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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The wheels are falling off the Bush war wagon.
Ol' W can't make the distance.
16 months is more than he can last.
Something is going to trip him up.
Maybe Blackwater, maybe Murtha,Watt, or something else.
I'm not sure what it will be, but I can smell Bush is in trouble. Congress and the public need to keep the pressure on Bush, so he stops the war before the next election.
MURTHA? WATT?
I think what's happened is kind of like what happens when you've got stinging insects like hornets flying around, and you try to remedy the situation by stomping on the nest because it's next to your favorite parking spot, and then you discover that you REALLY have a problem
largely of your own creation, and it's painful,
and it doesn't seem like you can find a comfortable way to rest or even sit down anymore. Iraq, to my view, is that figurative
hornet's nest, even Cheney saw that and
admitted as much, bottom line the war was a
Bad Idea, but if you throw enough money at
it, you can get people to keep following
a Bad Idea indefinitely. Only problem is,
the smarter people in your group of friends
will eventually leave once they get stung
enough times no matter how much you pay em,
and then if they're GOOD friends, they'll tell
you to stop messing with the hornets...
I think most of us have lied for bush at some point. "Yeah baby, I'm rich!"
I think we've reached the point where we all know that ANYTHING Bush says, you should flip it to the opposite and there you find truth. I just can't believe there is even 1% of the population who believe him and support him.
Sure you can. I'm confident you are familiar with the power of denial. If one supports and believes Bush, think of the psychic shock the truth would bring. I'm barely angry at the 30 percenters anymore. I'm just sorry for them.
Then you won't have to think at all. Cool.
THAT'S mature.
Amazing. There were WMDs that are likely buried or in Syria. I can hide the amount of anthrax he had in 4 suitcases in my backyard and no one will find it. By the way, that is enough to kill a decent sized town. He buried an entire squadron of aircraft, why is it so hard to believe he buried the nasty stuff. Secondly, how many independent commissions have to tell you that Pres. Bush spoke the truth about yellowcake? So far, there have been 3.
Finally, Saddam was an imminent threat just viewing the number of terrorists that were training on his soil.
I'm with those posters who want you folks to define a "lie." So far, you've decided that anything which you've decided is untrue is a lie, regardless of whether or not the person intented to tell one. It takes: telling an untruth (which he didn't), and intending to tell an untruth (which he didn't).
That's ok. I must just be a crackpot. Never mind my decades of military training and access to intel you will never see (as it endangers lives), and you wouldn't believe even if you were shown.
It is more likely Saddam pretended to have WMD in order to keep the US military guessing. He apparently cooked up some fake communications about the deployment that fooled even Saddam's own generals.
If he was so bloodthirsty, why didn't he use the WMD he had? What does Saddam care if a Shia city in the south is poisioned so long as it kills a few US troops.
It never happened.
Saddam had nothin.
Am I the only one who saw the films and Saddam's home movies of all the DEAD Kurds and Shiites? (Saddam Hussein's biography in 2 parts on the cable A&E channel.) How he enjoyed watching his men and sons torture people. Why was his cousin called "Chemical Ali?" Who was in all those mass graves? Why did my grandson's squad find chemical suits and gas mask's when they first went into Iraq in 2003?
Come on Paul, this is some almost first hand information for you.
Agree Paul. Ole Saddam was running the biggest bluff since falsies. Testpilot, where's your so-called "proof" you keep blathering about? Check again- absolutely NONE of Bush's assertations have been "proven" to be accurate by ANYONE. When a hundred men tell you that you're drunk it's time to lay down. Oh. And one other thought. Try reading a book called "Fiasco" by Thomas E. Rooks. It might tell you a few VERIFIED and PROVEN things.
You mean that something that is untrue is not a lie. So what is it?
It's a lie, also called a bluff - but remember, he's the bad guy.
