When the going gets tough, the Bush administration launches a public relations campaign.
The latest [CNN, 11/8/05]:
Top White House officials say they’re developing a “campaign-style” strategy in response to increasing Democratic allegations that the Bush administration twisted intelligence to make its case for war. White House aides, who agreed to speak to CNN only on the condition of anonymity, said they hoped to increase what they called their “hit back” in coming days…
Sound familiar?
Washington Post, 9/30/04:
The Bush administration, battling negative perceptions of the Iraq war, is sending Iraqi Americans to deliver what the Pentagon calls “good news” about Iraq to U.S. military bases, and has curtailed distribution of reports showing increasing violence in that country. The unusual public-relations effort by the Pentagon and the U.S. Agency for International Development comes as details have emerged showing the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush’s reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.
Doyle McManus, PBS, 5/21/04:
So the president is going to give six major speeches in six weeks. There are six weeks between now and the turnover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 30th. And he is going to hammer away, try and make the case. And we’re told there is not going to be a major change of course.
CNN, 10/8/03:
The White House effort is meant to beat back its critics by focusing on local media to get out its message. The president, vice president and other senior administration officials will carry out this strategy through a series of speeches, interviews and trips around the country and abroad. “The president appreciates his role not only as commander in chief, but also how important it is to communicate and educate the public about Iraq, the war on terror and provide the context,” White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said.
And to think that Bill Kristol (11/5/05) tried to claim, “In fact, the administration has done amazingly little to confront, and discredit, attacks” from its critics.
Just what we need. Another PR campaign. How about a strategy? Anyone? McFly? McFly?
November 9th, 2005 at 1:43 pmcenk uygur at alternet has a view of what such a p.r. campaign will amount to…
“…he’s fallen and he can’t get up.”
he closes by calling george an “imbecile…”
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2005/11/man-is-imbecile.html
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/27973/
i think the “imbecile” might be stretching it a tad but i think he’s definitely down for the count… if we can just figure out how to get him out and not have to face the next three years…
November 9th, 2005 at 1:43 pmSpin is all they’ve got…
November 9th, 2005 at 1:45 pmThis is perhaps the worst thing about this administration. The country wants the party in charge, Republicans, to govern more and campaign less. As Bruce Reed wrote today regarding the modest gains Democrats made:
Unfortunately, it’s not just Republicans getting dragged into this administration’s woefully absent policy wonking and attention to the small details of everyday governance. We’re so underwhelmed by Bush this administration is expected to resort to a “campaign-style†response for every issue dragging them down instead of confronting and correcting them.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:51 pmGood. Every time they try to defend themselves they just make more people aware of their crimes.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:52 pmI hope Karen Hughes is in charge of this. She REALLY knows how to win over a sceptical audience. ;->
November 9th, 2005 at 1:54 pmThey have truly tried to spin there way out of every screw up, and by and large, with an ignorant public, they’ve succeeded.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:58 pmThe answer to our soldiers dying in Iraq, for a variety of reasons, was to spin some more. I guess two thousand dead americans got too heavy to spin.
“Spin is all they’ve got…
Comment by Darth Filibustrous — November 9, 2005 @ 1:45 pm ”
Unfortunately it has worked…the Dems have to be ready for the spin and counter it, without losing focus on the original issue. Every time the GOP has resorted to this the MSM has sucked up and only listened to the arguments, not the issues. I remember banging my head against the wall after the vets for truth came out with their bs about Kerry, calling him a liar when bush never even fought…
It’s like the trolls that trollop through here attacking words, skipping over the issue that’s being discussed, making personal attacks that does not answer anything, when will the country/MSM wake up (outside of this and similar blogs) and ignore them as the petty distractions they are?
November 9th, 2005 at 2:01 pmP.S. changed my name from “Chris” after seeing posts with the same handle, hopefully I’m the only Chris in this red state with the common sense to search out alternative news sources…if not, I’ll change it again
November 9th, 2005 at 2:03 pm… well, one can only hope that it will be as successful as his Social Security barnstorming was last summer …
November 9th, 2005 at 2:13 pm“The president appreciates his role not only as commander in chief, but also how important it is to communicate and educate the public about Iraq, the war on terror and provide the context”
Junior . . . communicate and educate??
November 9th, 2005 at 2:15 pmThis shit just keeps gettin’ funnier.
BUSH LIES AND COMMITS WAR CRIMES
Excerpt from “Lying for Empire: How to Commit War Crimes with a Straight Face”
George W. Bush handled Iraq WMD issues similarly to his predecessors until 9/11. The 9/11 tragedy provided the Bush administration with the rationale to expand the American Empire under the guise of a “war on terror”. The smoking gun for this argument is the decision to abandon Afghanistan in favour of a war against Iraq when it was well known that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11.
On September 16, 2002, Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, advised UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that Iraq would accept the return of UN weapon’s inspectors “without conditions.” Nevertheless, the United States was preparing to declare war against Iraq. President Bush asked Congress to approve a resolution giving him absolute authority to declare war on Iraq. This resolution passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23. The President signed the resolution on October 16, 2003.
While Washington was preparing for war, the United Nations was preparing to preserve the peace by resurrecting the inspection process. The United Nations adopted Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, authorizing further inspections, which Iraq had to accept or reject within seven days. The Resolution granted UNMOVIC (the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Committee) and the IAEA the right to inspect anywhere in Iraq with unconditional access. As well, Iraq had to provide an “accurate and complete” declaration of its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and related materials within 30 days. All violations of the Resolution had to be reported to the Security Council before any further action could be undertaken. Contrary to the U.S. interpretation, there was nothing in the Resolution that authorized the use of force. Paragraphs 4, 11, 12, and 14 specified that any assessment of Iraq’s compliance and any consequences that may follow must be debated by the Security Council and could not be acted on by any member state without authorization from the Security Council.
Dr. Hans Blix, executive chairman of UNMOVIC, provided an update to the Security Council on January 27, 2003, 60 days after the resumption of inspections. His report to the Security Council stated that:
Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field [cooperation]. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt…These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, nor do they exclude the possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise…In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members…All serve the United Nations and no one else. In the past two months during which we have built up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted over 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites…We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that the capability which has been built up in a short time and which is now operating is at the disposal of the Security Council.
On the same day as Hans Blix delivered his report on Iraqi’s biological and chemical weapons to the Security Council, the Director General of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, delivered his report on Iraq’s nuclear program. According to his report:
To verify this information (procurement of high strength aluminum tubes) IAEA inspectors have inspected the relevant rocket production and storage sites, taken tube samples…From our analysis to date it appears that the aluminum tubes would be consistent with the purpose stated by Iraq…I trust that the Council would continue its unified and unequivocal support for the inspection process in Iraq…To conclude: we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s. With our verification system now in place…we should be able [with Iraq’s cooperation] within the next few months to provide credible evidence that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.
The reports from the two inspection teams concluded that no evidence had been uncovered which demonstrated Iraq’s development or storage of WMD. Both reports emphasized that an inspection organization had been established in Iraq to monitor any further developments in Iraq’s WMD programs and to uncover any programs or weapons already in existence. Both reports reassured the Security Council that they are prepared to continue their work until they reach the point where the world will have confidence that Iraq no longer poses a threat.
The results of the inspection process were not known to the public other than presidential and administration pronouncements. These pronouncements contradicted the reports from the various inspection teams and were designed to set the stage for a war on Iraq.
On January 28, 2003, President Bush delivered his State of the Union Address to Congress in which the existence of the UN inspection process and the results of those inspections seemed to be ignored. During his address, he stated that
For the next twelve years [1991 to 2003], he [Saddam Hussein] systematically violated that agreement [UN Resolution 687]. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons…With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East. It has not been possible to verify Iraq’s claims with respect to the nature and magnitude of its proscribed weapons programmes and their current disposition…The Commission has not been able to conduct the substantive disarmament work…
President Bush also told the American people during his address that “Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraq’s illegal weapons” and reassured Americans that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm “we will lead a coalition to disarm him.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell contradicted all the data gathered by UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, and the IAEA when he appeared before the Security Council on February 5, 2003. He could not claim that American intelligence had knowledge of WMD which was unknown to the inspection teams. The U.S. would have had an absolute obligation to share that knowledge with the inspection teams. The Security Council is the official body which has the authority to conduct inspections and all nations on the Security Council voted to support this process. Furthermore Clause 10 in Resolution 1441 requires member states to hand over all relevant data to the inspection teams. In fact, Powell claimed that the Bush administration was providing the inspection teams with “all relevant information” on WMD. According to Scott Ritter, in Frontier Justice:
We now know that the U.S. held onto the best sites [for inspection] for exploitation by U.S. Special Operations Forces in the opening moments of Operation Iraqi Freedom, sites that turned out to be empty, but nevertheless had not been shared with the U.N. weapons inspectors.
