He maintained that he really brought anthrax to the UN that day. Which either means he was one of the most reckless people on the planet or that you can’t trust a word he said. We’ll probably never know now.
I think that’s the craziest thing. Significant numbers of people were calling them out on their lies while they were saying them and they still managed to get massive amounts of support to invade Iraq.
I’d have to double check, but I’m pretty sure everything they found was just old stock they already knew about that hadn’t been safely disposed of yet.The US finally got rid of the last of it’s chemical weapons stock.
They made a big deal about high grade aluminum cylinders they found because they could have been used for uranium enrichment, but they were really just intended for components in regular missiles. The guy who ordered them got needlessly high quality aluminum basically because when you live in a dictatorship failure could end in your execution.
David Kelly, the UK weapons inspector, who lead dozens of UN teams to Iraq and inspected facilities and sites first hand said Saddam was committed to developing chemical and nuclear weapons. That’s the guy who’s been there under the UN banner, the guy judged trustworthy to lead an international team. And that was partly based on what they found, partly on how Saddam had excavated previous weapon decommissioning sites to recover parts, and partly because Saddam and his team would repeatedly lie at every turn. Kelly regarded all of the “ready to launch in 45 mins” as made up bullshit, and he repeatedly contradicted the UK and US governments when they tried to make the threat sound more immediate. So despite calling out all the politics bullshit, Kelly was still a supporter of regime change because it was - speaking as someone who’d dealt with Saddam repeatedly - the only way to stop a man who’d used chemical weapons before using them again…
France as well! Republicans gave us French so much shit for standing up to the US and refuse to support the invasion. “Freedom fries”, “Surrender monkeys” and all that crap.
Refusing to get pressured into wartime adventurism was absolutely the right move, and the French said so at the time despite the juvenile insults being tossed their way by our dimmest politicians.
I remember when Republicans tried to hit Obama for going on an “apology tour” after W and his clowns trashed our most cherished alliances.
The worst part is that they’re too cynical or stupid to be embarrassed for themselves.
Freedom fries… hehehe je trouve encore ça drôle. À bien ý penser c’était un des premiers signes de la transformation débile de la politîque américaine.
Was he wrong though? I recall plenty of people were against the war in principal, and loads of people were sceptical of the government’s WMD line (am speaking from a British point of view). But there was not as I recall any actual evidence that the wmd thing was made up. David Kelly (UK weapons expert) leak didn’t happen till after the invasion. As well as the invasion itself obviously turning up no evidence. But before there were no leaks or counter claims. It was just down to whether you trusted the government or not. Which is what I think Sam’s right about - if that’s what he’s saying.
A lot of people knew it was utter bullshit then. Millions of people protested the war and close to 50% of people were opposed it in many of the countries which participated.
Sam Harris’s whitewashing of his cheerleading of a war which resulted in a million deaths and destabilisation of an entire region is sheer cowardice.
UN weapons inspectors prior to the invasion found no evidence of WMDs. If I recall correctly, there were also quite a few leftist publications that were correctly calling out the lies told. Don’t have time currently to dig.
I think it definitely is the more widespread story that the lies were only identified after the fact, especially with publications like the NYT carrying water for the Bush administration.
You see… this is the issue. This idea has been passed around second hand so many times people are convinced there was no evidence or reason to suspect a WMD program. The idea the US government made it all up out of thin air for neocon warmongering reasons is too juicy to ignore…
HOWEVER
The UN weapons inspections DID find plenty of evidence to be concerned about, and Saddam’s provable track record of chemical weapon use AND lying AND concealment only made it harder to know what was going on. One of the lead inspectors, British weapons expert David Kelly, who led missions to Iraqii factories and staff sites dozens of times said…
“despite the steps taken, Saddam refuse[d] to acknowledge the extent of his chemical and biological weapons and associated military and industrial support organisations [and there was still a concern about] 8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents [which] remained unaccounted for from activities up to 1991”
David Kelly thought the “launch in 45 minutes” claim was bollocks. He also thought various US attempts to say certain equipment could be quickly turned into launch vehicles or chemical weapons processing plants was also bollocks. He also said the link to Al-Qaeda was bollocks.
