Vox Mia - Adding My Voice to the Chorus

Bush’s Generals: How they led America to war

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.”

President Eisenhower, Farewell Address,
Jan. 17, 1961

These are some of the generals that the Pentagon and Bush administration deployed into our living rooms, courtesy of CNN, ABC, Fox News, NBC, CBS and the other usual suspects that make up our traditional media — yes, that unrepentant bastion of America-hating liberalism.

The New York Times reports on just how well the Pentagon and the Bush administration coordinated their efforts to manipulate the American Public as they duped us into the invasion of Iraq:

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror.

[...]

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

[...]

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

[...]

The Pentagon paid a private contractor, Omnitec Solutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars to scour databases for any trace of the analysts, be it a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” or an interview with The Daily Inter Lake in Montana, circulation 20,000.

Omnitec evaluated their appearances using the same tools as corporate branding experts. One report, assessing the impact of several trips to Iraq in 2005, offered example after example of analysts echoing Pentagon themes on all the networks.

Of course, as the New York Times goes on to point out, the manipulation of the American public by these very sources and tactics, continues:

Two weeks ago General Petraeus took time out from testifying before Congress about Iraq for a conference call with military analysts.

Mr. Garrett, the Fox analyst and Patton Boggs lobbyist, said he told General Petraeus during the call to “keep up the great work.”

“Hey,” Mr. Garrett said in an interview, “anything we can do to help.”

In Our Name

Our government must protect our national security and can never relinquish that responsibility. This is obvious and inarguable. However, as citizens, what practices are we willing to tolerate as our government goes about executing the protection of our "national security interests"? Many Americans are willing to tolerate torture, murder, assinations, the indefinete incarceration of men without charges against them, and other similar practices, in the abstract. I wonder, are Americans willing to tolerate all of these practices, not only in violation of our stated principles, once they understand the full and not-so-abstract consequences of what our government is doing in our name?

One spring day during his three and a half years as an enemy combatant, Jose Padilla experienced a break from the monotony of his solitary confinement in a bare cell in the brig at the Naval Weapons Station in Charleston, S.C.

That day, Mr. Padilla, a Brooklyn-born Muslim convert whom the Bush administration had accused of plotting a dirty bomb attack and had detained without charges, got to go to the dentist.

“Today is May 21,” a naval official declared to a camera videotaping the event.

[...]

Several guards in camouflage and riot gear approached cell No. 103.

[...]

Wordlessly, the guards, pushing into the cell, chained Mr. Padilla’s cuffed hands to a metal belt. Briefly, his expressionless eyes met the camera before he lowered his head submissively in expectation of what came next: noise-blocking headphones over his ears and blacked-out goggles over his eyes.

[...]

The videotape of that trip to the dentist, which was recently released to Mr. Padilla’s lawyers and viewed by The New York Times, offers the first concrete glimpse inside the secretive military incarceration of an American citizen whose detention without charges became a test case of President Bush’s powers in the fight against terror.

To Mr. Padilla’s lawyers, the pictures capture the dehumanization of their client during his military detention from mid-2002 until earlier this year, when the government changed his status from enemy combatant to criminal defendant and transferred him to the federal detention center in Miami.

[...]

Now lawyers for Mr. Padilla, 36, suggest that he is unfit to stand trial. They argue that he has been so damaged by his interrogations and prolonged isolation that he suffers post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to assist in his own defense. His interrogations, they say, included hooding, stress positions, assaults, threats of imminent execution and the administration of “truth serums.”

[...]

In the brig, Mr. Padilla was denied access to counsel for 21 months. Andrew Patel, one of his lawyers, said his isolation was not only severe but compounded by material and sensory deprivations.

[...]

Mr. Padilla’s situation, as an American declared an enemy combatant and held without charges by his own government, was extraordinary and the conditions of his detention appear to have been unprecedented in the military justice system.

Philip D. Cave, a former judge advocate general for the Navy and now a lawyer specializing in military law, said, “There’s nothing comparable in terms of severity of confinement, in terms of how Padilla was held, especially considering that this was pretrial confinement.”

[...]

One of Mr. Padilla’s lawyers, Orlando do Campo, said, however, that Mr. Padilla was a “completely docile” prisoner.

[...]

In his affidavit, Mr. Patel said, “I was told by members of the brig staff that Mr. Padilla’s temperament was so docile and inactive that his behavior was like that of ‘a piece of furniture.’ ”

[...]

Dr. Angela Hegarty, director of forensic psychiatry at the Creedmoor Psychiatric Center in Queens, N.Y., who examined Mr. Padilla for a total of 22 hours in June and September, said in an affidavit filed Friday that he “lacks the capacity to assist in his own defense.”

“It is my opinion that as the result of his experiences during his detention and interrogation, Mr. Padilla does not appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, is unable to render assistance to counsel, and has impairments in reasoning as the result of a mental illness, i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated by the neuropsychiatric effects of prolonged isolation,” Dr. Hegarty said in an affidavit for the defense.

