February 22nd, 2005
I don’t buy the Bush Apologists’ limp and dishonest “plausible deniability” defense; which merely underscores their rabid partisanship, and lack of desire to look at the evidence candidly, critically and in context. Here’s how Bush’s “plausible deniability” defense was set up: Bush & Co. knew, it is now clear, that elements of their Iraqi WMD argument rested on shaky ground (i.e., hyped evidence and, even, forged documents). Accordingly, Bush & Co.’s statements on Iraqi WMD (and alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons) were crafted so that, while closely straddling the line of common decency and honesty, could not easily be called out as outright fabrications. Given this, I find Bush’s statement in his 2003 State of the Union address very telling, and a tell-tale sign of dishonesty in the works (i.e., a lie):
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
That line is purposely crafted to: (1) Give credibility to the claim that Iraq had “recently” reconstituted its nuclear program, (2) all the while giving Bush the ability to distance himself from a claim that was known (by his administration) to be false; since, (3) Bush could factually (even if dishonestly) claim that he had been relying on “British government intelligence” (i.e., the forged Nigerian uranium document) whose veracity he could not control.
For now leave aside the fact that the Bush administration had been informed that the claims made in the “British government intelligence” brief were not true; we’re then left with an administration that relied on the advice of a foreign government (i.e., Britain) to formulate our national defense strategy. Moreover, if Bush’s defense is, When I made that statement I thought it to be true. Then I ask, When we ask our fellow citizens to make the ultimate sacrifice, shouldn’t the standard be a tad higher?
The Bush Apologists will never admit that their man mislead and lied to us all; so am not at all surprised at how stubbornly they cling on to the “plausible deniability” defense. Think of it, if these Bush apologists were to ever acknowledge and recognize that Bush & Co. lied our country into a war, why it would totally shake their foundation — it would be akin to admitting that the earth is, in fact, round. If the Bush apologists ever admitted that their man lied, they would have to face the ugly truth that their unabashed support for Bush & Co. facilitated Bush’s war of choice.
I’ll spare you all an already long post, and not reproduce the entire chronology of when Bush & Co. knew what, which you can read here; however, let me leave you with the following:
“March 1, 2002: The State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) sends a memorandum to Secretary of State Colin Powell stating that claims regarding Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Niger are not credible, according to a knowledgeable government official.”
[...]
“September 24, 2002: The United Kingdom issues a report on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program stating “there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants, and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium.”
September/October 2002: U.S. intelligence officials tell Senate committees about their differences with the British report regarding the Iraq/uranium claim, according to Tenet (July 11, 2003).”
[...]
“January 28, 2003: President Bush asserts that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” during his State of the Union address.”
The Bush Apologists’ argument rests solely on the factual claim that Bush merely cited “British government intelligence;” however, shouldn’t the standard be just a tad higher? Shouldn’t we also expect honesty and unmitigated truthfulness from our leaders before committing our nation to war?
February 20th, 2005
Some treat the debate on Bush’s intentional use of forged documents to sell his Iraq war as if it were a high school debate. For example, some resort to a style of debate that I consider to be, in itself, misleading, and unsophisticated. Here’s what I mean: some Bush apologists use literalism (i.e., dictionary definition of the word “lie”), instead of contextual logic (critical thinking about the evidence — evidence, that, unfortunately, does not get any airtime on mainstream media (MSM) in our country). History is never accurately recorded, much less when events are still developing; however, any reasonable person looking at the evidence that we now have on hand (in context), would have to conclude that there’s more than enough suspicion that Bush & Co. (including Prime Minister Blair), intentionally used questionable and misleading and known forged evidence to sell their Iraq war to an unfortunately scared and terrorism weary public. It was under the post-9/11 conditions that nationalism was revved up amongst many in our country by Bush & Co.; which, regrettably, after 9/11 proceeded to politicize support for his administration as “patriotic” (“You are either with us or against us,” set the tone for the Iraq war to come).
