Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » SHRED » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
SHRED's Journal
Posted by SHRED in Media
Sat Feb 02nd 2008, 12:37 PM
---

Oh that darned "librul media".


---

Pelley continued in this vein, asking: "As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? How could he have wanted his country to be invaded?"

This bizarre scenario in which Saddam Hussein "wanted his country to be invaded" and decided to "choose war with the United States" was spelled out most clearly in the online version of 60 Minutes' story, which asserted: "Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did."

In fact, far from not admitting that he had no weapons of mass destruction, Hussein and other Iraqi officials continually stated that they had no such weapons in the months before the invasion. One of the clearest such statements came directly from Hussein on Pelley's own network, when CBS anchor Dan Rather scored an exclusive interview with Hussein that aired on 60 Minutes II on February 26, 2003.

Hussein told Rather that Iraq was permitted to have missiles of a limited range under existing United Nations resolutions. As for weapons of mass destruction, Hussein offered a clear response:

RATHER: Saddam also rejected Bush administration allegations that besides the missile delivery system, he still has weapons of mass destruction.

HUSSEIN: I think America and the world also knows that Iraq no longer has the weapons. And I believe the mobilization that's been done was, in fact, done partly to cover the huge lie that was being waged against Iraq about chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. That is why, when you talk about such missiles, these missiles have been destroyed. There are no missiles that are contrary to the prescription of the United Nations in Iraq. They are no longer there.

Hussein explained that Iraq "was empty, was void of any such weapons," but that his government accepted U.N. resolutions "in order to make the case absolutely clear that Iraq was no longer in possession of any such...weapons." U.S. reporters treated such statements as patently false.

MORE:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3255


---
Discuss (1 comments) | Recommend (1 votes)
Profile Information
Profile Picture
SHRED
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
Ted
5996 posts
Member since Sat Nov 22nd 2003
Leucadia, CA
Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Hey, McCain voter...
By MrScorpio
"Race Matters"
By WillYourVoteBCounted
Voting Question
By FLyellowdog
Evildoers Quaking in Their Boots
By WillYourVoteBCounted
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.