Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
was for the pressure on Saddam to yield actual disclosure. Then his already thin premise for invasion would just dry up and blow away. To Bush's credit, the saber rattling was effective in moving Saddam towards disclosure. To Bush's discredit, disclosure wasn't what he wanted and only accelerated the timetable for invasion.
I just wish Thomas had gotten another shot at him to be able to say "I began my question with the statement that every reason given to go to war has proved not to be true. What you've just said is also not completely true. Why do you continue to think that saying things that are demonstrably untrue serves your purpose?"
The secret papers published lately show clearly that at the time of the meeting (January 2003) between the two war mongers, the time of the war was set for Match 2003 with a handwriiten date of Mar 10 inserted in the typed memo.And it clearly stated that whether or not the UN agreed, the war was on. That was before Powell brought his vial of "chemical weapons agent to the UN and definitely before the March 6 lie by Dubya that he did not want to be a war president. I cannot believe that there are still about one third of US citizen who continue to trust this liar and his bunch of lying associates.
Israel took out Iraq's nuclear facilities almost ten years before Gulf War I. While Bush II was ratcheting up the rhetoric, and the IAEA was busy snooping around, Saddam decided he couldn't afford to reveal his locations another time. When Saddam closed access the reaction was predictably what the Bush people wanted. The administration is playing the same tune with Iran, and the Iranian leaders decided to take action sooner, rather than later. Iran's reluctance to make a deal with Russia on enrichment, is the a glaring symptom of Middle Eastern paranoia. The Russians were leaking invasion plans to Saddam, which means the information travels both ways.
Bush II, who is older and wiser now, has decided to accept the path his father took, and build a coaltion dedicated to the isolation of Iran. From the Unauthorized Biography of George Bush, came the assertion that Bush I nearly invited Saddam to invade Kuwait, sending signals which would encourage the ruler to make that decision. Saddam had been deceived once before by an Iranian contact who assured him a war with Iran would be short, and victory assured. The isolation of Iraq lasted more than ten years, and included regular military flights over the no-fly zone.
The purpose of the current Dubai Port deal, was a 'quid pro quo', give DPW control of our ports, in exchange for a launching pad for military forces in the UAE which would give the US control over the Straights of Hormuz. From there it would be simple enough to create an incident, cite the strategic importance of the Straights, conduct an air and naval war against Iran, and set up a UN approved no fly zone over the southern part of Iran, including the oil fields. Partly because our ground troops are tied down in Iraq, and partly because the American people are nervous about the Imperial presidency, Bush II decided to play it safe.
When the Port Deal collapsed, despite a lot of twists and turns, which were as underhanded as the deal itself, the right to launch from the UAE became only a dim possibility. Of course it was for all the wrong reasons that the Port Deal was killed. So Bush II is going back to what worked for Bush I. Will it work this time?
Why does the president get away with such "lies?" In part because they're grounded in just enough actual truth that his critics look stupid when they accuse him of "lying." There were, in fact, enough instances of interference or hindrance of weapons inspectors here and there that Bush can indeed credibly claim that Saddam "chose not to disclose" something or other. That's not an excuse for war, of course, nor is it the whole story, and the whole affair was a bungled joke since 1991, but part of that bungling consisted of liberals and Democrats who couldn't get a coherent and credible message out, and still can't.
Here's a hint, Mr. Conason: focus on present-day mismanagement and malfeasance, not on "winning" last year's moot arguments. You'll sound more relevant that way.
Bush meant that the inspectors were not let into the sites they wanted to inspect. AThat appears true. I'm a conservative republican who often argues with the neocon idiots. I read Conason's whole damn article looking for a way to shoot down that "locked out the inspectors" argument. Nothing.
Hey Joe, you gotta throw your stones the right direction. Or are you just preaching to the choir?
Wow! How is it that our liberal media let the ball drop on this? Could it be that there IS no liberal media? That most of our mainstream media has moved to the right to try to compete with Fox News Network, or Fascist News Network - the propaganda wing of the Republican Party?
Did Saddam 'deny the inspectors'? In the most technical sense, he did. Saddam was not 100% compliant every day at every site. This is how Bush gets away with misleading the public, he wraps a blatantly false premise which conveys his message around a miniscule piece of the truth.
We can endlessly debate the logics and semantics of this but I think the simplest thing to do is look at the intent and effect of Bush's rhetoric. Bush's obvious intent is to lead his audience to a conclusion not supported by the facts. Ergo, he is a best a spin doctor.
Personally, I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of being labelled a spin doctor. Listening to his other Iraq rhetoric, how many times have we heard Bush say something along the lines of, "We were attacked on 9/11, so we had to do something about Saddam Hussein." He doesn't state outright that Saddam was behind 9/11, which we know to be untrue, but his implication is clear. As a result, we have a bizarre reality where 20-30% of the American public believes Saddam was behind 9/11 but Bush can claim he never directly linked the two.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
