Who\’s to blame for the power blackout?

August 18, 2003 at 5:49 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

It’s
been an interesting couple of days, hasn’t it? Especially for those in the
northeast U.S.  The cause of the power grid failure remains to be
discovered, but in the meantime, here are some interesting theories for your
consideration:

 

1. Al
Qaeda did it! Though the President was quick to deny that this was the work of
terrorists, Al Qaeda has now claimed responsibility:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34111

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_5.html

 

2.
President Bush and his energy industry cronies
(the “Pataki-Bush Axis of Weasels”) are ultimately responsible, having allowed a
foreign company to buy up the Niagara Mohawk Power Company, cook the books, lay
off its workforce, deregulate the business, cut maintenance, and generate a $90
million windfall for its stockholders.  This is according to Greg Palast,
who researched these energy companies over the last several decades. I’ll say it
again: read The Best Democracy Money Can Buy! http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=257&row=0

 

3. This is
my theory: we all did it, by allowing our country to persist on such a benighted
path of energy production. We’re now probably going to fast-track a refurbishing
job on the electricity grid to the tune of $56 billion. Want to know how many
homes you can make self-sufficient with solar for $56 billion? About 9.3
million! Not to mention the billions we’re pouring into new nuclear plants
(without a plan to deal with the waste) and the filthiest sort of coal
plants. While we’re doing next to nothing at the federal level to encourage
sustainable and renewable energy. Please write your Congressmen and tell them
you want to see us take a more intelligent approach to these problems–the
energy plan is still under debate in Congress, so it’s timely. (And if you’re so
inclined, check out Home Power Magazine to learn everything you need to know to
get solar, wind, micro-hydro, and other kinds of renewable energy going at your
home. They post all of their issues online! http://www.homepower.com)

 

By the way,
I’ll be traveling for the next two weeks, so you won’t see any more GRL mail
until after Labor Day.

 

–C

 

 



I’ve stopped 16,105 spam messages. You can too!
One month
FREE spam protection at www.cloudmark.com
Cloudmark SpamNet - Join the fight against spam!

 

Dissenting voices speak out

August 13, 2003 at 12:23 am
Contributed by:

I have
been heartened to see some significant media coverage given in recent weeks to
dissenting voices (mostly on C-SPAN, but whatever works). This talk, given to
MoveOn.org on August 7 by Al Gore, was one of the best. He laid out the whole
picture very articulately and passionately. This is the best speech I’ve ever
heard Al Gore make. 


Al Gore – “The Direction of Our
Nation Troubles Me”

 

On
August 10, two excellent addresses to the Veterans for Peace organization were
given by William Rivers Pitt and Jim McDermott. I found the Pitt transcript
here:

William Rivers Pitt  – We Stand
Our Ground


And here’s McDermott’s address.

One of the things McDermott
mentioned, of which I was not aware, is that Kucinich has pledged to close the
evil, shameful School of the Americas on his first day in office if elected.
That’s a bold and welcome idea!


 

And on
July 25, Howard Dean very effectively ran down the litany of lies (oops, sorry,
“false impressions”) promulgated by the Bush administration:

Dean to President Bush: “It’s Time
For The Truth.”

 

And
some of former Gov. Ann Richards’ comments on Larry King this week were
excellent, straight from the hip, about the upcoming presidential race and the
CA recall.
These
comments are definitely worth reading and passing around. I hope you will
recirculate them to people you know.

 

Finally, I want to plug once again Greg Palast’s The Best Democracy
Money Can Buy.
Please, get yourself a copy and read it! It’s very
courageous journalism, a fast read, and jam-packed with solid information on a
whole host of issues, from the FL election, to the fleecing we’ve gotten from
the energy companies in Bush’s pocket, to the nasty manipulations of the IMF and
World Bank in the rest of the world, the problems of globalization, libel and
courage in the media, and many other topics. I wish every American would read
this book, lose their innocent trust of these men who do disgraceful and
shameful things in our name and with our money, and get involved in politics.
There is a shocking amount of truthful material in there that you will never,
ever hear on the major media. It’s astounding. Please read it!

Classic material on Jon Stewart: Broken Dream Index

August 12, 2003 at 1:39 am
Contributed by:

Bush’s new Broken Dream Index: Number of Top Ramen packages purchased divided by number of units of blood plasma sold.

Stop the big-oil energy bill

August 1, 2003 at 4:13 pm
Contributed by: Chris

Folks,

Most of you know by now that my Number One political objective is to get my
country on the right track when it comes to energy. Energy is at the root of
just about everything we’ve discussed over the last few years. In fact, it’s
plainly the root of 9-11, because al-Quaeda’s primary motivations came from
our military occupation of the Islamic Holy Lands, and the reason we were
there is ultimately about oil, and control thereof. Which is about energy.
It all, inevitably, comes back to energy, and especially OIL…the one word
you almost never hear when it comes to developments in the MidEast,
Venezuela, Ecuador, and lots of other countries.

(more…)

Veteran intelligence pros on Bush\’s case for war

August 1, 2003 at 2:43 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

Dated March 15, this is pretty old news. Still, I thought it worth
forwarding, because it shows a couple of interesting things. One, veteran
intelligence professionals called out the administration’s lies before the war,
and well before the media did, though it got no play here in the days before the
war (this is from a German TV program). Two, it’s clear that people who know
what’s really up in the world–intelligence professionals past and present–have
put their careers, their personal advancement, even their lives on the line, in
order to, as the article
puts it, “put principle and conscience before obedience and personal
advancement.” These are not small stakes. The fact that these men and women are
willing to do it highlights the great risk at which our administration has put
our country, and indeed, the world.

