HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Sept. 19, 2006 This concerns certain statements that one of this website’s contributors, Dr. Mick Brooks, has made about the lies told by George W. Bush surrounding the WMD once alleged to exist in Iraq . Let me describe the events that lead me to use the word “lies” and then discuss Dr. Mick’s comments. BACKGROUND Here are the key facts that make it inconceivable that George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq without knowing that at least some of the elements of his casus belli were fraudulent. I’ve mentioned most of these things several times in earlier articles, but it never hurts to review them yet again. In his State of the Union address of January 28, 2003, Bush said, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” He went on to paint a very lurid picture of mushroom clouds over American cities. The information that the British Government provided to Bush was contained in a dossier entitled, “Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation.” It was released to journalists on February 3, 2003. The dossier purported to be newly gathered intelligence. On February 6, 2003, it was revealed by Julian Rush, on Channel 4 News in the United Kingdom, that portions of the dossier had been plagiarized from the thesis of a postgraduate student, Ibrahim al-Marashi, of Monterey, California, which was found on the Worldwide Web. http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2003-February/006615.html This is iron-clad proof that the dossier was known to be at least partly fraudulent six full weeks before the invasion, which took place on March 20, 2003. It is not possible that so crucial a fact could have remained unknown to the White House staff and the President personally. The only credible conclusion is that Bush chose to ignore it. On March 7, 2003, Mohamed el Baradei, head of International Atomic Energy Agency, denounced as forgeries the documents that purported to be correspondence relative to an inquiry made by Iraq about the purchase of uranium in Niger . Here are his words, “Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence if it emerges relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials.” http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/ It is impossible that so significant a development was not thoroughly studied and discussed at all levels in the White House. It is impossible that Bush was unaware of this development. He, therefore, chose to ignore it, and merely to prosecute his preconceived plan of invasion without let or hindrance. CHRONOLOGY RECAPPED January 28, 2003: Bush delivers SOTU address. February 6, 2003: British dossier shown fraudulent. March 7, 2003: Niger forgery denounced. March 20, 2003: Bush invades Iraq . DR. BROOKS MICK’S REBUTTAL OF MAY 25, 2006 “I have only a few moments here, but will try to get back to this later. Thomas Keyes says: ‘He (Dr. Mick) repeats the lie that Bush did not know in advance of the war that intelligence was faulty. But he neglects to mention that Downing Street’s intelligence dossier, to which Bush alluded in his 2003 State of the Union address, had been shown by the beginning of February of 2003 to include a plagiarized college thesis, and by the beginning of March of 2003 to be based, in part, on forged documents.’ 1) The college thesis to which he refers was written by the writer of the intelligence dossier. Thus it couldn't be plagiarism! One can't plagiarize oneself. 2) If he's talking about the memo which mentions the ‘fixing of data about the WMD,’ one would expect a multinational traveling linguist to know that, in British English, the use of ‘fixing’ does not mean altering, fudging, falsifying, or otherwise creating an erroneous impression about the WMD, but merely the GATHERING of data about WMD. One would EXPECT intelligence agencies to gather data about WMD. 3) And how would the various ‘revelations,’ most or all of which appear to be meaningless quibblings, which have come to light AFTER the start of the war have been known to Bush BEFORE the war? This piece is just the spinning of further left-wing misrepresentations to attempt to substantiate the unsubstantiated charge that Bush lied. I told Thomas that I could have written all his talking points for him. They come off a marxist (sic) website. It is, at its heart, simply the rewriting of the dictionary, trying to claim that an error made in good faith is a lie because it was wrong. Despicable. --Brooks” MY COMMENTS Dr. Mick’s item (1) is preposterous. Ibrahim al Marashi is an American college student from California . He doesn’t work for British intelligence. Does he really think he’s winning an argument when he puts an utterly absurd proposition in tow with a smart-aleck remark? His item (2) is equally preposterous. No, I didn’t mention and I didn’t mean the Downing Street Memo of 2006. Then he gets smart-alecky again, calling me a “multinational traveling linguist”, which he says in patent sarcasm, as if I had maintained such a thing pretentiously, when in reality it’s true At any rate, it’s irrelevant. I was talking about the dossier of February, 2003. His item (3) is pure stupidity. He is claiming that the revelations that I documented above as having been made before the invasion, were actually made after. And he calls them “quibblings” yet! I can understand how a casual observer might not know the exact timeline, but why doesn’t the doctor check online to see if his guesswork has any merit before he logs on in the rebuttal section in order to type a lot of nonsense? In his afterword, Dr. Mick’s calls hard, documented facts by the name of “left-wing misrepresentations” and says that they came from a Marxist website, which is of course a stupid, slanderous gibe. I admit Dr. Mick is good at snide remarks, but what I’m trying to descry is the truth. I honestly don’t think he understands. Incidentally, spelling “Marxist” as “marxist” is not a typographical error. He also writes “muslim” and “islam”, and perhaps other proper nouns without capitals. He thinks this is cute. ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