However, he wrote an entire article for a British newspaper outlining how based on evidence he had personally seen as a part of UN sanctioned missions, Saddam was committed to a chemical weapons programs, their use was inevitable, and only regime change would stop it.
“Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use…The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq’s development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction—something that only regime change will avert.”
David Kelly killed himself shortly after the war started because he name was publicly outed as a critic of the “45 minute” dossier. Conspiracy theories abound. But centre on Kelly undermining the British and American governments - which is why “supposedly” they had him killed.
But even he - a distinguished weapons expert, known internationally, with decades of experience, dozens of missions to Iraq, who inspected Iraqii equipment personally, and who thought the US and UK governments were full of shit exaggerating - even he believed the evidence was such that regime change was the right thing to do, to avert chemical / nuclear disaster.
There was never any good evidence, it was always “trust the CIA!”
Well, if you put it that way… no.
Iraq is nowhere near Afghanistan either.
And the US has international weapons inspectors in Iraq annually after the first war. They posed no threat to us… we still had a frickin no fly zone over half the damned country, what were they going to do?
David Kelly, British weapons inspector who lead multiple UN missions to inspect Iraqi facilities (and deal with their bullshit) first hand…
didn’t believe their mobilisation was advanced
thought many of the exaggerations the US and UK came up with were utter bullshit
didn’t believe there was any Al-Qaeda connection
didn’t believe chem weapons could be fired in 45 minutes
But DID
state the “concealed” Iraqii chemical weapons program was real
said “8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents remained unaccounted for”
believed Saddam was committed to deception around the program and had provably recovered chemical weapons equipment from decommission sites after inspectors had left
stated Saddam’s use of chemical weapons was inevitable
stated only regime change could stop it
And this is the guy conspiracy theorists think got assassinated because he was too opposed to the governments. Even he argued that what he’d seen showed Saddam should be forcably toppled…
Maybe it’s because I grew up in a conservative area, but most of the people in my area bought the WMD thing hook, line, and sinker. Granted, I don’t even think a lot of people needed even that much of an excuse to support going to war. There was a lot of anger after 9/11 and a lot of people who couldn’t tell the difference between Iraq and Iran wanted to bomb the middle east and the Dubya administration was more than happy to tap into that anger.
Aside from Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi meeting with Osama Bin Laden and being labeled as an extremist by him which led him to going back to Iraq to partake in leaving the Iraqi militancy movement.
Living through an event isnt the same thing as being knowledgeable about it.
But it can definitely help to understand the background before the event which is something that wouldn’t typically be captured by regular news reports.
There are dangers with just “experiencing” a thing. Most of us that experienced it were just watching whatever news cast or government speech we chose that was currently being broadcast. Even if you were directly affected by 9/11 by being near it, you really didn’t have any more tangible information about what caused it than all the stuff that’s come out since then.
I saw the rubble in person, I smelled the fuel/whatever that stench was. (seriously I’ve smelled decay, that wasn’t decay) But for seeing it I got no better information than someone sitting at home watching a TV.
In fact it might have been worse because at the time we were all blindly angry. We weren’t wrong to be angry, but people don’t think clearly in those conditions. Meanwhile politicians are brainstorming spin and advantage. Military contractors are spinning up presentations to prepare for the upcoming bids.
Living through an event isnt the same thing as being knowledgeable about it. eg. There are plenty of 911 truthers that were around when 911 happened.
And they think everyone just ate the WMDs in Iraq thing. No, I was there at the protests. Many of us knew it was a bullshit excuse.
The only thing Iraq and Al Qaeda had in common was the Q. We knew that then.
This fucken clown.
He maintained that he really brought anthrax to the UN that day. Which either means he was one of the most reckless people on the planet or that you can’t trust a word he said. We’ll probably never know now.
And it was obvious that they’d already decided to invade Iraq long before Powell’s infamous UN presentation.
The US has contingency plans filed to invade every country on the planet.
Would like to see the Vatican ones lol
His career really got started with covering up the May Lai massacre and got worse from there.