 

–C

 

—–Original Message—–

 


http://www.counterpunch.org/vips03152003.html

March 15, 2003

Memorandum for Confused
Americans
Cooking Intelligence for War
by Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity

Two members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
appeared on German TV’s equivalent of a 60
Minutesa on March 6 to
discuss the use/abuse of intelligence to support the
US
administration’s case for attacking Iraq. Ray McGovern and David

MacMichael were among the former CIA officers interviewed by Channel

One’s Panorama, whose interviewers were asking questions seldom heard
in
American media. As a service to confused Americans, we have
translated the
German portions of the program and append the complete
transcript.

We
would note that the interviews were taped before the latest
indignities
regarding US intelligence came to light–the forged
letters earlier adduced
as proof that Iraq was seeking to obtain
uranium from Africa for its nuclear
program, for example. Our
embarrassment is actually too painful to dwell at
any length on other
recent indignities:

UN inspector ElBarade’s
preliminary finding that Iraq has no nuclear
weapons program, the gaffes
made by Secretary of State Colin Powell
in his debut as imagery analyst
before the UN Security Council, and
his praising as “exquisite;” and a
graduate school paper masquerading
as top secret intelligence from the UK,
to name just a few.

Embarrassments of this kind receive little play among
those American
TV commentators who are helping the administration beat the
drums for
war. Such stories usually hit the cutting room floor. Similarly,
no
airtime in this country is provided to veterans of the US

Intelligence Community, unless some can be ferreted out who march to
the
same drumbeat. Some of us have had the extraordinary experience
of been
erased at the last minute from the op-ed page of the Wall
Street Journal and
invited-then-disinvited to/from TV programs like
Jim Lehrer and Fox
News.

Ordinarily, we would not mind being marginalized; we are used to
it.
But our country seems to be just days away from a fateful decision to

go to war. And many of our former colleagues and successors are
facing a
dilemma all too familiar to intelligence veterans–the
difficult choices
that must be faced when the demands of good
conscience butt up against
deeply ingrained attitudes concerning
secrecy, misguided notions of what is
true patriotism, and
understandable reluctance to put careers–and
mortgages–on the line.

In the face of impending catastrophe we feel a
responsibility to
speak out–if only to remind the present generation of
intelligence
officers that they do have choices and that in the longer run
their
consciences will rest easier if they face squarely into those
choices.

As the transcript below indicates, the situation in the media is

quite different in Europe, where TV is open and hospitable to various

viewpoints, pointed questions, and rigorous analysis. We have no

illusions that American TV would host a no-holds-barred discussion of
US
intelligence performance regarding Iraq–or regarding September
11, for that
matter. We do sense, however, that there are millions
who crave more than
the mantras sung by the administration and,
sadly, now echoed by the
Director of Central Intelligence. It is
primarily for them that we make
available below the Panorama
transcript.

We appeal to those still
working inside the Intelligence Community to
consider turning state’s
evidence. Daniel Ellsberg, one who knows,
recently noted that truth telling,
in time, can stop a misguided
march to war. Ellsberg and our former CIA
colleague, Sam Adams, spoke
out courageously to expose the lies of the
Johnson administration and
to put the brakes on the war in Vietnam–but,
sadly, not in time. Sam
is now deceased, but Ellsberg recently appealed to
insiders at
intelligence agencies “to tell the truth and save many, many
lives.”
We Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity join in that
urgent
appeal.

We are encouraged to learn that just yesterday a
long-time Australian
intelligence officer resigned in protest against the
handling of US
intelligence and his government’s support of US policy on
Iraq. So it
is indeed possible for intelligence officers to join Foreign
Service
counterparts like John Brady Kiesling and John H. Brown who already

put principle and conscience before obedience and personal
advancement
in choosing to resign from the Department of State.
Further encouragement is
taken from FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley’s
courageous decision to call
public attention to the severe threat to
domestic security that would
inevitably come in the wake of a US
attack on Iraq–a threat involving
critical dangers that have been
soft-pedaled by the administration. Ms.
Rowley is less than two years
short of eligibility for
retirement.

Richard Beske, San Diego
Kathleen McGrath Christison,
Santa Fe
William Christison, Santa Fe Patrick Eddington, Alexandria, VA

Raymond McGovern, Arlington, VA
Steering Committee Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity

The VIPS can be reached at: vips@c…



Panorama German TV (ARD/Erstes Programm)
8:15 PM, March
6, 2003

Cooking the Books:
Falsifying the Evidence: How Bush is
Mobilizing for War

Moderator: Anja Reschke

Welcome to
Panorama!

While many Americans listen submissively to George Bush’s
statements
regarding plans for war against Iraq, he is having a rather
difficult
time with his own government workers, particularly his
intelligence
analysts.

The Central Intelligence Agency is responsible
for collecting and
analyzing evidence relating to Saddam Hussein’s weapons
of mass
destruction and his relationship to al-Qaeda. But CIA analysts

apparently are not doing their job to the satisfaction of the
president.
Indeed, as Bush keeps coming up with new claims about
Iraq’s weapons and its
plans for terrorist attacks, one thing is
certain: The information is not
coming from the CIA. Here is a
president who no longer trusts his own
intelligence service.

The Media Prepare for War on American
TV

Every day the media warn about Saddam Hussein’s chemical and

biological weapons. American audiences also hear again and again:
Saddam
and bin Laden work together. The only hope’war!

The continual propaganda
is effective. Virtually everyone feels
threatened by Saddam, even as they go
about their daily lives.
Indeed, the majority of Americans believe that
Saddam Hussein was
personally behind the attacks of September 11,
2001.

We asked Americans the question: Did Saddam Hussein play a role in

the 9/11 attacks?

Man: Saddam Hussein and all the rest of those
terrorists played a
role in a lot of things. People forget in this country
what happened
in New York. Let’s not forget that.

Woman: I hope that
Saddam Hussein wasn’t the one behind the 9/11
attacks, but I believe he was
though.

Woman: I think he probably had a lot to do with it. I don’t know
that
he was actually the spearhead for it, but I think he supported
it.

