"Smoking gun" WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide

incorrect.

cnn and other embeds are playing the viewers like a violin.

its clear the embeds are making these reports before the pentagon even knows things have been found.

think about it.

".. turned out to contain pesticide, not sarin gas as feared."

... what a fucking surprise, they will have to secretly import their own shit, lable it with arabic kauderwelsh ... and there you go ... we finaly found a smoking gun ..

btw: my sources at the CIA tell me, shippment is on the way ...

LMAO

i disagree. the psychological war against the american people is very much about innuendo being picked up on by a Drudge-ified irresponsible media.

"could be, maybe, sources say, possible, might be, should, could"

That is at one site. There is another site outside Karbala that is still being investigated.

how can you disagree?

I read the news articles online and heard it on CNN WAY BEFORE a pentagon briefing.

Its not hard to grasp that the info hits the streets THEN the pentagon makes a statement regarding it, because the embeds are with the units.

That Ryan Chicolte guy was with the unit who found the drums of chemicals. Rumsfield was nowhere around. CNN had the news, it leaked out THEN its on the net.

I dont see how you can say the pentagon is playing people like a violin, when its the media that releases the INACCURATE info first.

How come the military still cant find the WMD in Iraq?

I know Im no military expert or anything... however, I DO know where to find a WMD.

Hey Mr. Bush....It's over in N. Korea.

ladies and gentleman, the winner of RIGHT WING ZEALOT of the year....all the way from the battlefields of the Michigan Militia, and a longtime subscriber to the Limbaugh letter...theking.

"Thank you very much. I'd like to thank FoxNews, and my sources at debka.com for providing me with the unbiased truth."

Youve been played perfectly.

Now you want a N. Korea conflict.

Welcome to World War 3 ya fucking boob.

That would be fun

Read Now....

***********************
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/09...endence+.shtml

Embedded media give up independence

By Robert Jensen, 4/7/2003

UST AS the Pentagon developed increasingly sophisticated munitions for the battlefield abroad, it has perfected propaganda to secure public opinion at home. In that battle, American citizens need critical, independent journalists if they are to get the information necessary to participate meaningfully in the formation of policy. Never has that been more crucial, as the United States unleashes an attack on Iraq that signals a new era of the use of force. Unfortunately, in the first few days of the conflict and the months leading to war, American journalism has largely failed on several counts.


Citizens in a democracy should be able to expect from journalists:

a trustworthy source of facts gathered independently of powerful institutions.

the historical, political, and social context to help make sense of facts.

the widest range of opinion to allow people to test their own conclusions against alternatives.

Factual information from journalists in the first days of the war has come overwhelmingly from government briefings and reporters ''embedded'' in military units. Such briefings are never a source of trustworthy news; reporters have few ways to verify what the military officers and government officials tell them, and history suggests we should expect officials to omit crucial information and fudge on facts. During the Vietnam War, Pentagon spokesmen kept insisting in news briefings that they could ''see the light at the end of the tunnel.''

Embedded journalists will be allowed to report most of what they see, so long as the war is going well for US forces. But as part of the deal, reporters accept censorship as the military deems necessary and they must travel with their units; an attempt to secure independent transportation will get them shipped home. If Operation Iraqi Freedom runs into trouble, will the Pentagon make it easy for reporters to cover the ugly side of the war?

By accepting the Pentagon system, journalists trade independence for access to troops and a front-row seat to the battles. So far, the embedded reporters have sent back mostly human-interest stories about the lives of the troops and celebratory accounts of high-tech weaponry. Some of this is poignant and dramatic, but it also creates an image of war quite different from the chaotic, brutal reality, as we saw when coalition casualties began to mount and footage of US POWs was broadcast on Iraqi television.

The context and analysis necessary to turn facts into real understanding is largely missing, especially from television news. When Bush administration officials talk of bringing democracy to Iraq, for example, few reporters explain that the United States has supported -- and continues to support -- undemocratic regimes in the region, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Why does the US commitment to democracy surface only when it serves as justification for war? Some history and analysis here would be helpful, but journalists rarely press such points.