So you’re telling me the “a” is a conspiracy? Interesting… nods profusely
I think that’s the craziest thing. Significant numbers of people were calling them out on their lies while they were saying them and they still managed to get massive amounts of support to invade Iraq.
That’s because Saddam did have as chemical weapons program, it just wasn’t advanced as the US/UK governments wanted to believe it was…
I’d have to double check, but I’m pretty sure everything they found was just old stock they already knew about that hadn’t been safely disposed of yet.The US finally got rid of the last of it’s chemical weapons stock.
They made a big deal about high grade aluminum cylinders they found because they could have been used for uranium enrichment, but they were really just intended for components in regular missiles. The guy who ordered them got needlessly high quality aluminum basically because when you live in a dictatorship failure could end in your execution.
David Kelly, the UK weapons inspector, who lead dozens of UN teams to Iraq and inspected facilities and sites first hand said Saddam was committed to developing chemical and nuclear weapons. That’s the guy who’s been there under the UN banner, the guy judged trustworthy to lead an international team. And that was partly based on what they found, partly on how Saddam had excavated previous weapon decommissioning sites to recover parts, and partly because Saddam and his team would repeatedly lie at every turn. Kelly regarded all of the “ready to launch in 45 mins” as made up bullshit, and he repeatedly contradicted the UK and US governments when they tried to make the threat sound more immediate. So despite calling out all the politics bullshit, Kelly was still a supporter of regime change because it was - speaking as someone who’d dealt with Saddam repeatedly - the only way to stop a man who’d used chemical weapons before using them again…
Got any book recommendations or anything? I’d love to read more.
I’ve heard Sam Harris talk about how we only knew the end story was bs afterwards, and that there was no credible opposition…
Canada Not following USA into that war should should have been a good clue
France as well! Republicans gave us French so much shit for standing up to the US and refuse to support the invasion. “Freedom fries”, “Surrender monkeys” and all that crap.
Refusing to get pressured into wartime adventurism was absolutely the right move, and the French said so at the time despite the juvenile insults being tossed their way by our dimmest politicians.
I remember when Republicans tried to hit Obama for going on an “apology tour” after W and his clowns trashed our most cherished alliances.
The worst part is that they’re too cynical or stupid to be embarrassed for themselves.
Freedom fries… hehehe je trouve encore ça drôle. À bien ý penser c’était un des premiers signes de la transformation débile de la politîque américaine.
Well, there was trickle down economics before that. Reagan was the downfall.
You hear all about Freedom Fries, but I’ve never heard of Freedom Toast.
Or Freedom Kiss.
Sam used to be cool. I’m so disappointed in him.
Sam was never cool. You were duped.
You’re right.
I’ve heard him say so many bad takes. I used to really like the guy too
What do you mean someone who tries to sell a theory on objective scientific morality has many bad takes?
To be fair, I was a fan before that point.
Was he wrong though? I recall plenty of people were against the war in principal, and loads of people were sceptical of the government’s WMD line (am speaking from a British point of view). But there was not as I recall any actual evidence that the wmd thing was made up. David Kelly (UK weapons expert) leak didn’t happen till after the invasion. As well as the invasion itself obviously turning up no evidence. But before there were no leaks or counter claims. It was just down to whether you trusted the government or not. Which is what I think Sam’s right about - if that’s what he’s saying.
A lot of people knew it was utter bullshit then. Millions of people protested the war and close to 50% of people were opposed it in many of the countries which participated.
Sam Harris’s whitewashing of his cheerleading of a war which resulted in a million deaths and destabilisation of an entire region is sheer cowardice.
UN weapons inspectors prior to the invasion found no evidence of WMDs. If I recall correctly, there were also quite a few leftist publications that were correctly calling out the lies told. Don’t have time currently to dig.
I think it definitely is the more widespread story that the lies were only identified after the fact, especially with publications like the NYT carrying water for the Bush administration.
