Leading To War - Petards of Mass Destruction »
Posted by: Radiofreeeuropa 6 months ago"Leading to War" begins and ends with a very few words of text on the screen. The rest is clips of public statements made by the Bush cabal, between September 11, 2001, and March 19, 2003. There is some little-known footage included, and the sequence of the clips tells a coherent and compelling story.
Read Full Story at leadingtowar.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 39
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa6 months ago
Someone whose knowledge was limited to this film would have no way of knowing that many of the statements made in it were lies. There's no indication that the invasion of Iraq was being planned prior to 911. There's no indication that the attack was secretly underway prior to March 19, 2003. When Bush refers to an IAEA report that didn't exist, we don't necessarily know that. When several of the film's protagonists make claims about "weapons of mass destruction" and ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, we are not informed that they knew they were lying. Claims about aluminum tubes, Prague meetings, uranium purchases, training of al Qaeda in Iraq, mobile production facilities, and even Bush's pretense that he was trying to avoid war, are allowed to stand or fall without commentary.
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa6 months ago
Text at the end of the film informs us that these claims were not true, but not that they were known at the time to be untrue, as of course they were. Commentary missing from the film is provided on the website at http://www.leadingtowar.com Additional evidence is collected at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments
The film closes with some text indicating, among other things, that no WMDs were ever found, that the occupation has been costly, etc. These claims are all crafted to avoid any possible objections, to the point in some cases of erring wildly on the side of war supporters. When every serious study done finds over 1 million Iraqi deaths, this film grotesquely puts the count at 100,000.
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa6 months ago
Despite this documentary's omissions,it would be very hard for anyone to argue with what they've seen: the people responsible for a war of aggression, the supreme international crime, hoisting themselves on their own petards. This is the greatest value videotape has.
It's hard, however, not to feel embarrassed when watching this for all the poor saps cheering the speeches, the soldiers used as props behind the podiums, and the morons at places like the American Enterprise Institute cheering for each and every lie.
Watch it for free on this website, or better yet get the DVD and show it to your community.
Reply
-
-
0%
donald515 months, 4 weeks ago
Radio, perhaps Cheney classified his Energy meeting minutes with the likes of Ken Lay because they came up with the need to take down an oil rich Arab state and the Taliban had already dinied a pipeline across Afghanistan!
Reply -
-
0%
rimbaud5 months, 4 weeks ago
We were CERTAIN Saddam had WMDs because we, and the Europeans, sold them to him, and he DID use them, against the Iranians, and against his own people. That's why, when the weapons inspectors came up empty-handed, we (Democrats, as well as Republicans) could not believe them. Even after Saddam sent the reams of documents to Washington on the disposition of his weapons, we could not trust him. As he told Dan Rather, there was nothing he could do to stop the US attack. The war was a foregone conclusion
http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
Reply
-
-
0%
rimbaud5 months, 4 weeks ago
The Iraqis were our proxy in their war against Iran. Iran stood alone. The Russians, who were still also allied with Iraq, did not help Iran. So, you can bet the Iranians are involved in Iraq: they have a huge stake in the outcome of their close neighbor. Who are we to say they should not be involved? Their memory of their long and costly war with Iraq in still a fresh wound. But they want to be friends? Well, we got rid of Saddam for them and we got rid of the Taleban for them in Afghanistan, with the cooperation of their allies, the Northern Alliance. They intercept AlQaeda on their way to Iraq from Pakistan and Afghanistan and they offer rebuilding aid to Iraq (which we have begged the Europeans to do). Maybe we are just in competition with them for the same ends.
Reply -
0%
cowboygrandpa5 months, 4 weeks ago
Rfe:
I will have to finish watching it later.
It sickens me to see some cheering for the death of others because of lies. Been there done that. It hasn't changed except the year and locations.
One day if we don't learn it will be us who are crying about the war and how unfair it is. It will be the war of the government on it's own people. It's already started.