Powell’s remarks to the Security Council include:
Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance…to come into compliance or face serious consequences….And to assist in its disarmament we called on Iraq to cooperate with returning inspectors from UNMOVIC and IAEA…Indeed the facts and Iraq’s behaviour show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.
The most critical flaw in Powell’s reasoning was his demand that Iraq prove that it has no WMD. It is almost impossible to prove a negative. Iraq could have produced copious photographs and massive documentation but that would not have proven that WMD did not exist. For example, biological weapons can be stored in a refrigerator. Did the Bush administration want Iraq to produce a photograph of every refrigerator in Iraq? How would you prove that biological weapons were not removed beforehand?
Powell also claimed that although Iraq had declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, “UNSCOM estimated that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters.” There is no evidence that Iraq had produced that quantity of anthrax. Scott Ritter, in Frontier Justice claims that:
Iraq produced the growth media [for anthrax] in question in the late 1980s, and it had a shelf life of five to seven years. The last known batch of anthrax manufactured in Iraq was in 1991, and the factory used by Iraq to produce anthrax was destroyed, together with its associated production equipment, under U.N. supervision in 1996. Iraq only produced liquid bulk anthrax, which under ideal storage conditions has a shelf life of three years before it germinates and becomes useless…For Iraq to have a viable anthrax stockpile, it would have needed to develop a new manufacturing base since 1999. And the UNMOVIC inspection regime under Hans Blix found no evidence of such a capability. Furthermore, Iraq has never been shown to have perfected the technique needed to produce the dry powder form of anthrax so graphically presented by Colin Powell when he held up his vial of simulated white powder.
In his remarks to the Security Council, Colin Powell presented a surveillance photograph and explained that:
…you see fifteen munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers…On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions.
Scott Ritter, in Frontier Justice exposes that lie when he reported that:
…a German weapons inspector from UNMOVIC had actually visited the site in question. Peter Franck, the inspector in question, told Der Spiegel magazine that he and his fellow inspectors had determined that the vehicles…were in fact nothing but fire trucks.
Colin Powell stated that:
…the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents…the description our sources gave us of the technical features required by such facilities are highly detailed and extremely accurate.
Dan Plesch, in a report titled “US Claim Dismissed by Blix”, in the Guardian International (February 5, 2003) proved that to be a lie when he claimed that:
Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived. Dr. Blix said he has already inspected two alleged mobile labs and found nothing.
Colin Powell claimed in his remarks to the Security Council and President Bush stated in his address to Congress that Iraq was acquiring materials to build nuclear weapons. Powell claimed that:
Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb….he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from eleven different countries, even after inspections resumed…they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium…Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
The executive director of the IAEA had reported to the Council that “From our analysis to date it appears that the aluminum tubes would be consistent with the purpose stated by Iraq.” An IAEA report concluded that the size of the tubes made them unsuitable for Uranium enrichment but were identical to tubes used for conventional artillery rockets. The claim that Saddam Hussein had purchased nuclear material was based on forged documents handed to the U.S. from Britain whose source was the Italian intelligence service. Italian intelligence bought the forged documents from a corrupt Niger embassy official in Rome. Forged documents are not an excuse for being deceived by bad intelligence when a very competent inspection team had already reported that Iraq did not pose a nuclear threat. It is incumbent on the U.S. to carefully verify the credibility of a source before making important decisions based on that intelligence.
Colin Powell’s remarks to the Security Council were crammed with lies. Ignoring all the Blix inspection team’s data, he chose to base his report on sources which were highly inferior to the competent on-site work of the inspectors. The tail was clearly wagging the dog. Washington decided to bomb Iraq and to produce information in order to, in Noam Chomsky’s words, “manufacture consent” for war.
On February 14, 2003, Hans Blix updated the Security Council on the results of UNMOVIC’s inspections. His report contradicted President Bush, Colin Powell, and other members of the administration who had been condemning Iraq for continuing to hide and build WMD. According to Hans Blix:
Since I reported to the Security Council on 27 January, UNMOVIC has had two further weeks of operational and analytical work in New York and active inspection in Iraq…Through the inspections conducted so far, we have obtained a good knowledge of the scientific and industrial landscape of Iraq, as well as of its missile capability but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner. Inspections are helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to some absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002…This impression [cooperation on process] remains, and we do note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences…How much, if any, is left of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed.
In all their public statements about WMD in IRAQ, the Bush administration’s evaluation of the progress of the inspection teams in Iraq differed substantially from those of the inspection teams. This raises the question of where the U.S. obtained their information. Since the inspection teams were never criticized for their incompetence, and since the U.S. was required to hand over any information in their possession about WMD, the only possible conclusion is that the Bush Administration was exploiting the inspection process to suit their own purposes. On April 9, 2003, after the bombing had started, Hans Blix was very candid about his opinion of American motives. Following are some of Hans Blix’s comments:
* “There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance. Sometimes this raises doubts about their attitude to the [weapons] inspections.” (Spanish daily El Pais)
* “I now believe that finding weapons of mass destruction has been relegated, I would say, to fourth place, which is why the United States and Britain are now waging war on Iraq.”
* “Today the main aim is to change the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein” (Spanish daily El Pais)
* The war was “a very high price to pay in terms of human lives and the destruction of a country” when the threat of weapons proliferation could have been contained by UN inspections.
(Hans Blix: War Planned `Long in Advance’, from News24)
In addition to warning Americans about WMD, the Bush administration linked Al Qaeda to Iraq. According to Washington, the attack on Iraq was part of the war on terrorism. The propaganda was so effective that at one point a majority of Americans believed that Iraq was behind 9/11. The linkage was as spurious as was the claim about WMD.
Any claims about a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq ignore the fact that Al Qaeda is an extremely rigid religious organization that condemns the “infidel” Ba’ath Party of Saddam Hussein as an aggressively secular organization. One of the arguments for linking the two organizations was based on an alleged meeting in Prague between hijacker ringleader Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmed Khalil Ibahim Samir al-Ani, a second consul at the Iraqi embassy, between April 8 and April 11, 2001. Czech intelligence reported that the source, an Arab émigré, only came forward after 9/11 when photos of Atta appeared in the local Prague press. The FBI in the United States conducted an exhaustive investigation into this meeting and discovered that Atta was in Virginia during the times of the alleged meetings. Czech President Vaclav Havel conducted his own investigation and concluded that there was no evidence that such a meeting took place. The lack of evidence did not deter American leaders from using the story.
When Secretary of State Colin Powell made his presentation to the Security Council he referred to a compound in northeastern Iraq as a “terrorist chemicals and poisons factory” run by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant involved with a terrorist group in northern Iraq known as Ansar al-Islam. Luke Harding of the Observer, a British daily, traveled to the site three days later and found no sign of a chemical weapons facility. Abu Musab’s only connection to the government of Iraq was that he allegedly received medical care in a Baghdad hospital. Furthermore, Ansaral-Islam was located in northern Iraq where pro-U.S. Kurdish groups sought the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime.
The theory of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda was to a large extent based on a British government public dossier on Iraq. In his February 5 presentation to the Security Council, Powell referred to “the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed…which describes in exquisite detail deception activities.” It was described as a fine example of the analytical work of MI6, the British spy agency. When Cambridge University professor Glen Rangwala read the document, he realized that he had read it before in the Middle East Review of International Affairs. After further investigation, he discovered that the bulk of the British government’s public dossier had been plagiarized from a paper in the Middle East Review titled “Iraq’s Security and Intelligence Network: A Guide and Analysis.” The paper had been written by Dr. Ibrahim al-Marashi, a post-graduate student living in California. The ideas in al-Marashi’s dossier were based mostly on Iraqi documents which were more than a decade old. Although most of the information is accurate, some passages had been rewritten or simply concocted to strengthen the allegations against Iraq. The British government’s dossier had not even been prepared by MI6 but by junior aides to Alastair Campbell, the chief press secretary for Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The British intelligence agency had, in fact, produced a report, which was ignored by Tony Blair because it contradicted his and President Bush’s position. According to the MI6 document there was no evidence of any links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a non-partisan Washington research centre, released a report on January 10, 2004, which destroyed both justifications for the “war” on Iraq, WMD and links to Al Qaeda. According to an article in The Globe and Mail:
…there is no firm evidence that the former Iraqi leader was cooperating with the al-Qaeda network and that Iraq presented an immediate threat to the United States, to the Middle East or to global security…Iraq’s nuclear program has been suspended for many years and the country’s chemical-weapons production capabilities have been “effectively destroyed”…”It is very likely that intelligence officials were pressured by senior administration officials to conform their threat assessments to pre-existing policies.” …”We had over 1000 people a day search for months, and we found nothing.”