The range of opinion in journalism, particularly on television, stretches from A to B. Current government officials are ''balanced'' by former government officials on the talk shows. Retired military officers ''critique'' current military officers. Super-hawks debate regular-strength hawks, joined by an occasional conflicted moderate. Critics of US policy do appear -- usually only in sound-bite footage from protest rallies, a format that makes it difficult to develop an argument that sounds sensible.

None of these observations is meant to disparage the excellent work of many war correspondents. But journalists are constrained by the demands of the institutions in which they work (more concerned with ratings and profits than critical reporting) and the ideology of the society (which in wartime tends to demand conformity to reflexive patriotism and nationalism). In such a world, the routines of ''objective'' journalism -- which overwhelmingly rely on official sources, mainly from government, military and corporations, and the intellectuals who serve them -- not surprisingly produces a view of the world skewed toward the powerful.

At times, this system produces TV reports in which it is difficult to separate journalists from the government. Recently CBS News's Jim Axelrod, embedded with the Third Infantry, discussed an intelligence briefing he sat in on and said, ''We've been given orders.'' Realizing the implications of what he said, he revised himself: ''Soldiers have been given orders.'' On that same day, NBC anchor Tom Brokaw began reporting on ''how successful we were'' in a battle before correcting himself: how successful ''the United States was.'' The anchors were similarly American-centric as they had more somber news to report, including Marines engaged in heavy fighting in southern Iraq and a British jet shot down by a Patriot missile, killing two airmen.

Journalists should worry about what those slips of their tongues say about their ability to be independent and honest. So should the American people, if we are serious about democracy.

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author of ''Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream.''

blah blah blah.

journalists and reporters are liars.

theyve only referred to this as 'chemical weapons' why do they keep saying 'WEAPONS?'

its barrels of chemicals, yet they continue to say weapons.

instigating word choosers who like to use the right words to convey the message.

<a href=http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=2C9C5C7D-1F1D-408A-9C8523F1D85EB3AC>possible chemical weapons found</a>

I am not a right winger except in the area of defence. I am a moderate, with liberal leanings. I have not listened to Limbaugh since he had a TV program and even then only for the comedic value. Limbaugh is a fucking joke. Feel free though, to continue to spread your BS.

i watched the limbaugh show tv also. that was a good show. almost as good as the old morton downey jr.

that big fucking ashtray he has was awesome.

finding liters of anthrax and chemicals in a country the size of california isnt that easy

The Voice of America and the Domestic Propaganda Battles, 1945-1953
David F. Krugler
In The Voice of America and the Domestic Propaganda Battles, 1945-1953, David F. Krugler examines the troubled existence of the Voice of America (VOA), the U.S. government's international shortwave radio agency, following World War II.
As tensions with the Soviet Union grew into the Cold War, the U.S. government, under the leadership of President Harry S. Truman, carried out various programs aimed at halting the expansion of communism. The Voice of America, with its legislative mandate to tell the world about the American people and to explain the nation's foreign policies, quickly cast itself as the ideological arm of the new policy of containment, seeking to keep the world informed about the United States while also refuting Soviet international propaganda.

Although the VOA was part of the broad-based U.S. anticommunist initiative, it experienced constant problems between 1945 and 1953, including congressional investigations, slashed budgets, canceled transmitter construction projects, and chronic neglect by its operating agency, the State Department, and other national security bodies.

Krugler explains that the VOA's troubles, the "domestic propaganda battles," were the result of the rivalries that shaped American politics during these years. Most disruptive were the Republican drive to roll back the New Deal; the ongoing contest between conservative members of Congress and the Truman administration to define the proper prerogatives of the executive branch in foreign affairs; the use of foreign policies or issues to serve partisan, even personal, aims; and intra-executive branch disputes over the VOA's proper purposes.