This complete nonsense is the result of a successful disinformation

campaign.

Ray McGovern, veteran of a 27-year CIA career, for several
years
provided daily briefings to the president’s most senior advisers,

including George Bush senior.

McGovern: The day after 9/11 Dick
Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld
were saying, ‘Now let’s go get Iraq.’ And so
the push was on to find
evidence that Iraq had some sort of connection with
9/11. And I am
very sad to say that our president himself has in a
subliminal way
always made that connection. And that is why most
Americans’pity
them’tend to believe that Iraq did have something to do with
9/11,
while the intelligence community is convinced it did
not.

President Bush is still leaning on the CIA to provide the kind of

evidence that will support his plans for war against Iraq. The
evidence
is still lacking, but this has not slowed the president down.

Saddam and
the Terrorists

In a letter dated October 7, 2002, CIA Director George
Tenet told the
US Senate that Iraq was drawing a line short of conducting
terrorist
attacks with either conventional or chemical/biological weapons

against the United States. The CIA took the position that the

probability was low that Iraq would either initiate an attack with

weapons of mass destruction or give them to terrorists.

On the very
same day, October 7, President Bush went before the
cameras and turned the
content of Tenet’s letter on its head. Bush
claimed, Iraq could decide on
any given day to provide a biological
or chemical weapon to a terrorist
group or individual terrorists.

McGovern: The ethic at CIA reflects the
inscription on the entrance
wall, which says, ‘You shall know the truth, and
the truth shall set
you free.’ And we’that is, CIA analysts’took that very
seriously. And
so, if we do not see evidence of a tie between al-Qaeda and
Iraq, for
example, we will not write that.

The Alleged Threat From
Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction

As we have indicated, the CIA
Director told Bush and his national
security advisers that the probability
that Saddam will launch such
an attacka*|in the foreseeable futurea*|would
be low. But
simultaneously President Bush claimed in public the exact
opposite.
He told the American people, The risk is simply too great that he

will use them.

Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer who spent years
working on
covert operations in Iraq, is astonished.

Baer: There is
no imminent threat from Iraq, all right?! If he does
have missiles, which he
probably does, they are buried in the ground,
and it is going to take months
to dig them up. We’ve seen no evidence
of VX gas, or Bubonic plague, or
anthrax, or any of this stuff.

McGovern: The logical conclusion is that
the information has been
doctored, that the information has been cooked to
the recipe of
policy and this’for an intelligence outfit’is anathema, beyond
the
pale. This is something that renders it superfluous to even have an

intelligence agency.

Saddam and Nuclear Weapons

According to
President Bush, the Iraqi dictator will be able to
produce his own nuclear
weapons in the very near future.

George Bush: We could wait and hope that
Saddam does not give weapons
to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to
blackmail the world.
But I’m convinced that is a hope against all
evidence.

McGovern: President Bush has said the Iraqis could produce a
nuclear
weapon perhaps in another year. Now the formal intelligence estimate

on that is that they could not possibly do that until the end of the

decade. One wonders where the president gets his information. I
really
don’t fault him as much for being dishonest as for being
naA’ve to think
that he can go to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and expect
to get a straight answer
on such things.

Former CIA Officer David MacMichael: I think the
administration is
indeed pressuring the intelligence system, whether it be
the CIA,
FBI, or anyone else, to come up with the strongest possible
evidence
to indicate there is a genuine and immediate threat of attack by

chemical, biological, or other weapons of mass destruction by
terrorist
groups’and in particular those associated with al-Qaeda,
and to link Iraq to
that.

Bush and Rumsfeld have been putting the pressure on the CIA for

months. Still, CIA analysts would not let themselves be pressured
into
twisting the intelligence to support the ‘line’ dictated from
above. And so,
the Defense Secretary in the meantime has created his
own secret
intelligence group as a rival to the CIA.

Baer: The CIA said, ‘Listen; we
don’t have enough information to
indict Saddam on terrorism charges.’ And
Rumsfeld, Secretary of
Defense, said, ‘That’s not good enough. Give us the
raw databases and
we’ll make our own decisions. And they rounded up these
people who
are non-professionals’a couple of ex-lawyers, consultants, who
all
rallied around and said, Well, let’s take this, let’s take that,

let’s take this and we can indict.

Rumsfeld’s private intelligence
group put its shoulder to the wheel
and provided a doubting world with
alleged evidence that Saddam is
producing nuclear weapons. Armed with this
new evidence, UN
inspectors in the last several weeks were sent off to
confirm it.
They could not.

Former UN Inspector David Albright: Often
what you see in the Bush
administration is that they don’t care. I mean, you
say, ‘This isn’t
true.’ They say, ‘Oh, Okay,’ and then they repeat it again
publicly.
Or they just say, ‘Don’t form a conclusion. Keep working on it.’
And
so there are several cases where the inspectors are just expected to

keep working on it, and yet they think it’s garbage.

McGovern:
Intelligence needs to be as pure as a virgin. When
intelligence is pimped,
as is now being done by the White House and
the Defense Department, it loses
its virginity. And, as is well
known, nothing is quite the same again once
you have lost your
virginity.

President Bush has almost reached his
goal: war against Saddam
Hussein. And the American media are beating the
drums. For example,
Fox TV, America’s most watched news channel and its very
popular star-
anchor Bill O’Reilly, who stirs up millions of
viewers:

O’Reilly: When the war begins, this is what we expect from every

American: Either you support the military or you shut up. Americans
and
our foreign allies who come out against us are enemies of the

state.

Baiting, intimidation, disinformation’with results that are
grotesque:

A question put to US citizens: Do you think that Saddam
Hussein may
attack America in the near future with weapons of mass
destruction?

Woman: If we don’t watch out, it just might
happen.

Man: Absolutely. I think they will attack the United States with

chemical weapons.

