Lying for Bush

On September 11 George Bush contrived with Democratic assistance to send David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker to tell Congress how the Iraq war is going.

Bush wanted the date not because he thought it would be, in Lincoln's words, an altogether fitting and proper way to honor the fallen, but because he thought it a clever way to reinforce a lie he has been caught in many times -- that his war was an answer to that attack.

While Petraeus and Crocker pitched Congress, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, used a Pentagon memorial service to peddle the same line: we avenge the innocent by waging war in a country unconnected to their tragedy. It's all in keeping with a long held administration belief that it is unpatriotic for anyone else to politicize 9/11.

Petraeus, Crocker and Pace took a page from Karl Rove's White House Iraq Group playbook: Craft sentences that imply more than they say. Deliver them with conviction. When found out, reveal the artful parsing that proves you never said what everyone heard.

It always worked better than it should. We believed Saddam was behind 9/11; that he had weapons of mass destruction; that his oil would pay for Bush's war; that Iraq wanted to be just like us; that the mission was accomplished, resistance in its last throes.

To make it work Bush counts on us not to read any more than he does. Petraeus and Crocker's tales of progress contradicted the published findings of military and intelligence professionals across the administration and in Congress:

A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, a report of the consensus views of all intelligence agencies, said flatly that the Iraq War undermines the war on terror. It warned that the worst threat we now face is from "dispersed, self radicalizing" terror cells that are almost impossible to engage, let alone defeat, in pitched battles.

A report of the non partisan Government Accountability Office gave Iraq passing grades on just 3 of 18 'benchmarks'. General Petraeus awarded passing grades on 9, a hell of a curve by any standard. GAO staff leaked their report early to ensure that it and not some watered down facsimile got to the public.

A 14 member mission led by Retired General James Jones, former head of NATO, unanimously concluded that Iraqi's security forces are a disaster. When polled, a substantial majority of Iraqis voice their agreement.

Don't trust anything our government says? Check out the official Iraqi tabulations of sectarian killings, according to which Petraeus' claim of a 55% drop is utterly false.

Petraeus touted success in Baghdad and Anbar Province. In Baghdad, Shiites simply drove Sunnis out. If one side finishes the other off, casualty rates drop but it's not what you or I mean by progress.

In Anbar, locals came together to snuff out a home grown strain of Al Qaeda that sprouted up after we invaded. It would appear its prospects of finding safe haven in Iraq are dimmer than Bush lets on. This isn't a small point.

Bush says early withdrawal will mean a bloodbath. (If only he'd thought this much about casualties before going in.) Baghdad and Anbar suggest hanging around forever isn't the best way to avoid one.

What Baghdad shows is how well and how quickly a partition of Iraq might work. Anbar proves Al Qaeda isn't the worst threat to Iraq, which doesn't need 100,000 American troops to deal with it. In a reasoned and informed debate these two "success stories" would be seen for what they are-- two more arguments for getting out.

On Thursday Bush asked support for "General Petraeus's strategy." He seemed to promise troop cuts but really said only that with luck the 'surge' might end by July, 2008. After that, 130,000 troops -- Rumsfeld's original force -- will fight on into someone else's presidency.

In the Senate, John Warner asked Petraeus if the war is making America safer. Petraeus squirmed, as if haunted by the ghost of Colin Powell at the UN. Petraeus generally ducked big questions, confining himself when he could to the merely tactical. He hopes we'll remember the strategy as Bush's.

Just before the 2004 election, Petraeus wrote a Washington Post piece informing voters that things in Iraq were really turning around. His optimism then puts his testimony now in context. Maybe things were going even better then -- or maybe his willingness to carry political water for Bush is what got him his present job.

The administration wouldn't feel it had wrung all the propaganda potential from the 9/11 anniversary without at least one attack on the war's critics. Actually there were many but the one that took the spotlight was the attack on MoveOn.org.

MoveOn's play on Petraeus' name -- general betray us -- was puerile. When will liberals learn how to talk to people not already in agreement with them? Still, if Americans read more they'd know MoveOn got its facts right. Petraeus didn't even try. It may not be treason to lie about a war, but the real patriot is almost always the one telling the truth.

This is Petraeus' first combat. He led the failed effort to train Iraqi security forces. He got the top job due to his one proven skill, talking to Congressmen. Today he's a Republican kitchen saint but when the truth catches up with him he'll look like George Tenet, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and everyone else who disgraced themselves lying for Bush.