Your mother called, she said: "Do your homework"
Correct - like the fact that the U.S. funded Saddam in the late 70's and throughout the 80's, during all of the attrocities they cited him for perpetrating. Maybe that's why the administration thought they'd find WMD's in his "stockpile" - because they gave them to him to fight Iran.
"There were WMDs that are likely buried or in Syria". And you know this is true because ...?
Even assuming Saddam had four suitcases full of weaponized anthrax (and this is an assumption, not a fact), there is still the non-trivial matter of delivering it to all the residents of that decent sized town. Difference between a (possible) fact and a threat.
Cite your source for "the number of terrorists training on his soil", please. My understanding is that the number was quite small. It is true that Saddam *supported* some terrorist activity, by giving cash payments to the surviving families of some Palestinian bombers, but those folks didn't train in Iraq.
Regarding "lies", I believe your proposed definition is incomplete. What you fail to account for is the concept of "misleading", which is a form of lying. I would say:
Intentionally presenting as truth information that you cannot reasonably prove to be true is lying (although if there is no malicious intent, we often call this "overstatement" or "belief"). Citing third-party statements asserting truth, without having good reason to believe that the statements are actually true, is misleading, or indirectly lying. "Cherry-picking" data -- citing arguably valid statements that support some position, without citing equally-ar
WHAT "independant" commissions?
(You mean like the 9/11 "Whitewash" Commission that he first wanted to put Kissinger in charge of?)
Would the brainwashed Testpilot PLEASE list them, so he can be enlightened?
"Our democracy grows weak."
Democracy in the USA right now is in a similar condition to Norman Bates’s mother - a corpse dressed up and sat in a rocking chair in the basement, while a madman runs the family business upstairs.
if republican's had their way they'd change voting for presedintial elections from first tuesday in november to september 11th
brut,
You mean IF repubs ALLOWED elections, right?
GREAT!
I'm sure they will pull out whatever they think it'll take to NOT have any more elections.
See y'all in the FEMA Gulag!
Petraeus' 'genius might be that he figured out how to PAY OFF the Sunni sheiks who had been killing us in Anbar province - and that may be the largest contributing factor in why our casualities are temporarily down. If the central talking point of Bush and Petraeus was basically a bribe with a short expiration date - haven't we been totally had? - duh
There's a great article and eye-opening video link below exposing the fact that our military says these Sunni sheik dudes have our blood on our hands and our guys are under no illusions that there will be more blood on their hands as soon as the wind changes.
"U.S. Is Paying Off Iraq's Worst War Criminals in Attempt to Ward Off Attacks" - be sure to watch the video
alternet.o
Those sheiks will be on our side as long as the money keeps pouring in... otherwise they'll go back to killing Americans.
THAT's why Move-On called him BETRAYUS!
They picked up on what so many of us were thinking anyway. If the Dems in Congress could grow such a set of Oysters we'd be out of this mess by now, because these CRIMINALS would be impeached, removed, and PROSECUTED!
...Instead
Petraeus is preparing for US withdrawal by cutting all these deals with the local militias. He does not want the US military to have to conduct a fighting retreat when the inevitable drawdown starts. And the Republicans are passing this charade off as progress.
But it is clearly not winning.
In fact, it is a lot like surrendering.
Wonderful summary of the issue, except the 9/11 thing ponted out by Strick. Still, a great batting average. You also hit on my favorite contradiction, which revloves around the issue of Iraq becoming a haven for A.Q. The Iarqis HATE A.Q. I suggest that the best way to get A.Q. out of Iraq is to leave and let the Iraqis do it. That way, the world will see just how popular those radicals really are (aren't) outside of a foreign occupation. Remember folks, A.Q. is Sunni, Iraq is majority Shia. Think they'll be welcome when we leave?
bay,
What's more, AQ is Wahabi Sunni, which is the MOST hardcore in all Islam. (So I hear.)
For the same reason Saddam Hussein kept them out, the current "administration" will do the same.
Christians and women were treated MUCH btter under Saddam, BECAUSE AQ was kept out. They would NEVER accept equality for women or Christians.