Woman: I hear that Iraq has a lot of nuclear
weapons that could hit
the West Coast and it is very worrisome to
me.

Worrisome indeed. Clearly, it is feelings and opinions’not facts’that

are determining support in the US for war or peace.

_____________________ Reporters: John Goetz and Volker Steinhoff
Edit:
Karen Menge


 

If you’re following the party line you don’t
have to document anything; you can say anything you feel like…  that’s
one of the privileges you get for obedience.  On
the other hand, if you’re critical of received opinion, you have to document
every phrase”.  – Noam Chomsky

 

“There is no flag large enough to cover
the shame of killing innocent people”.  –  Howard Zinn

 

Bush Administration\’s Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism

August 1, 2003 at 2:20 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

Here’s
an excellent summary of the lies that we have been fed by the administration in
futherance of its objective of global domination.
If you want to know the
truth about these matters, you’ll have to dig, because you’ll get naught but
deception and diversion from them.

 

This
article is also available here: http://truthout.org/docs_03/080103F.shtml

 

 














Published on Wednesday,
July 30, 2003 by the Minneapolis City Pages

The Bush Administration’s Top 40 Lies about War and
Terrorism
Bring ’em On!

by Steve
Perry
 

1) The administration was not bent on war with Iraq
from 9/11 onward.

Throughout the year leading up to war, the White House
publicly maintained that the U.S. took weapons inspections seriously, that
diplomacy would get its chance, that Saddam had the opportunity to prevent
a U.S. invasion. The most pungent and concise evidence to the contrary
comes from the president’s own mouth. According to Time’s March 31
road-to-war story, Bush popped in on national security adviser Condi Rice
one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN sanctions against
Iraq. Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W peremptorily waved his hand
and told her, “*censored* Saddam. We’re taking him out.” Clare Short, Tony
Blair’s former secretary for international development, recently lent
further credence to the anecdote. She told the London Guardian that Bush
and Blair made a secret pact a few months afterward, in the summer of
2002, to invade Iraq in either February or March of this year.

Last fall CBS News obtained meeting notes taken by a
Rumsfeld aide at 2:40 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes
indicate that Rumsfeld wanted the “best info fast. Judge whether good
enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin
Laden]…. Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

Rumsfeld’s deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the Bushmen’s
leading intellectual light, has long been rabid on the subject of Iraq. He
reportedly told Vanity Fair writer Sam Tanenhaus off the record that he
believes Saddam was connected not only to bin Laden and 9/11, but the 1995
Oklahoma City bombing.

The Bush administration’s foreign policy plan was not
based on September 11, or terrorism; those events only brought to the
forefront a radical plan for U.S. control of the post-Cold War world that
had been taking shape since the closing days of the first Bush presidency.
Back then a small claque of planners, led by Wolfowitz, generated a draft
document known as Defense Planning Guidance, which envisioned a U.S. that
took advantage of its lone-superpower status to consolidate American
control of the world both militarily and economically, to the point where
no other nation could ever reasonably hope to challenge the U.S. Toward
that end it envisioned what we now call “preemptive” wars waged to reset
the geopolitical table.

After a copy of DPG was leaked to the New York Times,
subsequent drafts were rendered a little less frank, but the basic idea
never changed. In 1997 Wolfowitz and his true believers–Richard Perle,
William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld–formed an organization
called Project for the New American Century to carry their cause forward.
And though they all flocked around the Bush administration from the start,
W never really embraced their plan until the events of September 11 left
him casting around for a foreign policy plan.

2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable
belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat
to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.

Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of
mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: “The
decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main
justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic
reasons…. [T]here were many other important factors as well.” Right. But
they did not come under the heading of self-defense.

We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar
intelligence: They set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq
and ignored everything that contradicted it. In the end, this required
that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. set aside the findings of analysts from
the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (the Pentagon’s own spy
bureau) and stake their claim largely on the basis of isolated, anecdotal
testimony from handpicked Iraqi defectors. (See #5, Ahmed Chalabi.) But
the administration did not just listen to the defectors; it promoted their
claims in the press as a means of enlisting public opinion. The only
reason so many Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and
al Qaeda in the first place was that the Bushmen trotted out Iraqi
defectors making these sorts of claims to every major media outlet that
would listen.

Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently
retired head of the State Department’s intelligence office: “I believe the
Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American
people of the military threat posed by Iraq. This administration has had a
faith-based intelligence attitude–we know the answers, give us the
intelligence to support those answers.” Elsewhere he has been quoted as
saying, “The principal reasons that Americans did not understand the
nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure of senior
administration officials to speak honestly about what the intelligence
showed.”

3) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger.

Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and
distortions, and here is W’s most notorious case in point: Once the
administration decided to issue a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea
culpa in the matter of African uranium, they were obliged to couch it in
another, more perilous lie: that the administration, and quite likely Bush
himself, thought the uranium claim was true when he made it. But former
acting ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York
Times on July 6 that exploded the claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in
2002 to investigate the uranium claims at the behest of the CIA and Dick
Cheney’s office and found them to be groundless, describes what followed
this way: “Although I did not file a written report, there should be at
least four documents in U.S. government archives confirming my mission.
The documents should include the ambassador’s report of my debriefing in
Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report
summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of
the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not
seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know
that this is standard operating procedure.”

4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear
program.

The very next sentence of Bush’s State of the Union
address was just as egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit
cagier in its formulation. “Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam]
has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for
nuclear weapons production.” This is altogether false in its implication
(that this is the likeliest use for these materials) and may be untrue in
its literal sense as well. As the London Independent summed it up
recently, “The U.S. persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy
high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges,
needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the
International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for
artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN
Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for
centrifuges.” [emphasis added]

5) Iraq’s WMDs were sent to Syria for hiding.