(”U.S. exaggerated Iraq threat, report says”, January 10, 2004, p. A11)
All the evidence supporting the position of the Bush administration in its campaign against Iraq was either grossly distorted or defective. The most reliable sources of information were overlooked because their conclusions interfered with the grand schemes of the Bush administration. According to Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber in Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq:
Graham [Bob Graham, U.S. Senator] who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, was so baffled by the contradictory assessments of Iraq coming from different agencies that in July 2002 he asked the CIA to come up with a report on the likelihood that Saddam Hussein would use weapons of mass destruction. When asked this question directly, a senior CIA intelligence witness responded that the likelihood was “low” for the “foreseeable future.” Like many of the analyses that conflicted with the drive for war, this statement from the CIA went largely unreported.
Now that the ground had been prepared for a “war” against Iraq, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw announced a Security Council Resolution, supported by the United States, which authorized the use of force against Iraq if it failed to comply with all Security Council Resolutions. The proposed resolution demanded that Iraq hand over all WMD and materials to support their construction, and all documents detailing the destruction of WMD. Both France and Russia threatened to veto any resolution authorizing the use of force.
The threat of a veto persuaded the United States to abandon any attempt to legitimize their war plans with a Security Council Resolution. Instead they attempted to build a coalition to create the illusion of international approval. They had the support of, and military contributions from, Britain and Australia. Overall, Washington was able to create a coalition of 30 nations referred to as the “Coalition of the Willing.” “Coalition of the Willing” is a very misleading and deceptive phrase. The majority of the 30 nations provided only token support, such as an endorsement or permission to use their airspace for flyovers by American warplanes. Most of these nations did not provide material support and they demanded substantial aid packages in return for their endorsement. The coalition included Albania, Azerbaijan, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Spain, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. Many people in these countries opposed the war. In Britain a poll in January 2003 showed that 68% were not convinced of the need for war. In Spain 80% opposed the war.
Bombed and Invaded Again
On Thursday March 20, 2003, President Bush announced his intention to use force against Iraq in an address to the nation in which he stated that:
My fellow citizens. At this hour Americans and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from a grave danger. On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war.
The euphemism “preemptive defence” was created to hide the brutal truth about the atrocities the U.S. was about to perpetrate on the people of Iraq. This phrase is an Orwellian charade to deceive the American people into believing that there was an imminent threat to U.S. security and that the United States had to strike first. In fact, even the phrase “preventive defense’ implies that at some future time, the Iraqi war machine would attack the United States. Not only was Iraq castrated militarily, it was incapable of even defending itself.
The United States launched the war with its “shock and awe” strategy which meant a massive high-tech, air strike against Baghdad. When originally coined by Harlan K. Ullman, a defence strategist, it meant a strategy “aimed at influencing the will, perception, and understanding of an adversary rather than simply deploying military capability”. Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin that:
You take the city down, you get rid of their power, water. In 2, 3, 4, 5, days they are physically, emotionally, and psychologically exhausted.
A Pentagon official remarked that “there will not be a safe place in Baghdad.” It is clear that the real purpose of “shock and awe” was to destroy as much of the Iraqi leadership and army as possible as well as defence installations which would interfere with “coalition” ground troops taking over the country. The strategy was to launch 300 to 400 cruise missiles on the first day of the operation then another 300 to 400 on the second day. That is more than all the cruise missiles launched in the 1991 bombing of Iraq. Former UN Assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday has accused the U.S. “…of proceeding with plans to annihilate Iraqi society.”
Following the “shock and awe” operation, a massive force of American, British, and Australian forces marched through Iraq relatively unimpeded and took control of most of the country. On May 1, 2003, President Bush announced that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” Bush also boasted that the war was “one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history.” Well, for once at least, he was half right. The war was anything but humane. Body counts are important in order to understand the extent of the atrocities. An organization called “Iraq Body Count” maintains an up-to-date count of Iraqi deaths based solely on credible news sources and on November 3, 2003, they reported that there had been a minimum of 7,960 deaths and a maximum of 9,792 deaths.
Statistics do not force people out of denial. The International Action Center in New York has produced pictures and descriptions of some of the tragedies of real people. For example:
* Down the road, a little girl, no older than five and dressed in a pretty orange and gold dress, lay dead in a ditch next to the body of a man who may have been her father. Half his head was missing. Nearby, in a battered old Volga, peppered with aluminum holes, an Iraqi woman - perhaps the girl’s mother - was dead, slumped in the back seat. (UK Times, Sunday March 30, 2003)
* Amid the wreckage 12 dead civilians were found lying on the road or in nearby ditches. All had been trying to leave this southern town overnight, probably for fear of being killed by U.S. helicopter attacks and heavy artillery. (UK Times, March 30, 2003)
* On March 31, there was a massacre of civilians, mainly women and their children, whose crime was that they were driving on a roadway in their own country. As their van approached a checkpoint, U.S. soldiers destroyed their vehicle with a barrage of 25mm cannon fire from one or more of their M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles. (The Washington Post, April 1, 2003)
Numerous non-military objects were deliberately targeted including electrical distribution facilities, three media facilities, civilian telecommunication facilities, government buildings, roads, and bridges.
The most savage executioners of innocent people were two types of `time bombs’ dropped on Iraq by American forces. One time bomb was depleted uranium weapons. The effects of these weapons may not surface for up to ten years and will create radioactive hot spots in Baghdad and other cities and towns. Radiation levels in Baghdad have been measured at up to 1,900 times higher than normal background radiation. High radiation levels can cause cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome, joint and muscle pain, neurological damage, mood disturbances, lung and kidney damage, auto-immune deficiencies, miscarriages, maternal mortality, and genetic birth defects. Iraq’s National Ministry of Health organized two international conferences and offered detailed epidemiological studies which indicate a six-fold increase in breast cancer, a five-fold increase in lung cancer, and a 16-fold increase in ovarian cancer. According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, August 4, 2003:
The Pentagon and the United Nations estimate that the U.S. and Britain used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium during attacks on Iraq in March and April - far more than the 375 tons used in the 1991 Gulf War.
The second type of “time bomb” was cluster bombs, which has a failure rate of up to a 16%. This leaves unexploded small bomblets, which easily explode on contact. British and American forces used cluster bombs frequently, dropping some 13,000 bombs containing nearly two million bomblets, in populated areas. In Weapons of Mass Deception, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber reported that:
On April 28, the Chicago Tribune published a picture of the burial of six-year-old Lamiya Ali, an Iraqi girl who was killed along with her eight-year-old sister when she mistook a bomblet for a toy.
Behind the Scenes - Planning a War
All the evidence leads to the conclusion that neither WMD nor Iraqi support for terrorist groups was the real motive for the American decision to wage “war” against Iraq. The most damning evidence that the above motives were irrelevant is the date when plans to attack Iraq were first formulated. A major initiative to toughen American policies towards Iraq sprang from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a private think-tank formed by a group of prominent neoconservatives in 1997 including:
* William Kristol,- former Chief of Staff to Vice President Quayle;
* Elliot Abrams - former Reagan Assistant Secretary of State;
* Jeb Bush - Governor of Florida;
* Dick Cheney - Vice President under George Bush;
* Newt Gingrich - former House Speaker;
* Jeanne Kirkpatrick - White House advisor under Reagan and Bush;
* Lewis Libby - Cheney’s Chief of Staff
* Richard Perle - Defense Department in Reagan era;
* Donald Rumsfield - Secretary of Defense under George Bush;
* Paul Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld’s deputy.
PNAC is a non-profit educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The aims of the organization are to increase defence spending significantly in order to carry out America’s global responsibilities and to accept responsibility for America’s “unique role for preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” The aims are cleverly crafted to soften the real intent of PNAC which, according to Rahul Mahajan in Full Spectrum Dominance, is “maintaining and extending U.S. world dominance.” Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, in Weapons of Mass Deception, remark that PNAC’s aims were “criticized overseas as a blueprint for U.S. domination.” As well, Scott Ritter in Frontier Justice, believes that “PNAC resurrected the global domination theme of the Wolfowitz- Libby Defence Policy Document [1992].”