Before Bush's speech, a leader of our new Anbar coalition was murdered. Worse yet, Iraqi Kurds, till now our only true allies in country, undercut the vital effort to divide Iraq's oil revenues among its three major factions. This they did by cutting their own deal with Hunt Oil of Texas.

Hunt's president, Ray Hunt is a close Bush ally and member of his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Did Bush green-light this prolonging of Iraq's chaos while asking our troops to prolong their sacrifice? If he did he betrayed his alleged mission and our troops and we need to know it.
Our democracy grows weak. Before the war Bush had to hide findings of government experts showing Iraq's nuclear program was peaceful. Now government hides reports in plain sight of a public that can't be bothered to read them.

In New York last week, families of the dead wept as the names were read aloud. At night, a "tribute in light" shot columns from 44 search lights up into the night from Ground Zero. The effect is of a ghostly specter of the twin towers. People are said to find it comforting. Better to honor our democracy and our dead with the truth.

Comments

[donegill]

why do we not hear more about the alleged comments of adm. fallon that petraeus is an "a**-kissing little chickens**t" for so gleefully selling us the story we would never buy from bush/cheney? what happened to the palmy days of yore when military officers didn't even vote so they would not interfere with the civilian control and command of the military?

[Janelynne]

The new script is "we are winning" we seek "victory" LIsten to McCain, watch the TV ad blitz on primetime. Listen to Sen Warner on why he folded on the Webb Bill. Read the spinners who come here. "Winning" and Victory" are the new "WMD, shock and awe,the new and improved mantras. The GOP, the White House, the media conspire. Lies? One cannot move within a 3 foot circumference without running into, not just a lie, but a conspired lie, a well funded lie. An institutional lie. The only tool we have is our own eyes.

[tyrodin]

What's even more disheartening than the utter devastation Bush and Co. created in Iraq, is the fact they're doing the same thing to generate even more tragedy in Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted top pay his respects at ground zero, but wasn't allowed. If Bush really wanted him dead, and could find two brain cells to rub together to form an independent thought, he would have gone to ground zero with him. He could have shook his hand and give him that famous monkey grin. Within a week, Mahmoud would be blown to bits by his own people. A photo-op with Bush is an instant death sentence in the Middle East. They brag about Bin Laden having to hide. Look at Bush. He can't go to any sort of public forum without first having all the people attending promise to suck his toes for eternity. Anyone showing up with an "Impeach Bush" shirt gets tazed before he even arrives. Each event costs the tax payers in the neighborhood of $40 million just to protect his sorry ass. And that's just in this country. Imagine that. Bin Laden on the other hand is free to walk around a section of Pakistan with impunity, and he's from Saudi Arabia. Who's hiding?

[ebrann]

"MoveOn's play on Petraeus' name -- general betray us -- was puerile. When will liberals learn how to talk to people not already in agreement with them?"
Good question. George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute aim to help progressives learn a difficult and at times thankless task. Obviously, many here - myself included - have a long way to go.
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/

[laocoon]

Given the clear tendency to use any bipartisanship as a later argument that you have now forever authorized anything at all the right wants, why should we even care about talking to the right. They are not negotiating in good faith.

[SadieYates]

I wonder why bush has so much power over so many people? for every lie, thousands of people die.

[Honest George]

I hope the truth does catch up with General patreaus and I believe it will. I still find it diffucult to believe what General powell did. I can't believe that at one time I thought he would or could be a good President. Both these great Generals (at one time) in my oponion have let this country down. The bush and cheeney war machine rolls on. Now I just read that one of our greatest Senators has changed his mind about letting the troops spend as much time home as threy do in combat. Are these people simple?

[Podewumun]

Honest George
No, they are merely heartless.

[PoliticAl2008]

One other tidbit that helps to track, yet we hear little of ... the number of Iraqis who have fled the country until this mess settles down (read: 'til we pull out).

[joja]

Interesting blog.

I was watching a C-SPAN piece on the FDR presidential library the other day, and noticed that FDR made reference to the style of campaign rhetoric that Wendall Wilkie seemed to be adopting in the 1940 election.

The thing that caught my interest was FDR's comment about how Wilkie was a using the same tactic as Hitler & other fascist leaders at the time -- repeating a lie over and over until it becomes accepted as the truth by people.

I guess Dick Nixon, Cheney, Bush, and especially Karl Rove took Wilkie's lesson to heart, because they mastered it.

It's infuriating how the MSM and the Dems NEVER call the Repubs out on this. They're too pussy-whipped by the WH thugs to stand up to them for fear of what? They'll be smeared by them? They'll lose their invitations to the next WH schmooze-fest? Awwww, poor babies!