Or Iran, or…. “They shipped them out!” was a
rallying cry for the administration in the first few nervous weeks of
finding no WMDs, but not a bit of supporting evidence has emerged.

6) The CIA was primarily responsible for any prewar
intelligence errors or distortions regarding Iraq.

Don’t be misled by the news that CIA director George
Tenet has taken the fall for Bush’s falsehoods in the State of the Uranium
address. As the journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote shortly before the war,
“Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged
on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The
Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce
intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq. … Morale inside
the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career
staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war.”

In short, Tenet fell on his sword when he vetted
Bush’s State of the Union yarns. And now he has had to get up and fall on
it again.

7) An International Atomic Energy Agency report
indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear
weapons.

Alas: The claim had to be retracted when the IAEA
pointed out that no such report existed.

8) Saddam was involved with bin Laden and al Qaeda
in the plotting of 9/11.

One of the most audacious and well-traveled of the
Bushmen’s fibs, this one hangs by two of the slenderest evidentiary
threads imaginable: first, anecdotal testimony by isolated, handpicked
Iraqi defectors that there was an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq, a claim
CIA analysts did not corroborate and that postwar U.S. military inspectors
conceded did not exist; and second, old intelligence accounts of a 1991
meeting in Baghdad between a bin Laden emissary and officers from Saddam’s
intelligence service, which did not lead to any subsequent contact that
U.S. or UK spies have ever managed to turn up. According to former State
Department intelligence chief Gregory Thielman, the consensus of U.S.
intelligence agencies well in advance of the war was that “there was no
significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist
operation.”

9) The U.S. wants democracy in Iraq and the Middle
East.

Democracy is the last thing the U.S. can afford in
Iraq, as anyone who has paid attention to the state of Arab popular
sentiment already realizes. Representative government in Iraq would mean
the rapid expulsion of U.S. interests. Rather, the U.S. wants westernized,
secular leadership regimes that will stay in pocket and work to neutralize
the politically ambitious anti-Western religious sects popping up
everywhere. If a little brutality and graft are required to do the job, it
has never troubled the U.S. in the past. Ironically, these standards
describe someone more or less like Saddam Hussein. Judging from the state
of civil affairs in Iraq now, the Bush administration will no doubt be
looking for a strongman again, if and when they are finally compelled to
install anyone at all.

10) Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress
are a homegrown Iraqi political force, not a U.S.-sponsored front.

Chalabi is a more important bit player in the Iraq war
than most people realize, and not because he was the U.S.’s failed choice
to lead a post-Saddam government. It was Chalabi and his INC that funneled
compliant defectors to the Bush administration, where they attested to
everything the Bushmen wanted to believe about Saddam and Iraq (meaning,
mainly, al Qaeda connections and WMD programs). The administration
proceeded to take their dubious word over that of the combined
intelligence of the CIA and DIA, which indicated that Saddam was not in
the business of sponsoring foreign terrorism and posed no imminent threat
to anyone.

Naturally Chalabi is despised nowadays round the halls
of Langley, but it wasn’t always so. The CIA built the Iraqi National
Congress and installed Chalabi at the helm back in the days following Gulf
War I, when the thought was to topple Saddam by whipping up and sponsoring
an internal opposition. It didn’t work; from the start Iraqis have
disliked and distrusted Chalabi. Moreover, his erratic and duplicitous
ways have alienated practically everyone in the U.S. foreign policy
establishment as well–except for Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense, and
therefore the White House.

11) The United States is waging a war on terror.

Practically any school child could recite the terms of
the Bush Doctrine, and may have to before the Ashcroft Justice Department
is finished: The global war on terror is about confronting terrorist
groups and the nations that harbor them. The United States does not make
deals with terrorists or nations where they find safe lodging.

Leave aside the blind eye that the U.S. has always
cast toward Israel’s actions in the territories. How are the Bushmen doing
elsewhere vis-à-vis their announced principles? We can start with their
fabrications and manipulations of Iraqi WMD evidence–which, in the eyes
of weapons inspectors, the UN Security Council, American intelligence
analysts, and the world at large, did not pose any imminent threat.

The events of recent months have underscored a couple
more gaping violations of W’s cardinal anti-terror rules. In April the
Pentagon made a cooperation pact with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an
anti-Iranian terrorist group based in Iraq. Prior to the 1979 Iranian
revolution, American intelligence blamed it for the death of several U.S.
nationals in Iran.

Most glaring of all is the Bush administration’s
remarkable treatment of Saudi Arabia. Consider: Eleven of the nineteen
September 11 hijackers were Saudis. The ruling House of Saud has
longstanding and well-known ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits,
which it funds (read protection money) to keep them from making mischief
at home. The May issue of Atlantic Monthly had a nice piece on the House
of Saud that recounts these connections.

Yet the Bush government has never said boo regarding
the Saudis and international terrorism. In fact, when terror bombers
struck Riyadh in May, hitting compounds that housed American workers as
well, Colin Powell went out of his way to avoid tarring the House of Saud:
“Terrorism strikes everywhere and everyone. It is a threat to the
civilized world. We will commit ourselves again to redouble our efforts to
work closely with our Saudi friends and friends all around the world to go
after al Qaeda.” Later it was alleged that the Riyadh bombers purchased
some of their ordnance from the Saudi National Guard, but neither Powell
nor anyone else saw fit to revise their statements about “our Saudi
friends.”

Why do the Bushmen give a pass to the Saudi terror
hotbed? Because the House of Saud controls a lot of oil, and they are
still (however tenuously) on our side. And that, not terrorism, is what
matters most in Bush’s foreign policy calculus.

While the bomb craters in Riyadh were still smoking, W
held a meeting with Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Speaking
publicly afterward, he outlined a deal for U.S. military aid to the
Philippines in exchange for greater “cooperation” in getting American
hands round the throats of Filipino terrorists. He mentioned in particular
the U.S.’s longtime nemesis Abu Sayyaf–and he also singled out the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front, a small faction based on Mindanao, the
southernmost big island in the Philippine chain.