You see… this is the issue. This idea has been passed around second hand so many times people are convinced there was no evidence or reason to suspect a WMD program. The idea the US government made it all up out of thin air for neocon warmongering reasons is too juicy to ignore…
HOWEVER
The UN weapons inspections DID find plenty of evidence to be concerned about, and Saddam’s provable track record of chemical weapon use AND lying AND concealment only made it harder to know what was going on. One of the lead inspectors, British weapons expert David Kelly, who led missions to Iraqii factories and staff sites dozens of times said…
“despite the steps taken, Saddam refuse[d] to acknowledge the extent of his chemical and biological weapons and associated military and industrial support organisations [and there was still a concern about] 8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents [which] remained unaccounted for from activities up to 1991”
David Kelly thought the “launch in 45 minutes” claim was bollocks. He also thought various US attempts to say certain equipment could be quickly turned into launch vehicles or chemical weapons processing plants was also bollocks. He also said the link to Al-Qaeda was bollocks.
However, he wrote an entire article for a British newspaper outlining how based on evidence he had personally seen as a part of UN sanctioned missions, Saddam was committed to a chemical weapons programs, their use was inevitable, and only regime change would stop it.
“Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use…The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq’s development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction—something that only regime change will avert.”
You can read it yourself here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/aug/31/huttonreport.iraq
David Kelly killed himself shortly after the war started because he name was publicly outed as a critic of the “45 minute” dossier. Conspiracy theories abound. But centre on Kelly undermining the British and American governments - which is why “supposedly” they had him killed.
But even he - a distinguished weapons expert, known internationally, with decades of experience, dozens of missions to Iraq, who inspected Iraqii equipment personally, and who thought the US and UK governments were full of shit exaggerating - even he believed the evidence was such that regime change was the right thing to do, to avert chemical / nuclear disaster.
There was never any good evidence, it was always “trust the CIA!”
Well, if you put it that way… no.
Iraq is nowhere near Afghanistan either. And the US has international weapons inspectors in Iraq annually after the first war. They posed no threat to us… we still had a frickin no fly zone over half the damned country, what were they going to do?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones_conflict
Fascinating history, but the war against Iraq never really ended. We were constantly bombing Iraq on the daily 1999 through 2003.
David Kelly, British weapons inspector who lead multiple UN missions to inspect Iraqi facilities (and deal with their bullshit) first hand…
But DID
And this is the guy conspiracy theorists think got assassinated because he was too opposed to the governments. Even he argued that what he’d seen showed Saddam should be forcably toppled…
Maybe it’s because I grew up in a conservative area, but most of the people in my area bought the WMD thing hook, line, and sinker. Granted, I don’t even think a lot of people needed even that much of an excuse to support going to war. There was a lot of anger after 9/11 and a lot of people who couldn’t tell the difference between Iraq and Iran wanted to bomb the middle east and the Dubya administration was more than happy to tap into that anger.
Aside from Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi meeting with Osama Bin Laden and being labeled as an extremist by him which led him to going back to Iraq to partake in leaving the Iraqi militancy movement.
But it can definitely help to understand the background before the event which is something that wouldn’t typically be captured by regular news reports.
There are dangers with just “experiencing” a thing. Most of us that experienced it were just watching whatever news cast or government speech we chose that was currently being broadcast. Even if you were directly affected by 9/11 by being near it, you really didn’t have any more tangible information about what caused it than all the stuff that’s come out since then.
I saw the rubble in person, I smelled the fuel/whatever that stench was. (seriously I’ve smelled decay, that wasn’t decay) But for seeing it I got no better information than someone sitting at home watching a TV.
In fact it might have been worse because at the time we were all blindly angry. We weren’t wrong to be angry, but people don’t think clearly in those conditions. Meanwhile politicians are brainstorming spin and advantage. Military contractors are spinning up presentations to prepare for the upcoming bids.
Most people don’t understand the events they live through let alone the background of them, so, no.
“Most” is not all.
Plus each person has their own perspective on an event, even if it is just their singular isolated life.
Til that most != all. Thanks for the English lesson.
To be fair. Truthers for 9/11 don’t disbelief in the event ala Holocaust Deniers or “Covid Truthers”
They believe that the event was arranged by the US government in order to go to War… which many believed at the time and still do “No blood for oil.”
January 6th too