Are the Dems brain-dead? Is the 4th Estate just another tool of the de facto dictatorship that this regime has become? Why aren't there more Jon Stewarts out there, instead of the fawning soothsayers we are constantly bombarded with?

[GrannyBgood]

"Are the Dems Brain-dead"?
... no, just hopelessly INDENTURED to AIPAC!

[Purple Girl]

I'm ready to ask the UN to send in troops to RESTORE OUR Democracy- How about You? WE have been infiltrated by a facist regime. We ahve no control over the government, so many of our allies helped to US develope. The Great Experiment has been taken over by madmen (and women). Their reckless and persisent agenda has placed the American people in grave danger and thus all people around the world. Our weapons, manpower and money have been high jacked. Beg the UN to help- bring this administration up on war crimes. I'm willing to eat some shit from the world, if we can just regain our security and democracy- and once again return to the world community as a positive contributor.

[yellowdogSC]

PG,

As you may recall, international audit teams were brought in by President Carter's election monitoring organization in '04.

Unfortunately, they were spread too thin, and in the wrong places.

Isn't that sorta what you mean?

It is a TRAGEDY of EPIC proportions.

Thanks for reading, friend.

[BinBaldwin]

And Clinton killed 500,000 Innocent Iraqi Kids with sanctions for what reason?

[GrannyBgood]

... to appease the Repugs who SET UP that bombing program under GH "The LOOP" Bush, becasue they were on his case about Monica.

See?

Isn't the Clinton thing getting a bit old, even for you Wingers?

[gilbaker]

The CBCC (Cheney Bush Crime Corporation) have lied about EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of their invasion of Iraq. Their plan was to funnel HUNDRED OF BILLIONS IN NO BID COBTRACTS to Republican­/Conservat­ive owned corps like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, GE (NBC's parent), Halliburton, Blackwater etc. This guarantees that the GOP campaign coffers will be brimming with cash well into the next century.

[BillAnthony]

Thank you to Bill Curry

Excellent post!

[elakelaiset]

Good thing Bush is a uniter not a divider. And a compassionate conservative. Just think what would happen if he was really an uncaring, profligate divider! Whew, shudder to think.

[aztecmummy]

The only people who seem to have ever heard President Bush say that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 are you Bush-haters. I guess you all must be stupid or something.

[SeriousBlack]

from the March 14, 2003 edition

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON –
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

[SeriousBlack]

Yes it's true Bush himself never made that specific statement, and in fact eventually started making statements that there was no direct link. But anyone who has actually been paying attention for the last 6 years (objective observers, anyway) saw how--as described PERFECTLY in that March 14, 2003 Christian Science Monitor article--Bush and his administration tried to foster that impression during the pre-war period as yet another bogus justification for attacking Iraq.

Now, aztecmummy, that's called intelligent discourse. You should try it sometime.

[GrannyBgood]

Maybe that's because all you ever watch is FUX NEWS? THAT is "Stupid", Stupid!

[rmreddicks]

The terms 'implication' and 'inference' are not part of the "some of the people all the time"'s lexicon. They are Manichean in their understandings. If we don't stop them they'll be the death of us all.

[laocoon]

Yes he has actually said the opposite but he and his agents, like his cabinet and spokesmen, have all strongly suggested as much. But no he has not said that in so many words. He did all but say that Saddam wold likely be involved in a future attack. If not what was the reason to invade?

[yellowdogSC]

lao,

No, of course statements like the 2 below (both by Cheney. bUSH isn't trusted with "finesse" work) are in NO WAY intended to mislead:


In the face of such a threat, we must proceed with care, deliberation, and consultation with our allies. I know our president very well. I've worked beside him as he directed our response to the events of 9/11. I know that he will proceed cautiously and deliberately to consider all possible options to deal with the threat that an Iraq ruled by Saddam Hussein represents.
----------­----------­----------­------
As former Secretary of State Kissinger recently stated: "The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system, and the demonstrated hostility of Saddam Hussein combine to produce an imperative for preemptive action." If the United States could have preempted 9/11, we would have, no question.

How could ANYONE possibly have been confused for even a moment?

Clearly these both "accidentally" (at best)imply a connection.

Thank you, friend.

[Ranta]

Republicans hate democracy.

[yellowdogSC]

Ranta,

No!

They hate us 'cause we're……FREE!

(And they're just about to die to take what little freedom is left away from us.)

Funny, today was HONESTLY the first time in my life I actually had to THINK before I sent a communication to someone. (What's safest from government tampering?)

Nice talking to you, friend…