Of course it’s by purest coincidence that Mindanao is
the location of Asia’s richest oil reserves.

12) The U.S. has made progress against world
terrorist elements, in particular by crippling al Qaeda.

A resurgent al Qaeda has been making international
news since around the time of the Saudi Arabia bombings in May. The best
coverage by far is that of Asia Times correspondent Syed Saleem Shahzad.
According to Shahzad’s detailed accounts, al Qaeda has reorganized itself
along leaner, more diffuse lines, effectively dissolving itself into a
coalition of localized units that mean to strike frequently, on a small
scale, and in multiple locales around the world. Since claiming
responsibility for the May Riyadh bombings, alleged al Qaeda communiqués
have also claimed credit for some of the strikes at U.S. troops in Iraq.

13) The Bush administration has made Americans
safer from terror on U.S. soil.

Like the Pentagon “plan” for occupying postwar Iraq,
the Department of Homeland Security is mainly a Bush administration PR
dirigible untethered to anything of substance. It’s a scandal waiting to
happen, and the only good news for W is that it’s near the back of a
fairly long line of scandals waiting to happen.

On May 26 the trade magazine Federal Computer Week
published a report on DHS’s first 100 days. At that point the nerve center
of Bush’s domestic war on terror had only recently gotten e-mail service.
As for the larger matter of creating a functioning organizational grid
and, more important, a software architecture plan for integrating the
enormous mass of data that DHS is supposed to process–nada. In the nearly
two years since the administration announced its intention to create a
cabinet-level homeland security office, nothing meaningful has been
accomplished. And there are no funds to implement a network plan if they
had one. According to the magazine, “Robert David Steele, an author and
former intelligence officer, points out that there are at least 30
separate intelligence systems [theoretically feeding into DHS] and no
money to connect them to one another or make them interoperable. ‘There is
nothing in the president’s homeland security program that makes America
safer,’ he said.”

14) The Bush administration has nothing to hide
concerning the events of September 11, 2001, or the intelligence evidence
collected prior to that day.

First Dick Cheney personally intervened to scuttle a
broad congressional investigation of the day’s events and their origins.
And for the past several months the administration has fought a quiet
rear-guard action culminating in last week’s delayed release of Congress’s
more modest 9/11 report. The White House even went so far as to classify
after the fact materials that had already been presented in public
hearing.

What were they trying to keep under wraps? The Saudi
connection, mostly, and though 27 pages of the details have been excised
from the public report, there is still plenty of evidence lurking in its
extensively massaged text. (When you see the phrase “foreign nation”
substituted in brackets, it’s nearly always Saudi Arabia.) The report
documents repeated signs that there was a major attack in the works with
extensive help from Saudi nationals and apparently also at least one
member of the government. It also suggests that is one reason intel
operatives didn’t chase the story harder: Saudi Arabia was by policy fiat
a “friendly” nation and therefore no threat. The report does not explore
the administration’s response to the intelligence briefings it got; its
purview is strictly the performance of intelligence agencies. All other
questions now fall to the independent 9/11 commission, whose work is
presently being slowed by the White House’s foot-dragging in turning over
evidence.

15) U.S. air defenses functioned according to
protocols on September 11, 2001.

Old questions abound here. The central mystery, of how
U.S. air defenses could have responded so poorly on that day, is fairly
easy to grasp. A cursory look at that morning’s timeline of events is
enough. In very short strokes:

8:13 Flight 11 disobeys air traffic instructions and
turns off its transponder.

8:40 NORAD command center claims first notification of
likely Flight 11 hijacking.

8:42 Flight 175 veers off course and shuts down its
transponder.

8:43 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight
175 hijacking.

8:46 Flight 11 hits the World Trade Center north
tower.

8:46 Flight 77 goes off course.

9:03 Flight 175 hits the WTC south tower.

9:16 Flight 93 goes off course.

9:16 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight
93 hijacking.

9:24 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight
77 hijacking.

9:37 Flight 77 hits the Pentagon.

10:06 Flight 93 crashes in a Pennsylvania field.

The open secret here is that stateside U.S. air
defenses had been reduced to paltry levels since the end of the Cold War.
According to a report by Paul Thompson published at the endlessly
informative Center for Cooperative Research website
(www.cooperativeresearch.org), “[O]nly two air force bases in the
Northeast region… were formally part of NORAD’s defensive system. One
was Otis Air National Guard Base, on Massachusetts’s Cape Cod peninsula
and about 188 miles east of New York City. The other was Langley Air Force
Base near Norfolk, Virginia, and about 129 miles south of Washington.
During the Cold War, the U.S. had literally thousands of fighters on
alert. But as the Cold War wound down, this number was reduced until it
reached only 14 fighters in the continental U.S. by 9/11.”

But even an underpowered air defense system on
slow-response status (15 minutes, officially, on 9/11) does not explain
the magnitude of NORAD’s apparent failures that day. Start with the
discrepancy in the times at which NORAD commanders claim to have learned
of the various hijackings. By 8:43 a.m., NORAD had been notified of two
probable hijackings in the previous five minutes. If there was such a
thing as a system-wide air defense crisis plan, it should have kicked in
at that moment. Three minutes later, at 8:46, Flight 11 crashed into the
first WTC tower. By then alerts should have been going out to all regional
air traffic centers of apparent coordinated hijackings in progress. Yet
when Flight 77, which eventually crashed into the Pentagon, was hijacked
three minutes later, at 8:46, NORAD claims not to have learned of it until
9:24, 38 minutes after the fact and just 13 minutes before it crashed into
the Pentagon.