PNAC’s focus on Iraq was an important part of their overall plan. The members of the think-tank wrote a letter to President Clinton in which they argue that:
…current American policy towards Iraq is not succeeding and that we may soon face a threat in
the Middle East more serious…That strategy should aim above all at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.
(Washington Post, January 27, 1998, p. 84)
One of PNAC’s accomplishments was a successful lobbying campaign to convince Congress to enact the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act which made regime change in Iraq official American policy. In November 2002, the White House brain trust consisting of many PNAC members formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) whose mission statement included “replacing the Saddam Hussein regime with a democratic government.”
PNAC members hold important positions in the Bush administration and have considerable influence in the shaping of foreign and defence policy. Their determination to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein became a priority for Washington. Not only did Bush’s brain trust favor regime change but other influential organizations such as the CLI, the American Enterprise Institute, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Washington Institute for Middle East Policy, the Middle East Forum, the Hudson Institute, and the Hoover Institute were also in favour of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Members of these groups frequently appeared on forums on ABC, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox promoting the necessity to wage war against Iraq. They testified before Congressional committees and appeared at gatherings in Washington. It would not be possible for President Bush to be unaware of the agenda of his brain trust and all these other influential organizations. His subsequent statements and actions corroborate the hypothesis that President Bush was determined to change the leadership in Iraq. The issues of WMD and Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda were easier rationales to sell to the American public than regime change and had the added advantage of instilling fear in the American public for the purpose of winning support for military action. Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy, confessed that “we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on” (Vanity Fair, May 28, 2003).
Bush’s Lies
President Bush lied on numerous occasions in order to sell the decision to attack Iraq. He appeared before the General Assembly of the United Nations and lied when he warned that Iraq was a “threat to peace”. He lied in his address to Congress when he made false claims about Iraq’s WMD. He also lied in his address to the American people announcing the war, professing the necessity “to defend the world from a grave danger,” and claiming that there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. At an election campaign rally in October 2002, Bush alleged that Saddam was “a man, who in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army” (Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, October 31, 2002). There is not the remotest evidence that such a statement has a shred of truth.
President Bush’s lies can not be excused because he was lied to by his advisors or had bad intelligence reports. The President is responsible for the accuracy of his statements. There were other highly credible sources of information. In fact, he already knew that his senior advisors were lying about the rationale for the war. Bush’s repeated attempts to alter the rationale for the war were an indication that he was grasping for any justification that the American people would accept. It would stretch credulity to an absurd level to suppose that he was ignorant of the real motive when his brain trust and all the major conservative organizations with ties to his administration had vehemently advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein for years.
President Bush was either ignorant of the reports of all the inspection agencies or was aware of them and lied. If he ignored the reports of all the inspection agencies, he was engaging in an act of dishonesty. As president, he had a responsibility to be aware of reports from highly credible agencies which were designated to investigate WMD. George Tenet of the CIA wrote a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Bob Graham, stating that “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological weapons] against the United States.”
The strongest evidence that Bush lied about attempts to avoid war was his decision to sign a top-secret directive on September 17, 2001, ordering the Pentagon to begin planning “military options” for an attack on Iraq (ZNET, Lies and More Lies, September 22, 2003). All his talk about inspections and WMD was completely fraudulent. In fact, serious planning for the “war” against Iraq began in August 2002, with preparations to deploy forces, construct staging areas, and stockpile weapons. According to Michael Klare, a strategic analyst, all “the administration’s supposed diplomatic activities regarding Iraq in the fall of 2002 and early 2003 were merely a smokescreen” (Rahul Mahajan, Full Spectrum Dominance). To weaken any Iraqi defence capability, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld expanded the area that was covered by the no-fly-zones to include command-and-control centres and defence systems. The attack on Iraq was in the advanced planning stage in the summer of 2002. There is simply no doubt that President Bush was completely aware of these plans and would have approved them before members of his administration could proceed.
Not only did President Bush and many members of his administration commit war crimes, they significantly tarnished the reputation and diminished the credibility of the Security Council. The U.S. attempted to obtain a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq through bribery and threats. When France announced its intention to use its veto powers, President Bush walked away from the United Nations and declared that he did not need UN approval. In other words, the Security Council was irrelevant.
The sanctions imposed on Iraq caused so many deaths and so much suffering that they constituted a crime against humanity despite the apparent authorization by the United Nations. The sanctions were not designed to starve the Iraqi people or deprive them of clean water and medical supplies. United Nations Resolution 687 specifies exemptions from the sanctions which include “materials and supplies for essential civilian needs and any further findings of humanitarian needs by the committee.” These exemptions were perverted by the United States through the use of their veto on the Sanctions Committee. Over a million Iraqis died as a result of the sanctions. The only explanation for the use of the U.S. veto to deprive the Iraqis of the necessities of life was that the American administration was hoping to encourage the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein without the need for direct American intervention. The United States wanted a friendly government in a weakened Iraq and control of Iraqi oil.
The sanctions violated the following international laws and protocols:
* Geneva Conventions, Protocol I, Part IV, Section I, Chapter III, Article 54 - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited;
* International Conference on Nutrition, World Declaration on Nutrition, FAO/WHO, 1992 - We recognize that access to nutritionally adequate and safe food is a right of each individual. We affirm…that food must not be used as a tool for political pressure;
* UN General Assembly Resolution 44/215 (Dec. 22, 1989) - Calls upon the developed countries to refrain from exercising political coercion through the application of economic instruments with the purpose of inducing changes in the economic or social systems of other countries;
* Constitution of the World Health Organization, 1946 - The enjoyment of the highest standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic, or social condition.
There is no justification in international law for the American declaration of “war” against Iraq. As demonstrated earlier, Security Council resolutions pertaining to Iraq did not authorize the use of force and required that non-compliance with UN Resolutions by Iraq be discussed in the Security Council. In the original drafts of Resolution 1441, the United States proposed a clause that would extend no-fly zones over sites to be inspected and apply the use of force in these zones if necessary but the proposal was defeated. The United Nations Charter’s provision in Chapter VII, Article 51, that a nation may use force to defend itself “if an armed attack occurs” clearly does not apply. There was no armed attack against the United States and the Charter does not authorize the use of force for preemptive or preventive strikes. Therefore, the “war” against Iraq was illegal and led to the violations of the following international laws:
United Nations Charter
Article 2
All members shall resolve their disputes peacefully.
All members shall refrain from the threat or use of force.
Article 33
1. The parties to a dispute shall seek a solution through negotiation, mediation, or arbitration.
Article 37
Should the parties fail to resolve the dispute as described in Article 33, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
The Security Council shall decide what action to take.
Article 42
Should all measures to maintain peace fail, the Security Council shall decide what action to take.
Geneva Conventions
Article 51
The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy protection from military operations.
Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited such as:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
November 9th, 2005 at 2:18 pm(b) those which do not discriminate between military and non-military targets.
President Bush lied about his agenda in Iraq and his counterfeit interest in the inspection process. In terms of Bush’s plans for Iraq, the inspections generated the worst possible outcome: both UNMOVIC and IAEA were satisfied with the inspection process and recommended that inspectors be given the time to complete their work. Since planning for an attack on Iraq had been in the discussion stage since 1998 and in the preparation stage since August 2003, long before the next round of inspections were scheduled to begin, no inspectors’ reports could stand in the way of the American military juggernaut. Once the U.S. unleashed its dogs of war, the real victims were not Saddam Hussein and his coterie of thugs, but the people of Iraq, and the United Nations. The future is now fraught with danger as the U.S continues to seek world domination unimpeded by either conscience or international laws and unhindered by the relatively enfeebled military powers of other nations. The consequence of the United States flexing its military muscle whenever it perceives a threat to its interests or security will be a giant step backwards for civilization as power prevails as the ultimate political weapon.
The swift boat vets for truth smear campaign got way too much coverage in the media, especially on Faux news. I don’t know how they got away with it and I don’t know how the public at large could fall for it! Once again, something that is clear as black and white becomes grey under the right wing media. Bush went AWOL and Kerry served in the war. Just this fact alone should cause a person to question the integrity of Georgie Bushie.