Mr. Padilla’s status was abruptly changed to criminal defendant from enemy combatant last fall. At the time, the Supreme Court was weighing whether to take up the legality of his military detention — and thus the issue of the president’s authority to seize an American citizen on American soil and hold him indefinitely without charges — when the Bush administration pre-empted its decision by filing criminal charges against Mr. Padilla.

Mr. Padilla was added as a defendant in a terrorism conspiracy case already under way in Miami. The strong public accusations made during his military detention — about the dirty bomb, Al Qaeda connections and supposed plans to set off natural gas explosions in apartment buildings — appear nowhere in the indictment against him. The indictment does not allege any specific violent plot against America.

[...]

Mr. Padilla’s lawyers say they have had a difficult time persuading him that they are on his side.

From the time Mr. Padilla was allowed access to counsel, Mr. Patel visited him repeatedly in the brig and in the Miami detention center, and Mr. Padilla has observed Mr. Patel arguing on his behalf in Miami federal court.

But, Mr. Patel said in his affidavit, his client is nonetheless mistrustful. “Mr. Padilla remains unsure if I and the other attorneys working on his case are actually his attorneys or another component of the government’s interrogation scheme,” Mr. Patel said.

[...]

He is especially reluctant to discuss what happened in the brig, fearful that he will be returned there some day, Mr. Patel said in his affidavit.

“During questioning, he often exhibits facial tics, unusual eye movements and contortions of his body,” Mr. Patel said. “The contortions are particularly poignant since he is usually manacled and bound by a belly chain when he has meetings with counsel.”

Bush Admin Hurried Timing of London Arrests

Once again, sufficient reason to suspect that the Bush administration is at it again with their partisan exploitation of our nation’s war against terrorists. As we’ve learned, just a day after a strong critic of Bush’s Iraq war — and a distraction it represents from the actual war on terror — won the Democratic primary in Connecticut, we just knew that the public discourse just had to change… so, instead of the results of the Connecticut primary dominating the news headlines, the public heard of a foiled terrorists plot coming out of England. And now we have this:

Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests
British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says

By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers, and the NBC News Investigative Unit
NBC News
Updated: 8:13 p.m. ET Aug 12, 2006

LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

[...]

The British official said the Americans also argued over the timing of the arrest of suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf in Pakistan, warning that if he was not taken into custody immediately, the U.S. would "render" him or pressure the Pakistani government to arrest him.

What Liberal Media? (Deux)

I ask, What Liberal Media? If it exists, please point it out… I’m desperately seeking the liberal counterpart to F(au)x News and can’t find any trace of one.

Here’s a clear example of something that should’ve had more traction in the media (from the third presidential debate):

KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, “Where is Osama bin Laden? ” [Bush] said, “I don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned.”

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It’s kind of one of those exaggerations.

HOWEVER!

We all know that, in fact, Mr. Bush was OUTRIGHT lying! (Surprise, surprise. Right!?) Well, let’s just think for one second what would have happened if Mr. Kerry had been the one caught in a BLATANT lie like Mr. Bush was.

  1. Rush and his clones in talk radio would’ve talked themselves to dehydration
  2. F(au)x News would’ve immediately gone into their SPECIAL ALERT mode
  3. We would’ve seen all the brand-loyal Republicans beating us all over the head with it

BUT NO! Mr. Bush is caught in a blatant lie and there’s hardly any mention of it. By the way, for those that are not familiar with Mr. Bush’s quote, here it is:

Question: But don’t you believe that the threat that Bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

Of course, every time there’s an attack on our troops in Iraq we hear how the Iraqi insurgents are now increasingly linked to Al Queda and how their local leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is affiliated with Bin Laden. The question must be asked, if Bin Landen had been captured in Afghanistan during the war, and if we had still gone into Iraq, would our troops be seen the same level of resistence that they’re witnessing in Iraq?

—————————————

K.I.A. in Iraq 1101 — regrettably, when I posted the figure about a month and a half ago the count was 932.

Bush: Flip Flopper In Chief

OSAMA BIN LADEN

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE…
“I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’” [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

…BUSH DOESN’T CARE ABOUT OSAMA
“I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him… I truly am not that concerned about him.”[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

SADDAM/AL QAEDA LINK

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM…
“You can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.” [President Bush, 9/25/02]

…BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT
“We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11.” [President Bush, 9/17/03]

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION…
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories… for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.” [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

…BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN’T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
“David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven’t found stockpiles yet, and there’s theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we’ll find out.” [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

IRAQ FUNDING

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004…
“We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for ‘04″ [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

…BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004
“I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops.” [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

CREATION OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION…
“President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.” [CBS News, 5/23/02]

…BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION
“President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.” [ABC News, 09/20/02]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY…
“So, creating a Cabinet office doesn’t solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn’t solve anything.” [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

…BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
“So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.” [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

GAY MARRIAGE

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE…
“The state can do what they want to do. Don’t try to trap me in this state’s issue like you’re trying to get me into.” [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

…BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE
“Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife.” [President Bush, 2/24/04]

SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS…
“We’re going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus.” [President Bush, 3/3/01]

…BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS
The New York Times reported that “the president’s new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes.” [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

NATION BUILDING

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING…
“If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road.” [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

…BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING
“We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people.” [President Bush, 3/6/03]