The professed lag in reacting to the hijacking of
Flight 93 is just as striking. NORAD acknowledged learning of the
hijacking at 9:16, yet the Pentagon’s position is that it had not yet
intercepted the plane when it crashed in a Pennsylvania field just minutes
away from Washington, D.C. at 10:06, a full 50 minutes later.

In fact, there are a couple of other circumstantial
details of the crash, discussed mostly in Pennsylvania newspapers and
barely noted in national wire stories, that suggest Flight 93 may have
been shot down after all. First, officials never disputed reports that
there was a secondary debris field six miles from the main crash site, and
a few press accounts said that it included one of the plane’s engines. A
secondary debris field points to an explosion on board, from one of two
probable causes–a terrorist bomb carried on board or an Air Force
missile. And no investigation has ever intimated that any of the four
terror crews were toting explosives. They kept to simple tools like the
box cutters, for ease in passing security. Second, a handful of
eyewitnesses in the rural area around the crash site did report seeing
low-flying U.S. military jets around the time of the crash.

Which only raises another question. Shooting down
Flight 93 would have been incontestably the right thing to do under the
circumstances. More than that, it would have constituted the only evidence
of anything NORAD and the Pentagon had done right that whole morning. So
why deny it? Conversely, if fighter jets really were not on the scene when
93 crashed, why weren’t they? How could that possibly be?

16) The Bush administration had a plan for
restoring essential services and rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure after
the shooting war ended.

The question of what the U.S. would do to rebuild Iraq
was raised before the shooting started. I remember reading a press
briefing in which a Pentagon official boasted that at the time, the
American reconstruction team had already spent three weeks planning the
postwar world! The Pentagon’s first word was that the essentials of
rebuilding the country would take about $10 billion and three months; this
stood in fairly stark contrast to UN estimates that an aggressive
rebuilding program could cost up to $100 billion a year for a minimum of
three years.

After the shooting stopped it was evident the U.S. had
no plan for keeping order in the streets, much less commencing to rebuild.
(They are upgrading certain oil facilities, but that’s another matter.)
There are two ways to read this. The popular version is that it proves
what bumblers Bush and his crew really are. And it’s certainly true that
where the details of their grand designs are concerned, the administration
tends to have postures rather than plans. But this ignores the strategic
advantages the U.S. stands to reap by leaving Iraqi domestic affairs in a
chronic state of (managed, they hope) chaos. Most important, it provides
an excuse for the continued presence of a large U.S. force, which ensures
that America will call the shots in putting Iraqi oil back on the world
market and seeing to it that the Iraqis don’t fall in with the wrong sort
of oil company partners. A long military occupation is also a practical
means of accomplishing something the U.S. cannot do officially, which is
to maintain air bases in Iraq indefinitely. (This became necessary after
the U.S. agreed to vacate its bases in Saudi Arabia earlier this year to
try to defuse anti-U.S. political tensions there.)

Meanwhile, the U.S. plans to pay for whatever
rebuilding it gets around to doing with the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales,
an enormous cash box the U.S. will oversee for the good of the Iraqi
people.

In other words, “no plan” may have been the plan the
Bushmen were intent on pursuing all along.

17) The U.S. has made a good-faith effort at
peacekeeping in Iraq during the postwar period.

“Some [looters] shot big grins at American soldiers
and Marines or put down their prizes to offer a thumbs-up or a quick
finger across the throat and a whispered word–Saddam–before grabbing
their loot and vanishing.”

–Robert Fisk, London Independent, 4/11/03

Despite the many clashes between U.S. troops and
Iraqis in the three months since the heavy artillery fell silent, the
postwar performance of U.S. forces has been more remarkable for the things
they have not done–their failure to intervene in civil chaos or to begin
reestablishing basic civil procedures. It isn’t the soldiers’ fault.
Traditionally an occupation force is headed up by military police units
schooled to interact with the natives and oversee the restoration of goods
and services. But Rumsfeld has repeatedly declined advice to rotate out
the combat troops sooner rather than later and replace some of them with
an MP force. Lately this has been a source of escalating criticism within
military ranks.

18) Despite vocal international opposition, the
U.S. was backed by most of the world, as evidenced by the 40-plus-member
Coalition of the Willing.

When the whole world opposed the U.S. invasion of
Iraq, the outcry was so loud that it briefly pierced the slumber of the
American public, which poured out its angst in poll numbers that bespoke
little taste for a war without the UN’s blessing. So it became necessary
to assure the folks at home that the whole world was in fact for the
invasion. Thus was born the Coalition of the Willing, consisting of the
U.S. and UK, with Australia caddying–and 40-some additional co-champions
of U.S.-style democracy in the Middle East, whose ranks included such
titans of diplomacy and pillars of representative government as Angola,
Azerbaijan, Colombia, Eritrea, and Micronesia. If the American public
noticed the ruse, all was nonetheless forgotten when Baghdad fell.
Everybody loves a winner.

19) This war was notable for its protection of
civilians.

This from the Herald of Scotland, May 23: “American
guns, bombs, and missiles killed more civilians in the recent war in Iraq
than in any conflict since Vietnam, according to preliminary assessments
carried out by the UN, international aid agencies, and independent study
groups. Despite U.S. boasts this was the fastest, most clinical campaign
in military history, a first snapshot of ‘collateral damage’ indicates
that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi non-combatants died in the course of
the hi-tech blitzkrieg.”

20) The looting of archaeological and historic
sites in Baghdad was unanticipated.