The republicans are dirty disgusting pigs in dresses.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:19 pm#12,
November 9th, 2005 at 2:23 pmBut the MSM/general public still takes them to the dance…
Remember the MSM is generally big business getting the big tax breaks.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:29 pmOf course this hasn’t effected what they report????Yeah right. Greed works on virtually all big business. It’s sort of woven into the fabric of the organization.
That’s funny. I could swear that was former Bush John Mclaughlin on CNN’s “Dead Wrong” disputing the lead up to the war. Oh, and wasn’t that BushCo member Larry Wilkerson saying the VP and Def Sec led a cabal during the leadup to the war. Funny thing is, they aren’t Democrates by any streach. Man, the GOP is crackin’ up, BIG TIME!
November 9th, 2005 at 2:31 pmOn the bright side right now, it’s fun to hear Rush be reduced to talking about sports ad nauseum when he can’t face the issues of the day. Avoid reality. If you don’t talk about the issues, I guess they aren’t happening. ‘LA. LA. LA. I can’t hear you!’ He probably didn’t get his spin orders from the WH today since they’re in damage control from yesterday’s election fallout or some other gash that occured in the Repugs shipwreck.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:32 pm#8 - Chris: You’re spot on… the good news is that MSM covers “What are the blogs saying?” these days. They don’t get the irony that they’re highlighting their own lack of journalistic capabilities…
Hopefully the DNC can put together a cohesive message by 2006… there’s more than enough matter to go with.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:32 pmWill only work for the die-hard Bush-lovers. And they don’t need convincing anyway since all they care about is that Bush protect them from gay people and “evildoers” — they love Bush no matter what. The rest of the country, however, has come out of its coma and will not be persuaded by the Bush/Republican BS tactics again. Anything Bush tries to do now short of truly fixing things will look like the empty propaganda that it is. Sorry Bush, we’re not buying it anymore.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:32 pmThe White House’s strategy won’t work. Why? Despite all the BAD POLL/APPROVAL numbers for BUSH - the one aspect that is most important that Clinton or Regan did not have, even at their lowest approval ratings is DO YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT IS HONEST AND TRUSTWORTHY?
The Washington Post-ABC News survey found that only 40 percent now view him as honest and trustworthy - a 13 percentage point drop in the past 18 months. Nearly 6 in 10 - 58 percent - said they have doubts about Bush’s honesty, the first time in his presidency that more than half the country has questioned his personal integrity.
YOU DO NOT RECOVER FROM THIS.
FOR THE CONS WHO READ THIS AND STILL THINK HE’S TELLING YOU THE TRUTH, When was the last time a person or friend lied to you, didn’t appologize or admit their lie or any wrong-doing and you trusted them as much as before?
November 9th, 2005 at 2:34 pmThe money changers of Jeruslam [oil companies] are in DC today. The dog and pony show for the benefit of “caring” republican senators is in full swing. Big oil is crying so loud, we should consider giving them larger tax breaks.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:37 pmHave you ever seen a guy with 2 billion that doesn’t want 4 billion?
Propaganda, Bush-style
A pair of quasi-related news items to showcase how the Bush White House attempts to control public perception and rewrite history:
November 9th, 2005 at 2:41 pm#18 Ringo,
November 9th, 2005 at 2:44 pmI felt the same way prior to last years election, then Bush won and suddenly down was up and inside out, for a while. I could not understand how he was re-elected. I had a bunch of stickers playing off of “viva bush” saying “adios bush” with no where for them to go…never underestimate the GOP when it comes to mudslinging and ignoring the issues. They can divert attention like none other, then when the style is thrown back on them, they successfully call the dems out.
I hope you’re right, but we will have to wait and see.
Where are the trolls today? Just asking. (NED runs sobbing from the room)
November 9th, 2005 at 2:45 pm#23, They are at their talking points meeting..today’s is a doozy.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:46 pmWhen you can’t combat them with truth, because the truth is not yours, you combat them with disinformation, propaganda, and selective appearances, photo opportunities, and press releases.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:53 pmLook out everyone, here they come again!
For background on White House and Republican stonewalling on the uses - and misuses - of pre-war Iraq intelligence, see:
- “Roberts’ Iraq Stonewall Crumbles”
- “Fitzgerald and the Truth About Pre-War Iraq Intelligence”
November 9th, 2005 at 2:55 pm#22–Chris in AZ: All I can say is I have faith. Unfortunately, in 2004, John Kerry didn’t step up to the plate and defend himself against the Swift Boat smears, and he made the fatal error of trying to appeal to the lower forms of red-state mentality, rather than look like an actual viable alternative to Bush. That, plus perhaps a little number fixing by the Repubs in Ohio, re-elected Bush. This time is much different. Bush & Co. have been caught with their pants down and they’re too arrogant to believe they need to bend over and pull them back up. This arrogance will be their ultimate downfall, and Bush, and Republicans in general are knee-deep in it now. America is watching, and we don’t like what we see. It is truly the Emperor’s New Clothes, and the Emperor is very, very naked now.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:00 pmYou mean a campaign style strategy that basically means no work gets done in washington or the central focus of the people we elected for such a small window of time, that they actually get to do their jobs, becomes just a futile attempt to retain their power while obfuscating any reponsibility for their questionable perfromance while they were supposed to be working for us? Add a little fear to the Faithful, IE: Flu Pandemic, Gays doing anything, and of course terror, while the party operatives stiffle any meager resistance to the oppositon and hey THIS WHAT YOU AND I GET FOR OUR TAX DOLLARS, SO HELL YEAH I WANT MY TAXES CUT! Remember folks the President was a mediocre business man at best so why should we expect anything other than a continuation of Mr. Wreck the Game and now I have to fix it for you. Thanks to all for listening and venting.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:00 pmI’ve noticed the “Imagine if the 911 terrorists had more than just box cutters” is making a nice comeback.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:02 pm#16 Dave, ain’t it a riot? It’s as though yesterday never happened, and as though the news today weren’t even worse. Rush wants to know what the hell is up with Owens, dammit!
I think this is a variation on the old topic-changer, “How about them Phillies?” Priceless.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:08 pmBush ran every company he operated into the ground. He’s doing the same with the United States.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:08 pmAnybody else notice that Bliar is having the same problems as Bush right about now?
Howard calls for Blair to resign
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422558.stm
Guess what the major issues are? Education, welfare and pensions.
Translted into American English, we get No Child Left Behind, cutting of Social Programs and Social Security Reform.
These guys have the same strategy on both sides of the pond. It isn’t working for Blair and it won’t work for Bush.
I guess you could say that the people and the government of Great Britain are smarter than the people in America. 36% of them at least.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:09 pmI believe a medic station has been opened in South Trollville and EMT’s are running out of salve to apply to the chafed troll backsides.
Also, Norad has reported heavy traffic to woodsheds throughout the nation.
Perhaps Rush should to a little reading to his faithful followers, I suggest a few chapters from My Pet Goat.
Who is creating reality these days anyhow.
-GSD
November 9th, 2005 at 3:28 pm#27, Part of me still has faith, $hit, I’m still a citizen of this mighty nation….regardless of how much the right tries to attack or push out honest americans dedicated to liberty and freedom for all
November 9th, 2005 at 3:35 pmDead Elephant!
Dead Elephant!
Dead Elephant!
November 9th, 2005 at 3:41 pm#34: This administration has no interest in honesty, or in Americans for that matter. The American people, however, are quite interested in honesty, and in themselves. It is a great nation, and we all will prevail against this evil, corrupt “president’ and his henchmen. We will prevail.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:44 pmI really hope so…
November 9th, 2005 at 3:53 pmSpudge,
I’m no longer surprised by the trouble Blair is in. Blair was supposed to represent the Labour Party, the British equivalent of the Democrats. Conservative is the British version of the Republicans.
My theory is that Blair wanted to be more American than British. I read sometime back that he may had copied parts of Clinton’s inauguaration speech to his own when he was elected Prime Minister.
He was then buddy buddy with Clinton for awhile, even appearing in Clinton’s humorous farewell reel showing
him and the president riding aound the halls of the White House on bicycles.
But something happened along the way.
HOLD IT! I just heard on Air America that JUDITH MILLER IS RESIGNING FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES!
WE DID IT! WE PUT PRESSURE ON THE BASTARDS.
THIS IS SHAPING UP TO BE A GREAT MONTH.
Anyway, Blair, after 9/11, must have sniffed some vapors and decided that Bush was his new best friend
and became his personal bitch. And, well, you know the rest of that story.