The Taliban considers Afganistan the "most perfect" Muslim nation, BECAUSE of the Wahabi Sunni. That's the LAST thing Iraq wants.
Thanks.
The Constitution is looking more ragged every day.
Do you see?
Do you see where this people go with this law “the military commissions act of 2006”?
Did we not cross the Rubicon when we went to Iraq and utterly destroy a nation and murder over 600,000 children, men and women that had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11?
A secrecy in a government “of the people, for the people and by the people”? To protect a corrupt cabal, to be sure, and a word, homeland, brought from an earlier time in Germany. Is this de javu?
To propose a law so diametrically opposed to the Constitution sent my heart into a tailspin and to see the congress breach their oath to defend the Constitution with a bevy of excuses that would stump a teen. It makes me sick.
Fear is a cancer, safety is not freedom and only freedom under the Constitution would guarantee what safety we would have. This is not politics to me, this is the most serious of attacks undermining this nation. The road to an oven.
Support the troops? So long as they are someone else’s. Is not this a nation of 300 million and in war are not all to sacrifice? Show me where this is so. It is an abomination. The German said: They came for other different peoples but not him until finally they came for him. He did not speak up and there was none to speak for him. Will they come for you?
Read ‘em and weep, Tony
Samuel Adams:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom,-go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen
freedomis,
Is your text editor Word, too?
If you look at my 3 sequential comments WAY up at the top, you'll see the same ascii character that makes your comment difficult to read.
Please submit info about your text editor in a comment (with info to indicate you are responding to this problem), and maybe between yours and mine something can be done.
Thanks, freedomis.
BB,
Please accept this comment so that "freedomis" can submit info that may help resolve this issue.
Thank you.
freedomis and yellowdogSC
Re; the Word/ascii problem; change your font.
You also can't use underline commands here either.
Gramma Rose
Excellent column. Thank you for reminding us that it wouldn't be so hard for us to become informed by simply reading truthful material.
It certainly shouldn't be hard for us to read more than our president, who has openly bragged and snickered about not reading current events in the newspaper.
I live in a very, very red state. I'm surrounded by people who receive their opinions from the pulpit and Rush Limbaugh. My town is aglitter with flags and yellow "Support our Troops" car magnets. The newspaper screams about those pesky brown people who cross the border, but barely mentions the war in Iraq.
Find a book club? Hardly. Have a reasoned discussion where both sides listen to one another? Never.
So, I sulk about the folks in my state ... but I do one more thing -- I READ. Furthermore, I consider who's writing the stuff I read.
Thanks again for urging us to be legitimately informed. Perhaps it'll save our bacon in this next election.
All the best,
Ani
Yeah, I've got to go down to Florida soon too.
The only topic in my town that generates any discussion is the immigration issue. And the majority of people living in the area are Republicans. So being a Democrat and advertising it is bad. Being Liberal is really dangerous! I understand, Ani.
I've completely given up on Congress doing anything to stop Bush or this war machine in any way. They've had a year, and all they've delivered is toothless "non-binding" resolutions and a lot of excuses about not being able to get the votes to get anything done. Absolutely nothing has changed, and they all sat there and swallowed the general's BS with a smile. I'm ready to move anywhere but here at this point. Nobody is ever going to make Bush or Cheney accountable for the destruction they're causing in Iraq and at home.
I wonder how long until a retired General Patraeus makes the rounds of all the newstalk shows, touting his book detailing how much he disagreed with Bush and his policies but was compelled to go along with them. Isn't it funny (not really) how we never hear dissent from these guys (Powell, Tenet, Greenspan, etc.) until they leave their positions of power. Chickens _ _ _ s all.
NOt fair to those who did leave so they could dissent.
Every time I attempt to e-mail an article from this site it says,"Got an error. Missing Parameters' But I've filled out all the blanks. I give up and it's too bad cause I would forward a lot of the posts.
Keep trying Jeff. Contrary to what some may think ALL posts on this blog are important.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