By focusing on the VOA's domestic problems, The Voice of America and the Domestic Propaganda Battles, 1945-1953 makes an original contribution to the subject of propaganda during the Cold War.

You believe what you read on an Editorial to be factual? lol

If the embedded is censored then how the Geraldo incident got aired? there was several incidents that i seen to prove me that
they aren't censored(they get bitched at for talking operational stuff)

As a matter of fact alot of the assumptions made from the media intially started from the embedded and time after time the pentagon had to downplay everything

Crop-dusting missiles ?

Report: U.S. Finds Missiles with Chemical Weapons
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Apr7.html

like finding an IQ on GFY higher than 10.

I agree that our the government is having it exactly as they want. If you don't think the government has a direct hand in what is shown on CNN etc you are mistaken. Not only do they do it for counter intelligence but also to keep public opinion up. While you think CNN just has crappy reporting and the government is the holy source they are laughing their ass all the way to higher ratings.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...bating+the+war

lets finish the war first,

also its quite possible that WMD locations already had blown up, enough bombs have been dropped anyways

... wait a minute, what about chemical ali ... give him a good body search and you´ll find what weapon inspectors couldn´t find !!

You conspiracy people really are funny,

CNN is not the only newsource. there is thousands of different media sources and i can not see how it is possible to control the entire media. Internet, magazines, newspapers, this shit is real time.

Hell i seen headlines from New York times and it sounds like the US military is getting their ass kicked. and CNN has been accused of reporting negative stuff from the War. They don't even call it "Operation Iraqi Freedom" or even show the US flag. Why would the US government allow this? Why do they show anti-war protest? The US gov' is doing a hell of a job censorship alright



i read all the different sources and make my own decision

FYI, pesticideds are used in the production of WMD, plus there are several sites under investigation at the moment....
It's going to take a while before they find all the sites.
Anyways, whatever is found will no be sufficient proof for the anti-war and the arabs.
Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

yup...conspiracy people certainly are dumb.

Oh come on. Give yourself a little credit. I'd say you're IQ is at least 20.

What is so idiotic about this whole argument is that Iraq is not that different in size/population than California. You could create chemical weapons in a lab no bigger than a meth lab. Let's say there's 5 smaller chemical weapons labs in Iraq (there's probably more). Imagine trying to find 5 labs in all of California. My neighbor could be manufacturing chemical agents and I wouldn't even know it.

The labs could be underground. They could have been shipped off to Syria. Who the fuck knows? But, I do think they'll find some.

There's still in attack mode. They've hardly even progressed to the stage of the war where they'll be able to effectively search for chem weapons.

what the heck does that prove? you just show me a graphic from a site that is bunch of tree huggers
http://www.corporations.org/solutions/

There is a second site. The one where the agents were found already loaded into rockets. And, you know what? If they are loading pesticides into rockets, then they are still using chemical weapons.

"They've hardly even progressed to the stage of the war where they'll be able to effectively search for chem weapons."

... and the excuse will be: "sorry, we destroyed everything, but this plant was used to build WMD´s."

... wake up baby boy, it´s not about WMD´s, it´s about the liberation of the poor people of iraq. thing is, they don´t want to be liberated, so you gotta fight them ... makes sense ??

someone post that pic of the retard getting that trophy. Funkmaster has won that prize.

It's not a conspiracy theory. Do you honestly think our government would allow embedded reporters to go in and report every last detail without their approval? No they don't call the Pentagon before a news report but there is damn sure a commanding officer there that knows what should and shouldn't be shown. They pick and choose what they want you to see.

exactly.

and what would a commander want more than to have his platoon on live tv, CNN perhaps, finding chemical WEAPONS?

so it was reported as such.

... I don´t accept prices, except money !

dude i been watching this stuff from day one, watched the big three channels with embedded journalists, plus seen the bbc and other stuff from the net, newspapers, magazine

The embedded use thier own equipment, the videos and phones are comming straight from their news companies satellites systems.