I’ll be watching Prime Minister’s Question Time on C-Span to see how much his power will fall. I can only hope that the Labour party regains control by sacrificing Blair. Lord knows he’s sacrificed the party, his reputation and thousands of lives.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:02 pm“Top White House officials say they’re developing a “campaign-style†strategy in response to increasing Democratic allegations”
HA HA HA HA HAHAHHAA HAHAHAH AHA HAHAH HAAHAHA!!!!!
That’s me losing my sanity. It begins with a laugh.
Does anyone wanna bet on the use of fear tactics in this campaign?
November 9th, 2005 at 4:05 pmChris in AZ and Ringo,
I agree with everything you two have said on this thread (and others, too). We must get rid of this corrupt government, but we also have to make sure that we don’t replace it with one just as bad.
Unfortunately, I think it’s going to require major reforms in the way we finance our campaigns in this country. But since the people in power who have been benefitting from the current rules would have to be the ones who change it, there’s little chance of that happening without citizens rising up to demand it.
I also wish the MSM would directly start quesitoning the president about his lack of honesty and integrity. To hell with showing him any respect, he never earned it, and if he had any, he should have lost it all by now. It’s hard to think of anything they have “accomplished” that wasn’t done by deceit, manipulation of facts, or just out-and-out lying.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:05 pmNazi and Communist propagandists were on to something in teaching that if you repeat a lie – even an outrageous one – often enough, people will begin to believe it.
This principle holds true even if you are guilty of precisely the same thing as those you accuse (talking up Saddam’s WMDs) and your complicity is conclusively demonstrated on audiotape and videotape.
When your obvious duplicity in this affair is illuminated by reference to the uncontroverted fact that when you made similar claims about Saddam’s WMDs you had access to the same intelligence as the administration, you simply say the president pressured the intelligence community to doctor the data.
When this specious assertion is contradicted by unequivocal findings of bipartisan investigative commissions, you simply demand, with righteous indignation, more investigations.
In the meantime, you also charge that President Bush cherry-picked certain intelligence and deliberately relied on other discredited intelligence in order to bolster his case for war against Iraq. And you do that knowing that it is you who are retrospectively cherry-picking the evidence and presenting it as irrefutable proof that Bush lied.
For example, you triumphantly cite a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document dated February 2002, stating it was probable that an al-Qaida informant had fabricated his claim that Iraq trained al-Qaida in the use of biological and chemical weapons. You smugly point out that since this DIA document predated, by months, public statements by President Bush and his team in which they referenced the “impeached” terrorist’s claim in support of their assertion of an Iraq/al-Qaida connection, Bush had to have lied.
What neither you nor your New York Times enablers divulge is that the CIA manifestly didn’t agree with the DIA’s assessment. (According to The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, CIA Director George Tenet, a year after the DIA report, testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq trained al-Qaida in document forgery, bomb making, poisons and gases.)
As another example, you figure that if you obfuscate artfully enough, the public will not realize that the infamous 16-word assertion in the president’s State of the Union address that the Brits learned Saddam tried to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger is as true today as when he uttered it.
When confronted with the annoying detail that Bill Clinton likewise made bold assertions about Saddam’s WMDs, you shrewdly calculate that this fact can actually be twisted in your favor. After all, though Clinton knew Saddam was hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, using them against us and distributing them to our terrorist enemies also to use against us, he chose – in his infinite wisdom – not to invade Iraq – apart from his cosmetic cruise missile volleys. And, since the Iraq War has proven to be such a delightful failure in your eyes, you declare that Clinton is vindicated for having chosen not to take out Saddam. Thus, those sour lemons are converted to lemonade.
Though you insist your foreign policy is guided both by humanitarian and national security interests, you are nevertheless unmoved by the remarkably positive developments that have occurred in Iraq as a result of our intervention. You essentially pooh-pooh our deposition of the murderous dictator Saddam and even moreso the Iraqi people’s historic progress toward constitutional self-rule.
And, despite the terrorists’ single-minded focus on preventing the democratization of Iraq, you still deny it’s part of the War on Terror. The fact that we’ve sustained casualties apparently negates, in your mind, any good that has accrued, giving rise to the obvious question: Is any foreign policy cause worth dying for?
You also must conveniently ignore that, no matter what 20/20 hindsight may reveal after the fact, reasonable people agree that Saddam had WMDs, used them on his own people, had a legal obligation to prove he’d disposed of them and failed to meet that burden, choosing instead to submit a 12,000-page document of lies.
You must flagrantly disregard the inconvenient but undeniable fact that Saddam could have prevented an American attack if he’d complied with his treaties, cooperated with weapons inspectors and proven he’d disposed of his WMDs as required. By flipping us off instead, he invited the War.
You must also ignore that virtually all the world’s intelligence agencies believed Saddam still had WMD stockpiles. Did Bush trick all of them, too?
You must steadfastly maintain that the Libby indictment directly taints Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the entire administration, even though special prosecutor Fitzgerald did not issue any indictments on underlying crimes and explicitly denied that the indictment speaks to the propriety of the war.
Indeed, using liberal logic, you are utterly undeterred by the lack of indictments as you clamor for a presidential “housecleaning.” Such a disingenuous, nonsensical strategy might just fool people into believing your false claims that the administration “outed” Valerie Plame to punish her “useful idiot” husband and advance your fantasy of criminalizing the war and, ultimately, impeaching President Bush.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:17 pmRandy,
Thanks for showing how republican fools like you continue to repeat the same debunked lies in an attempt to establish them. You’re a fool, a retard and a liar. You are an idiot, but your only ‘usefulness’ is showing that you’re a NAZI FOOL!
November 9th, 2005 at 4:25 pmOff topic, but perhaps you wanted to know: Judith Miller to leave the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2005/ 11/ 09/ business/ 09cnd-judy.html
November 9th, 2005 at 4:27 pmRandy - Speaking of Propoganda (which by defenition HAS to come from the party in POWER), you obviously are just parroting Fox News made-up lies. Every single Repug talking point in your essay has already been debunked. Get with the times.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:27 pmRandy,
Now that you’re done rambling incoherently, the indictments ARE COMING! REAL SOON! WHEN THE TIME COMES, IT WILL HAPPEN! IT’S CLOSER THAN YOU THINK!
Now go back and read Scooter’s book. Maybe having getting it on with a bear in a cage will do you some good.
Besides, today’s a great day. The GOP machine is breaking down and there’s nothing you can do about it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
November 9th, 2005 at 4:29 pmRandy says blah, blah, blah. Some crap he cut and pasted to sound smart - NOT.
That is utter garbage and a really flimsy attempt to bring any iota of credit to this truly corrupt administration. WEAK I say to this troll.
Anyway, America is trying to return to a going forward attitude and we have spoken.
So, Dandy, the smears don’t work anymore and your tactics SUCK. Didn’t you hear the voters, Randy? Did you not hear them tell YOU they are tired of the creepy shit you do? Well, let me reiterate for you.
The good citizens of this country don’t care about Corzine’s ex-freakin-wife. They were disgusted by the attacks featuring a favorite of the repubs - Hitler. SICK of it, didn’t you get the memo?
You are the party of death and now all are waking up! HA!
November 9th, 2005 at 4:35 pmHere are the facts: It’s been more than a decade since these off-year results seem to have foreshadowed elections that were still 12 months away. In 1993, the success of Republican gubernatorial candidates Christie Todd Whitman (in New Jersey) and George Allen (in Virginia) preceded 1994’s GOP triumphs. The last two cycles haven’t augured anything: Republican wins in 1997 were followed by Democrat congressional gains in 1998; the reverse was true for 2001 and 2002.