Reply-
-
0%
donald515 months, 4 weeks ago
...the party that should be declared a terrorist organization... the Repug Party of America!
The website does a pretty good job of documenting the valid impeachment and conviction of Dumya and all his neocon supporters. Then we should turn them over to the World Criminal Court for crimes against humanity for which we hanged Japanese and Natzis after WW2.
Reply
-
-
0%
Candida5 months, 4 weeks ago
cowboygrandpa: "I will have to finish watching it later."
Make sure you do. In segments 3&4, a reporter asks a question about Vietnam. I think you'll like it.
Reply
-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa5 months, 4 weeks ago
Watching this film, we are reminded that:
Iraq told the world truthfully in 2002 and 2003 that it had no WMDs, the world was broadly opposed to a U.S. attack on Iraq, Iraq was willing to sit down and talk, but the United States was not, Cheney didn't want inspectors in Iraq,Cheney and his cronies predicted joyful throngs greeting "liberators", Scott Ritter rejected the WMD lies and made it onto television doing so, Bush pushed the claim that Iraq could attack us within 45 minutes, Bush told us Iraq could attack us with unmanned aerial vehicles, all of these people made their assertions about WMDs repeatedly and with absolute certainty.
Bush and Rice said we risked waking up to a "mushroom cloud" if we didn't attack Iraq, Iraq cooperated with inspectors,
most nations of the world and huge crowds of people around the world opposed an attack on Iraq,
Rumsfeld swore the whole thing would cost under $50 billion,
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa5 months, 4 weeks ago
Bush said we should attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein used torture: "If this is not evil," said Bush (who was already torturing people himself), "then evil has no meaning,"
the goal Bush said he had in launching an aggressive war was "a free and peaceful Iraq...an inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region," and
most nations in the world saw no imminent threat from Iraq, and the United Nations refused to support an aggressive attack by the United States, which tried very hard to win U.N. approval but then attacked without it.
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa5 months, 4 weeks ago
It is impossible to watch this and deny the erroneous fallacies perpetrated on the public to elicit cheerleading for this despicable act. Let us not forget that regardless of spin this fiasco was never legitimate to begin with.
Reply
-
-
0%
Candida5 months, 4 weeks ago
Radiofreeeuropa: "Bush and Rice said we risked waking up to a "mushroom cloud" if we didn't attack Iraq"
Oh, yes, those famous mushroom clouds. This is what the UN inspectors reported almost two full weeks before the invasion:
7 March 2003 | New York, USA
Statement to the United Nations Security Council
The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update
by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei
"Based on available evidence, the IAEA team has concluded that Iraq's efforts to import these aluminium tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuges and, moreover, that it was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable re-design needed to use them in a revived centrifuge programme. However, this issue will continue to be scrutinized and investigated."
Reply-
0%
Candida5 months, 4 weeks ago
"Through visits to research and production sites, reviews of engineering drawings and analyses of sample magnets, IAEA experts familiar with the use of such magnets in centrifuge enrichment have verified that none of the magnets that Iraq has declared could be used directly for a centrifuge magnetic bearing."
"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded."
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/...
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Amazing15 months, 4 weeks ago
For this alone Bush should be impeached. Then indicted and imprisoned. Thank you RFE, I hope this gets the play it deserves.
Reply -
-
0%
Spadecaller5 months, 4 weeks ago
"Whatever happened to Bin Laden?"
Bin Laden was an old business associate of George Bush Sr. and a friend of the Bush family. The Bin Ladens helped George Junior with his first oil deal. In addition, Bin Laden did business with the Carlyle Group of which George Bush Sr. was the principle executive.
Do you really think it was an accident that Bin Laden got away when we had him trapped? Do you really believe that with George junior's close ties with the "royal family" in Saudi Arabia, he would do anything to disrupt those relationships? Not a chance in hell! Follow the money and you can follow the crimes against humanity.
Reply
-
-
0%
djn3nunez35 months, 4 weeks ago
It's like watching the old SNL skit or whatever of "The Liar's Club"
Sadly hundreds of thousands of people have died as the results of this unchallenged media campaign. Still watching....