After 9/11 too many of us in America were ready for action: any action — note that the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan was widely supported at home and abroad. However, the same was not true during the lead up to Bush’s Iraq war; because it was evident, even amongst those without access to classified information (i.e., note the millions that protested world wide), that Bush’s WMD evidence was extremely flimsy. All one has to do is flip through newspaper clippings of the period to see that enough doubts were being raised as to the “imminent” threat that Iraq posed to America. Again, people around the world saw through the lies; however, here at home, it was “unpatriotic” to even raise any doubts about the evidence that Bush & Co. presented. It was under these national political conditions that the then spineless Democrats in Congress failed to do their [b]truly patriotic and constitutional duty[/b to]: probingly deliberate on the evidence that would lead congress to “declare war.” Unfortunately for us, the American public, congress was backed into a political corner, remember: You are either with us or against us. And, of course, there’s the worthless and equally spineless mainstream media (MSM): the so-called fourth pillar of our representative democracy. (Anyhow, a discussion on the spineless and worthless MSM — or so-called liberal media — deserves a thread of its own; suffice it to say that the MSM is failing us all, and disregarding its constitutionally protected duties to inform the public.)
At any rate, the gravest power that a government… congress and presidents alike… has is the ability to use its full military arsenal… to deploy its young to foreign soil and ask them to sacrifice their lives for a cause. This is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. Unfortunately for us, 9/11 occurred under the watch of a wantonly irresponsible administration, which saw and used 9/11 as an opportunity to further an agenda that many in the administration had advocated for years (please refer to previous posts in this thread on the “Project for a New American Century”).
Like many across our country, on 9/11 I was, at first, shocked and then ready to do something… what that something was I didn’t know right away. So, over the couple of days that followed the attack, as my brother and I — both of us former Marines — discussed the events, we talked our selves into re-enlisting… this time, instead of going in as an enlisted man, I would be an officer. Additionally, my girlfriend at the time had lived in New York City for a number of years, and still kept in touch with many old friends in the city; so, in the days after 9/11 I watched as my girlfriend made many frantic calls to friends in NYC, and rejoiced as one by one her friends stared to report in. However, one friend did not call back. My now ex-girlfriend’s friend worked in the World Trade Center… I now forget which tower… and she never called back.
In November of 2001 my girlfriend at the time and I flew to NYC, to pay our respects to all that died that day, and to rejoice in the company of the many friends that were unharmed during the attack. As to my re-enlisting, I placed a call to a recruiter, and in those days shortly after 9/11, I guess their offices were overwhelmed, because I never heard back. Now, to be honest, I’m glad I didn’t hear back from that recruiter; because there’s no way, given all that’s come out on the intentional misleading on the existence of Iraqi WMD by this administration, that I could support Bush’s war of choice in Iraq.
Again, given the contextual information that we now have about what Bush & Co. knew, and when they knew it, as to the serious doubts on the existence of WMD, I find it remarkable that any reasonable person would mount a defense of Bush & Co. that essentially resorts to a narrow and literal definition of what constitutes a “lie” vs. a “misdirection” — or whatever other term one wants to use instead of the commonly understood definition of what is a “lie.”
February 16th, 2005
The “Jeff Gannon” (his real name is James Guckert) Male prostitute/Conservative plant in Bush’s White House begs the following question (from this NY Observer article) :
“Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville. Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart — or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this “journalist” had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal.
Then imagine the constant screaming on radio, on television, on Capitol Hill, in the Washington press corps — and listen to the placid mumbling of the “liberal” media now.”
And this from earlier in the same article:
“The intrinsic media interest of the Guckert/Gannon story should be obvious to anyone who has followed his tale, which touches on hot topics from the homosexual underground and the investigation into the outing of C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame to the political power of the Internet. But our supposedly liberal media becomes quite squeamish when reporting anything that might humiliate the Bush White House and the Republican Party.”
[...]
“What Mr. Guckert seems to have been is not a journalist but a Republican dirty trickster. He was schooled at the Leadership Institute — an outfit run by veteran right-wing operative and Republican National Committee member Morton Blackwell. (It was Mr. Blackwell who distributed those cute “purple heart” Band-aids mocking Mr. Kerry�s war wounds at the Republican convention last summer.) His former employers at Talon News include leading Republican fund-raisers and former officials of the Texas Republican Party who have been active in partisan affairs for the past two decades.”
“How did this character obtain a coveted place in the White House? What did the White House press staff know about him? How does his story fit within the larger scandal of payola punditry, with federal funds subsidizing Republican propagandists in the press corps? Did someone in the Bush administration give him a classified document?”