ARIZONA: In a freaky-good year for Democrats, GOP senator Jon Kyl might be vulnerable. But ousting this conservative favorite probably would take a better candidate than former Democratic state party chief Jim Pederson. In an October poll, Kyl held a comfortable lead, 50 percent to 28 percent. LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION
CALIFORNIA: Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein is a juggernaut. In June, the Field Poll tested her against Secretary of State Condi Rice. The result: Feinstein 56 percent, Rice 38 percent. DiFi did even better in a match-up against governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Meanwhile, the GOP continues to cast around for a sacrificial lamb. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION
FLORIDA: Republican congresswoman Katherine Harris certainly doesn’t suffer from what hobbles so many other Senate challengers: Low name recognition. In her case, though, too many people don’t like her because of the role she played as Florida’s secretary of state in 2000. A GOP poll in September put the race at 48 percent for Democratic senator Bill Nelson and 36 percent for Harris, and although the contest may tighten this one is already beginning to discourage Republicans, who believe Nelson is a weak incumbent. If Harris shows lackluster fundraising numbers at the end of this year, there’s a chance that Rep. Mark Foley will jump into the race and give her a primary. LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION
MARYLAND: Lt. Gov. Michael Steele’s decision to run for this open seat gives the GOP a legitimate chance to score an upset victory in this blue state. The Democrats’ best candidate probably is Rep. Ben Cardin, though he still has to defeat former Rep. Kweisi Mfume in a primary — and then retain a big supermajority of black voters in the general election. Republicans believe that if perhaps 15 percent of the state’s African Americans vote for Steele, who is black, then they’ll win. A new poll just published in the Baltimore Sun says the Cardin and Mfume race is neck-and-neck; in the general, Cardin leads Steele (41 percent to 32 percent) and Steele leads Mfume (39 percent to 37 percent). LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION
MICHIGAN: As a first-term incumbent, Democratic senator Debbie Stabenow ought to be vulnerable. A June poll showed that only 32 percent of likely voters believe she deserves reelection, with 48 percent saying they will vote for another candidate or at least consider it. Yet the Michigan GOP hasn’t come up with a top-tier opponent. Rep. Candace Miller, who might be a formidable challenger, has shied away. Republican voters probably will choose between Oakland County sheriff Mike Bouchard and former Detroit council member Keith Butler. LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION
MINNESOTA: The candidacy of GOP congressman Mark Kennedy probably represents the GOP’s best pickup opportunity of the cycle, as he competes for an open seat. The Democrats will choose between a pair of liberals, Amy Klobuchar and Patty Wetterling. LEANING REPUBLICAN TAKEOVER
MISSISSIPPI: Republican senator Trent Lott says he’s running for reelection, though the Washington rumor mill wonders if he’s having second thoughts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which destroyed his coastal home. If Lott were to retire, GOP congressman Chip Pickering probably would try to succeed him. Republican governor Haley Barbour also might feel some pressure to run. A good pick for Democrats would be congressman Gene Taylor. Other Democratic possibilities would include former governor Ronnie Musgrove and former attorney general Mike Moore. LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION
MISSOURI: The Democrats didn’t recruit their best candidate to challenge GOP senator Jim Talent — that probably would have been secretary of state Robin Carnahan — but they may have gotten the next best thing in Claire McCaskill. Republicans may suggest that McCaskill is a lousy candidate because she lost the election for governor in 2004. But the last pol to lose a gubernatorial race and then run for the Senate successfully was Talent. The incumbent always enjoys an advantage, but this looks like a potential nail biter. LEANING REPUBLICAN RETENTION
MONTANA: Republican senator Conrad Burns will be a heavy favorite to defeat Democratic state auditor John Morrison. If 2006 turns out to be a very good year for Democrats nationally, however, this could become a race to watch. LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION
NEBRASKA: Asking former governor Mike Johanns to become secretary of agriculture remains one of the most puzzling moves of President Bush’s second term. Didn’t he get Karl Rove’s memo on how to beat Democratic senator Ben Nelson? Republicans now will choose among a group of second stringers, including former attorney general Don Stenberg (who lost to Nelson in 2000). Republicans in Washington are high on Ameritrade executive Pete Ricketts, who can tap his personal bank account. LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION
NEVADA: Do you enjoy watching Carters lose elections? If so, then this race is for you, because it looks to feature Republican senator John Ensign against presidential scion Jack Carter. As it happens, Nevada voters didn’t even support Jack’s dad in 1976; there’s no way they’re going to get behind Amy Carter’s big brother next year. In October, a Las Vegas Review-Journal poll put Ensign ahead, 59 percent to 25 percent. LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION
NEW JERSEY: With Democratic senator Jon Corzine elected governor, the big question now becomes whom he will pick as his replacement in the Senate. His best choice might be acting governor Richard J. Codey; a member of the state’s congressional delegation also could win the Senate lotto. Whatever Corzine does, a primary battle looms. Republicans, in contrast, are getting behind Tom Kean Jr., the son of the former governor and a moderate who might be well suited to New Jersey’s political climate. TOSS UP
NEW MEXICO: Republican congresswoman Heather Wilson hasn’t ruled out a run against Democratic senator Jeff Bingaman in Shermanesque terms, but it appears as though she’s going to stay put in the House. That means Bingaman will stay put in the Senate. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION
NEW YORK: The goal for Republicans isn’t to beat Democratic senator Hillary Clinton — she’s simply too popular for that. The goal is to give her enough worries in the Empire State that she cuts down on her out-of-state trips to fundraise for other candidates. “She’s a walking slush fund,†says Brian Nick of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The likely GOP nominee is Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro; a more conservative candidate is former Yonkers mayor John Spencer. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION
NORTH DAKOTA: Republican Governor John Hoeven probably could beat Democratic senator Kent Conrad. He isn’t running, however, so this Senate seat deep in the heart of Bush country will remain in the hands of the blue party. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION
OHIO: In one poll over the summer, only 31 percent of likely voters said that Republican senator Mike DeWine deserves reelection. Democratic congressman Sherrod Brown is probably too liberal to defeat him, but former House candidate Paul Hackett, who narrowly lost a special election outside Cincinnati in August, might have a chance. A new poll published in the Columbus Dispatch actually suggests that either Democrat could pull it off. If Hackett wins the nomination, he might also grab an endorsement from the National Rifle Association, which would be a big plus in this swing state. DeWine isn’t helped by the fact that GOP governor Bob Taft is wildly unpopular. LEANING REPUBLICAN RETENTION
PENNSYLVANIA: Democrats are drooling over this one — they think they’ve got Republican senator Rick Santorum in their crosshairs. A poll last month showed Democratic state treasurer Bob Casey Jr. leading the incumbent among likely voters, 52 percent to 36 percent. This race probably represents the Democrats’ best pickup opportunity. But before it’s over, it will look very close and conservative standard-bearer Santorum may yet prevail. TOSS UP
RHODE ISLAND: Many Republicans are still mad at GOP senator Lincoln Chafee, who couldn’t even bring himself to vote for President Bush’s re-election last year. (On his ballot, he wrote in the name of Bush’s father.) Now Chafee is trying to fend off a primary challenge from Cranston mayor Steve Laffey, who aspires to become the Pat Toomey of the 2006 cycle. Waiting in the wings are the Democratic contenders, secretary of state Matt Brown and former attorney general Sheldon Whitehouse. TOSS UP
TENNESSEE: In the race to succeed Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has presidential ambitions, Democrats have rallied behind congressman Harold Ford Jr. Republicans will pick from a field of three: former congressman Ed Bryant, Chattanooga mayor Bob Corker, and Rep. Van Hilleary. Polls from last spring suggest a close general election, though the eventual GOP nominee probably will have an edge. LEANING REPUBLICAN RETENTION
VERMONT: With Republican-turned-“independent†Jim Jeffords retiring, this is an open seat — though Rep. Bernie Sanders, another “independent†who would caucus with the Democrats, appears to hold a big-time lead over potential challengers. Republicans in Washington are promoting businessman Richard Tarrant because he can self-fund. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION
VIRGINIA: Democratic governor Mark Warner might have given Republican senator George Allen a real scare, but he isn’t running. As a result, Allen can coast through 2006 and start planning for 2008. LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION
WASHINGTON: First-term Democratic senator Maria Cantwell looks beatable, and Republicans hope they’ve found a strong candidate in Safeco CEO Mike McGavick. A GOP poll in October put Cantwell ahead, 48 percent to 39 percent. LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION
WEST VIRGINIA: Democratic senator Robert Byrd won’t be defeated — unless voters somehow become convinced that at the age of 88, he’s just too old for the job. Republicans have not yet settled on a candidate. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION
WISCONSIN: If former governor Tommy Thompson were to announce for this race, the Republicans might have a candidate who could beat Democratic senator Herb Kohl. An October poll had these two cheese-state political giants in a dead heat. Thompson has not publicly ruled out a challenge, but he hasn’t signed up for a campaign, either. Looks like Kohl can plan on coming back to Washington for another term. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION
November 9th, 2005 at 4:40 pmall they’ve ever done in attempts to repair damage or stop sliding polls is give us more of the same… and they wonder why they can’t regain their footing? too much of “the same” is what the problem was to begin with… it’ll take radical change, which I’m not sure this administration is capable of, to convince the American people we’re on the right course…
November 9th, 2005 at 4:40 pmIt’s a bit like the news of yesterday, Frist rails about a leak and not the “crime” or shameful policy that brought it about.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:43 pmIt’s never about seeing the harm and trying to do better, it’s always about winning the war against the truth. Gotta love those republican values…….