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
donald515 months, 4 weeks ago
why only the Repug administrations have convicted fellons ot the cabinet level in three different administrations in recent times: watergate, Iran Contra and now Plamegate!
18 of 22 Congressmen on the most corrupt CREW list are Repugs with the only senators being 4 Repugs!
Reply
-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa5 months, 4 weeks ago
Remarkable series of lying liars, and frankly the press looks much better in this film than they really performed. As we focus on "success" of recent strategies (mostly joining in with militias who previously were enemies). Let us not forget that we have no business whatsoever being there in the first place. That anyone who defends such lies as documented in this film, is utterly and completely incapable of judging right from wrong.
Reply-
0%
Candida5 months, 4 weeks ago
Yes, the press looks definitely good in this video. I've been thinking why they didn't look good in reality, and came up with at least three reasons:
This was a selection, and obviously the best questions from the perspective of the producers were included.
They asked good questions, but got no real answers, so what could they really report? Each other's questions? I've noticed that Jamie McIntyre looked definitely troubled after he got a non-response to his question.
Even if they had a good report to take to their stations and papers, it had to pass through some filters before it got on the airwaves or on paper.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
icono15 months, 4 weeks ago
The road to war was paved with false propaganda posing as good intentions.
Reply -
-
0%
Candida5 months, 4 weeks ago
Only Cheney does. Bush admitted that there was no WMD and no link to al Quaeda on 60 Minutes on January 14, 2007.
"PELLEY: You know better than I do that many Americans feel that your administration has not been straight with the country, has not been honest. To those people you say what?
BUSH: On what issue?
PELLEY: Well, sir . . .
BUSH: Like the weapons of mass destruction?
PELLEY: No weapons of mass destruction.
BUSH: Yeah.
PELLEY: No credible connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
BUSH: Yeah.
PELLEY: The Office of Management and Budget said this war would cost somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion and now we're over 400.
BUSH: I gotcha. I gotcha. I gotcha.
PELLEY: The perception, sir, more than any one of those points, is that the administration has not been straight with . . ."
Reply-
0%
Candida5 months, 4 weeks ago
"BUSH: Well, I strongly disagree with that, of course. There were a lot of people, both Republicans and Democrats, who felt there were weapons of mass destruction. Many of the leaders in the Congress spoke strongly about the fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons prior to my arrival in Washington, DC. And we're all looking at the same intelligence. So I strongly reject that this administration hasn't been straight with the American people. The minute we found out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so. Scott, all I can do is just tell the truth, tell people exactly what's on my mind, which is what I do."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/14/60min...
.
Don't you just love the last sentence?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
getreal15 months, 4 weeks ago
Don't we just love the way our politicians and leaders put big money over the survival of the American People. We elected these people to help keep our country strong and they have done the opposite for the people of this nation and this world. It is no longer a question of change but to get them out of the way to straighten things out. We are supposed to be a peace loving nation, not a bunch of tyrants.
Reply -
0%
annoDomini5 months, 3 weeks ago
There is some hope for us. On 2-Oct-2002 Barack Obama attended an anti-war rally in Chicago and addressed the crowd with these words:
"I don't oppose all wars. ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income."
Were truer words spoken by anyone else?
Reply -
0%
annoDomini5 months, 3 weeks ago
Barack Obama continued with these words:
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."
Is there anyone who doesn't now recognize how insightful Sen. Obama was?
Reply
Submitted By:
Radiofreeeuropa
All progress comes from unreasonable people.
Greetings fellow travelers! Thanks for stopping in. I'm a musician, educator, and writer. I am the music editor ...
Also submitted:
- 5.0 - Democratic National Convention Ends-GOP Begins
- 5.0 - Obama: 'We are better than the last 8 years'
- 5.0 - Obama: 'This election has never been about me. It?s been about you'
- 9.5 - Bill Clinton forcefully endorses Obama at DNC
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