Does the pentagon know what gets shown? you bet they are. they gotta make sure they don't report operational stuff.
Will they know before its reported? No, one good example Geraldo,
so how can they pick and choose what i see?

incidentally the coverage of this war is a 1000 times better than Gulf War I. Go read the latest Newsweek. After reading it you'll think the U.S. is days from surrendering. Go watch 60 minutes or Nightline. All owned by HUGE corporations. The media may be controlled by less companies, but it's comprised of tens of thousands of individuals who all have their own opinions.

The coverage of this war has been more anti-war than pro-war.

You mean like the cs gas that bush has authorized the us military to use?
Or when you say "still using", do you mean like the stuff reagan/bush provided to saddam for use against iran or others we didnt like?

What is the "stuff" that "reagan/bush" provided to "saddam"?

The media is a bit crazed to get the "story"... last night I was watching Fox News when the US was in front of Sadam's palace in Baghdad. The reporter at the desk talking to the embed had such a fucking hard on that they had the "Exclusive, only on Fox" report. When he saw a soldier in the background carrying an American flag, he instantly pronounced that "we're watching history unfold, the American flag is about to be raised over Sadam's house!"
He was literally quivering in delight.
Of course when the soldiers were interviewed, they were adamant in that they had no intention to "raise" any flags anywhere in Bahgdad.
The Fox guy looked heartbroken.
They all want "the scoop" so damn bad.

Read all about it

"The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

"the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications"

"A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare"


If you want to know more just do a google search. This all fits with the reagan/bush history of dealing with terrorists (arms for hostages, central america, etc) and having no problem with terrorism as long as it was used against people we didnt like.

This is old news...and has come out in bits and pieces before. No where does it say that Regean/Bush authorized the sale of anything. American companies sold materials (that had dual use capabilities) to Iraq, and other countries as well, that at the time were not proscribed by the Commerce Department. Much as medical drugs are sold that the FDA has on the approved list today and that may be removed from the approved list next week. When it was learned, by our intelligence agencies, what Iraq was doing with these materials the Administration ordered the Commerce Department to ban the sale of certain materials to Iraq. Even after certain materials were banned some American companies continued to sell proscribed materials and paid consequences. This is old news and the only thing that makes it new news is it is being provided by a different source. It is absolute BS that the American government knowlingy provided Iraq with materials for the purpose of manufacturing "weapons grade" materials for WMD's.

Conspirists and USA haters will never be convinced. It is difficult to educate idiots.

Well, that part is certainly true.

Sorry to hear that. Did the kids in school pick on you much for being "mentally challenged"?

and redneck morons will never be convinced that Reagan et al represents rich folks ONLY, hates people like you, and feeds you propaganda which you swallow like a pig at the trough.


http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/...ban/index.html

April 7, 2003 | KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) -- Before executing the International Red Cross worker, the Taliban gunmen made a satellite telephone call to their superior for instructions: Kill him?


Kill him, the order came back, and Ricardo Munguia, whose body was found with 20 bullet wounds last month, became the first foreign aid worker to die in Afghanistan since the Taliban's ouster from power 18 months ago.


The manner of his death suggests the Taliban is not only determined to remain a force in this country, but is reorganizing and reviving its command structure.


There is little to stop them. The soldiers and police who were supposed to be the bedrock of a stable postwar Afghanistan have gone unpaid for months and are drifting away.
--------

Taliban takes back Afghanistan, Bush says 'Tali-who?'

That's the French Press. That's no freaking source, they want Iraq to win the damn war.

Do a who is on afp.com

It has been reported that materials found at the Karbala site have been sent to the States more sophisticated testing and/or varification.

Just because the drums were tagged Pesticide means nothing. Did anyone think they would say "ANTHRAX" on them?? lol

If I saw a drum that said pesticide I'd stay the hell away from it. Which most likely was what they wanted.