“Nazi and Communist propagandists were on to something in teaching that if you repeat a lie – even an outrageous one – often enough, people will begin to believe it.”
You know, out of all the debunked claims you make, this one is actually true, in respect to the Republicans that is. Go to http://www.mediamatters.org everyday and you will find out lies are spread in the right wing media ALL THE TIME. And they are circulated over and over and you guys believe every single thing that is said. It’s really disturbing that you can find an article that starts off by stating the above, and then go on to actually fall for the same type of tactics that the Nazi’s used in spreading propaganda.
Your a huge hypocrite buddy!
And this is just proof that you can’t make up your own arguments so you have to copy and paste someone else’s argument to defend your position and I don’t even think you read it on top of that, because already all of those points have been debunked on this site if you were paying attention.
Pathetic.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:43 pm#46
Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched. Better wait and see what happens next year. Go ahead and have your fun today. You earned it. But you have to ask yourself, did the Republicans have a net loss in gov seats after yesterday? No. If they had won in either NJ or Virginia, that would have been crushing. The real test will be next year. Looking forward to it.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:43 pmRandy wrote:
Actually, Cheney did the cherry picking and Bush did the campaigning.
President Cheney: His office really does run national security.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:45 pmI really just don’t think it could get much worse than this. But it probably will. This is really incredible to watch. The Neocons are freakin crumbling hard and fast.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:01 pmI hope the Democrats are making note of how powerful regular people are with the internet. We can’t forget how many freaks there are in that party either.
Randy, there are many people like myself who have gone their whole lives happy with a Republican or a Democrat, able to see the advantages of both. But that is not what is going on here. The GOP have been hijacked. And the middle of the roaders have had enough. If the Neocons keep parading as conservatives they will do permanent damage to the GOP.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:04 pmRandy, we don’t govern by chickens.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:07 pmATV,
You’re so right. The NeoCons are disciples of LeoStrauss, a self avowed NAZI who taught at the university of chicago. His philosophies and techniques have been adopted by the republican core, and transformed the republicans into a radical and ridiculous party. Republicans have always had radical tendencies - heck GW’s grandpa helped finance hitler! But the FASCIST wing of republicanism didn’t dominate 100% of their tactics - now it does!
November 9th, 2005 at 5:13 pm#40 WAS
November 9th, 2005 at 5:15 pm“I also wish the MSM would directly start quesitoning the president about his lack of honesty and integrity. To hell with showing him any respect…”
You are absolutely right. The office of the president does deserve respect, but if the person occupying the Oval Office has no respect for it, nor for the nation, flauts it laws, encourages deception in his staff, stonewalls the public on information, ignores the Constitution, then I think he doesn’t deserve any respect at all. One can still respect the office, and when someone respectable resides there again, that person will be respected, but this guy must be denied any deference for the Presidency because he has destroyed it for his tenure.
Suka humour;
ET for President
I suppose in its own odd way, ]/\[ is much like ET. ]/\[ lives in the self-described, self-induced and self-deserving bubble the ‘Neo-Cons’ Must Call ‘Anti-reality’ if they are the Core or the ‘Synthesis’ and the ‘Herd’ is the “Reality”- based crowd.
The Chattering Class Laura Bush and Her Gorgons refer to as The ‘People’ are in their thunk “Reality Based”.
Somehow, thru a Homeo-static atrophication of Money and Ivy league Moulde infected Money, Blue Blood DNA are Developed. The Cause of this Pomposity is as of yet Uncertain
Thus ]/\[ like ET, just points at something and some self-serving imp froggers on. Cheney and His Neo-Cohorts Run Amok. ]/\[, of course will claim the ‘out of the Loop’ process which his Father Also used in the Iran ConTra affair. In Actuality ‘out of the loop’, means ‘head in Ass’
Insertium Theory is Hereby ‘Coined’ by This Poster. ([*])
We are not yet sure scientifically how this occurs so the Subject of ‘Insertium Theory’ thusly initiates as a result of our natural desire for ‘Causual Dialectics’ (another Coined theory =)
Thee Theorum;
Large Amounts of False Coinage Mentally inserted into Rectal Cavity Via Rovian ‘Dittohead’ Technology. It has never been Seen by anyone, as the inside of a Star perhaps or a black Hole. Hopefully, In due Time Karl, Rush and other Bobble head Dolls may enlighten us.
“Insertium Theory” (Say this Like Dr. Evil with two fingers raised on each side of Head INn-Sur-She-Umm). Then also Say “One Billion Dollars” Vis tu Vis. The Coinage has now been Lodged Throughout the ‘Turd-Blossom’ Cavity of Brain and Arse. Arse has more Mass there fore Arse Wins and Thusly Speaks for the W’hole’ of the Mass…=)
Karlco and Rushco. I hear millions of Tiny Voices praying you would stand up and take a load off your mind and stop your Two Dimensional Binary ‘Good vs Evil’, ‘With us or Against Us’, ‘Nanna-Nanna Boo Boo’ you have expounded upon from your ‘Milners Kindergarten’ Class.
Your Mindless Inbalanced Blathering fills the Publics Ears night and day, day and night, All through out Life/Time/Creation. Please Be Quiet or Keep Head Fully Inserted.
Thanx =)
Now to Reverse the Transcendental HydROVan Process. Chant This ‘Lee-O-Con-ian’ ‘Tin Foil Hat’ Quattrain that Rush himself Practices, after All he does lie, So goes;
Say you Words
Words Say You
Rush Flush DimBulb
Dimbulb Flush Rush
Waa Laaa! Like a Cork from a Bottle.
Booooopp!
The Cranial Shell, or ‘Bel’ as some say, is fully inserted with no damage to the Rovists’ spine. The Rovian Pied Piper. The ‘In-Bel-Ids’, haha, ‘inBELIds’. Perhaps we can get a Sign, Like a Donut, for Bushco as their Mascot and Boy Club Sign to hang from their rear view Mirrors.
Other Suggestions on the Theorum will be Gladly Accepted.
Trolls, of Course, are Welcome to Help pull each others Heads out.
Tri-BoooooP
Think Tank
the New WAY to Lie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
November 9th, 2005 at 5:18 pmJimbo, don’t you wish that Bush would have to answer Congress’s questions the way the Prime Minister does with Parliament? He’d be laughed right out of the chamber because he can’t think on his feet (or in any other position, for that matter.)
November 9th, 2005 at 5:21 pmIf this administration spent as much time/funds on actual issues instead of PR campaigns, they might actually be able to get something done. I’d love to know just how much taxpayer money was spent on the “60 cities/60 days” (which actually lasted a lot longer)Social Security tour. What a freakin’ waste!
November 9th, 2005 at 5:23 pmRandy-
If you’re going to plagerize, at least change SOME of the words.
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/ mt/ archives/ 2005/ 11/ new_column_a_ma.html
Next time, bring your own ideas to the table instead of passing other’s off as your own- it’s truly pathetic.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:35 pm#57 Marie,
I would just LOVE to see the president have a “Bob Novak” moment and tell a reporter, “That’s just bullshit!” and walk away from the podium. I’m sure he has been tempted to a few times.
When a reporter keeps trying to press him on something because he has given a thoroughly non-responsive answer, he gets really antsy and starts sputtering and saying things like, “I don’t know how else to explain it†while grinning that silly, vacuous grin. And, of course, he doesn’t how else to explain it because he might venture too close to the truth, and that would be a bad thing for him.
I’m no expert on body language, but even with the sound off, we can usually tell that he’s giving an untruthful answer to a question when he can’t seem to look the reporter in the eye and answer. He looks around, blinks about seventy-five times, looks off to the side, all the while searching for a “talking point†or “stump speech†fragment that he can roll out. And he comes off as totally unbelievable.
If it weren’t so serious it would be hilarious.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:48 pm#46
Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched. Better wait and see what happens next year. Go ahead and have your fun today. You earned it. But you have to ask yourself, did the Republicans have a net loss in gov seats after yesterday? No. If they had won in either NJ or Virginia, that would have been crushing. The real test will be next year. Looking forward to it.
Comment by Randy
We’ve been hearing the same crap out of you dead punks for months. Still, all in all, it’s quite a change from the trumpeting of the thirty year Reich you were doing just after the last election you stole. Wake up and die right. Wait. Don’t bother.