stop the Russerts and Mathews and the MSM in general from making this bullshit that "Everyone thought he had WMDs" becoming the unchallenged conventional wisdom.
Now that the Big Lie of the war for WMDs is no longer supportable, this has become the new Big Lie.

[napi21]

1. It would be difficult to stop that. You have to admit, almost

every politician, foreign Country, and spokesman on TV did believe it. The small number of people who SAID they didn't believe it were called crazy, or at least that they had no proof, and "What if they're wrong?"

We can blame it on the media drumbeat, or anything else, but most people did believe it.

[ixion]

3. difference between 'most' and 'everyone'

albeit subtle, it is inaccurate.

And there were many more than you indicate in your post who thought the intel was bogus. In fact, it has been proven bogus PRIOR to the illegal invasion.

[edhopper]

4. Except for crazies

like Mohamed ElBaradei head the International Atomic Energy Agency and this years Noble Prize winner. The top international authority on Nuclear weapons.
You are wrong to say;
"every politician, foreign Country, and spokesman on TV did believe it"
Many did not believe it and questioned it at the time.
In fact there were people in the State Dept who questioned the validity of what Powell said at the UN in 02.
And we know from the Downing Street Memos that our staunched ally knew the intelligence around WMDs was being fixed.
I repeat Everyone DID NOT think he had WMDs

[Marr]

9. The people who said he had WMD had no proof.

[G_j]

10. such as chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix for example?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/101405.html

Bush Feared 'Looking Weak' on Iraq

By Robert Parry
October 15, 2005


Less than two months before invading Iraq, George W. Bush fretted that his war plans could be disrupted if United Nations weapons inspectors succeeded in gaining Saddam Hussein’s full cooperation, possibly leaving Bush “looking weak,” according to notes written by a secretary to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The notes, taken by Blair’s personal secretary Matthew Rycroft, were included in a new edition of Lawless World, a book by University College professor Philippe Sands. The notes on the Jan. 30, 2003, phone call between Bush and Blair were reviewed by the New York Times, which said they were marked secret and personal.

At the time, Blair wanted Bush to seek a second resolution from the U.N. Security Council that would have judged Iraq to be in violation of U.N. disarmament demands and would have authorized military action. According to the notes, Bush agreed that “it made sense to try for a second resolution, which he would love to have.”

But Bush’s deeper worry was that chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix would conclude that Hussein’s government was cooperating in the search for weapons of mass destruction, thus delaying or blocking U.S.-led military action. Bush’s “biggest concern was looking weak,” the British document said.

Blix indeed did judge that Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors, who weren’t finding any WMD even at sites pinpointed by U.S. intelligence.
..more..

=========
Then of course there was former chief U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter, who Congress refused to let testify.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

Published on Saturday, July 20, 2002 in the Boston Globe
Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?
by Scott Ritter

RECENT PRESS reports indicate that planning for war against Iraq has advanced significantly. When combined with revelations about the granting of presidential authority to the CIA for covert operations aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein, it appears that the United States is firmly committed to a path that will lead toward war with Iraq.

Prior to this occurring, we would do well to reflect on the words of President Abraham Lincoln who, in his Gettysburg Address, defined the essence of why democracies like ours go to war: so ``... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.''

Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.


..more..

[gratuitous]

14. The key to that assertion is "on TV"

Because there seemed to be almost a concerted effort on the part of the mainstream media to shut out responsible opposing viewpoints. The only anti-war voices that seemed to get on would be the guy with the rainbow fright wig or the anarchist with the most extreme sign in one of those marches of millions of people all over the country and the world.

As the old saying goes, when everyone is thinking the same thing, nobody is thinking.

[Poiuyt]

15. I don't think that most American politicians believed it

They were too politically cowardly to speak up and say that there were no WMD. The politicians knew how much the American people wanted to get even after 9/11. We, as a nation, have this John Wayne, macho image that says we can't let something like that go unpunished. War was what America wanted, so the politicians went along with Bush's lies. It didn't matter that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush was equating the two, so that was good enough.

[elehhhhna]

2. "Everyone" was LIED TO.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Has anyone gathered any materials that prove this claim?

Something I would love to see. A statement from every government that he is claiming believe such.

From all that I have been reading though, they will use old reporting to back up these ridulous lies. If a report from the 1980's said so, that is what they will use.

Cheney was DYING to find some fresh evidence to support Saddam's quest for nuclear power. He found nothing that was half way believable until miraculously, the forged Niger docs appeared. That issue is the real key, and one I hope Fitz is unraveling.

[sandnsea]

18. You could check the UN vote n/t

[Metta]

6. People believe it because it's convenient for Republican terrorists.

'Everyone thought ..." being a quote from Condi's recent Senate testimony which is a lie even according to her. Someone here recently posted her statement from July, 2001 where she said that Saddam had no weapons nor means of being mass in any way.

M$M is paid to continue the lies.

[jayctravis]

7. Only if they append it "Everyone thought he had WMDs...

because Bush told us."

[Bigmack]

8. I believed... but doubted....

I believed because I figured Bush wouldn't be so stupid as to claim there was if there wasn't... the political fallout would be too intense, Well, I guess I was wrong about that fallout, too. Nobody really seems to give a shit that he lied.

I doubted there was WMD because I couldn't believe even Bush would send our troops into a chem/bio battlefield without enough chem/bio gear. The political fallout from mass US casualties would be too intense. I guess I was wrong about that fallout, too. Nobody seems to give a shit that 2000 US troops have died for NOTHING.

[Marr]

11. 'We can't reveal specifics because it would compromise our

methods of intelligence gathering, but we have the proof'.

That kind of thing was being repeated quite a bit by government officials back then, as I recall. Regular citizens who believed the WMD claims did so because they were lied to by their government, period.

If you're talking about governments, intelligence officials, people involved in tracking WMD, that sort of thing- no, it was *far* from "everyone".

[Yoda Yada]

12. ....and don't forget the accusations....

Let's also not forget that BEFORE our march into Iraq, anyone who questioned the president, or the admininstration, would be called, "pro-terrorist", " or "anti-American". This administration purposely set it up (framing) so that no one could debate or question the lack of evidence that was presented to Americans. When Bush talked about the British report concerning uranium from Africa,...was anyone ALLOWED to question using British info instead of our own? Of course not. THIS ADMINISTRATION KNEW the evidence was feeble. But they also knew that if they (and the MSM) implied that you were pro-terrorist or anti-American if you questioned the president....people would just go along.

We are dealing with the worst-of-the-worst administrations ever!

[npincus]

13. The Left was RIGHT

as were the French... and Germans

[G_j]

16. just heard some Bush hack investigating Katrina

'we were all wrong'

hey, it worked in the past...

[sandnsea]

17. That ship has sailed

It was possible if we'd separated the vote from the invasion, but we didn't. The UN made its vote in the fall of 2002, it's kind of hard to go back and unring that vote that supported the conclusion that there was a reasonable concern that Saddam had WMD. Opinion had shifted signifcantly after the inspectors went in. But we've had "voted for the war" for 3 years now, which happened before the UN vote. There's no way to undo the damage now. We're stuck with the whole world thought Saddam had WMD, because the whole world did. In 2002.

The best we can do now is expose the DSM and the plan to go to war since the beginning. But you can't say Congress should have known when you're asking them to investigate a covert plan based on the premise that NOBODY except the Bushies knew.