General Jay Garner himself, then the head man for
postwar Iraq, told the Washington Times that he had put the Iraqi National
Museum second on a list of sites requiring protection after the fall of
the Saddam government, and he had no idea why the recommendation was
ignored. It’s also a matter of record that the administration had met in
January with a group of U.S. scholars concerned with the preservation of
Iraq’s fabulous Sumerian antiquities. So the war planners were aware of
the riches at stake. According to Scotland’s Sunday Herald, the Pentagon
took at least one other meeting as well: “[A] coalition of antiquities
collectors and arts lawyers, calling itself the American Council for
Cultural Policy (ACCP), met with U.S. Defense and State department
officials prior to the start of military action to offer its
assistance…. The group is known to consist of a number of influential
dealers who favor a relaxation of Iraq’s tight restrictions on the
ownership and export of antiquities…. [Archaeological Institute of
America] president Patty Gerstenblith said: ‘The ACCP’s agenda is to
encourage the collecting of antiquities through weakening the laws of
archaeologically rich nations and eliminate national ownership of
antiquities to allow for easier export.'”

21) Saddam was planning to provide WMD to terrorist
groups.

This is very concisely debunked in Walter Pincus’s
July 21 Washington Post story, so I’ll quote him: “‘Iraq could decide on
any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist
group or individual terrorists,’ President Bush said in Cincinnati on
October 7…. But declassified portions of a still-secret National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that
at the time of the president’s speech the U.S. intelligence community
judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE, which began
circulating October 2, shows the intelligence services were much more
worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were
facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military
attack by the United States.”

22) Saddam was capable of launching a chemical or
biological attack in 45 minutes.

Again the WashPost wraps it up nicely: “The 45-minute
claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent
suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the
government’s use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being
investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC
report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain’s public ‘dossier’ on
Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony
Blair–and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the
charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable.”

23) The Bush administration is seeking to create a
viable Palestinian state.

The interests of the U.S. toward the Palestinians have
not changed–not yet, at least. Israel’s “security needs” are still the
U.S.’s sturdiest pretext for its military role in policing the Middle East
and arming its Israeli proxies. But the U.S.’s immediate needs have tilted
since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the Bushmen need a fig
leaf–to confuse, if not exactly cover, their designs, and to give shaky
pro-U.S. governments in the region some scrap to hold out to their own
restive peoples. Bush’s roadmap has scared the hell out of the Israeli
right, but they have little reason to worry. Press reports in the U.S. and
Israel have repeatedly telegraphed the assurance that Bush won’t try to
push Ariel Sharon any further than he’s comfortable going.

24) People detained by the U.S. after 9/11 were
legitimate terror suspects.

Quite the contrary, as disclosed officially in last
month’s critical report on U.S. detainees from the Justice Department’s
own Office of Inspector General. A summary analysis of post-9/11
detentions posted at the UC-Davis website states, “None of the 1,200
foreigners arrested and detained in secret after September 11 was charged
with an act of terrorism. Instead, after periods of detention that ranged
from weeks to months, most were deported for violating immigration laws.
The government said that 752 of 1,200 foreigners arrested after September
11 were in custody in May 2002, but only 81 were still in custody in
September 2002.”

25) The U.S. is obeying the Geneva conventions in
its treatment of terror-related suspects, prisoners, and detainees.

The entire mumbo-jumbo about “unlawful combatants” was
conceived to skirt the Geneva conventions on treatment of prisoners by
making them out to be something other than POWs. Here is the actual
wording of Donald Rumsfeld’s pledge, freighted with enough qualifiers to
make it absolutely meaningless: “We have indicated that we do plan to, for
the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with
the Geneva conventions to the extent they are appropriate.” Meanwhile the
administration has treated its prisoners–many of whom, as we are now
seeing confirmed in legal hearings, have no plausible connection to
terrorist enterprises–in a manner that blatantly violates several key
Geneva provisions regarding humane treatment and housing.

26) Shots rang out from the Palestine hotel,
directed at U.S. soldiers, just before a U.S. tank fired on the hotel,
killing two journalists.

Eyewitnesses to the April 8 attack uniformly denied
any gunfire from the hotel. And just two hours prior to firing on the
hotel, U.S. forces had bombed the Baghdad offices of Al-Jazeera, killing a
Jordanian reporter. Taken together, and considering the timing, they were
deemed a warning to unembedded journalists covering the fall of Baghdad
around them. The day’s events seem to have been an extreme instance of a
more surreptitious pattern of hostility demonstrated by U.S. and UK forces
toward foreign journalists and those non-attached Western reporters who
moved around the country at will. (One of them, Terry Lloyd of Britain’s
ITN, was shot to death by UK troops at a checkpoint in late March under
circumstances the British government has refused to disclose.)

Some days after firing on the Palestine Hotel, the
U.S. sent in a commando unit to raid select floors of the hotel that were
known to be occupied by journalists, and the news gatherers were held on
the floor at gunpoint while their rooms were searched. A Centcom spokesman
later explained cryptically that intelligence reports suggested there were
people “not friendly to the U.S.” staying at the hotel. Allied forces also
bombed the headquarters of Abu Dhabi TV, injuring several.

27) U.S. troops “rescued” Private Jessica Lynch
from an Iraqi hospital.

If I had wanted to run up the tally of administration
lies, the Lynch episode alone could be parsed into several more. Officials
claimed that Lynch and her comrades were taken after a firefight in which
Lynch battled back bravely. Later they announced with great fanfare that
U.S. Special Forces had rescued Lynch from her captors. They reported that
she had been shot and stabbed. Later yet, they reported that the
recuperating Lynch had no memory of the events.

Bit by bit it all proved false. Lynch’s injuries
occurred when the vehicle she was riding in crashed. She did not fire on
anybody and she was not shot or stabbed. The Iraqi soldiers who had been
holding her had abandoned the hospital where she was staying the night
before U.S. troops came to get her–a development her “rescuers” were
aware of. In fact her doctor had tried to return her to the Americans the
previous evening after the Iraqi soldiers left. But he was forced to turn
back when U.S. troops fired on the approaching ambulance. As for Lynch’s
amnesia, her family has told reporters her memory is perfectly fine.

28) The populace of Baghdad and of Iraq generally
turned out en masse to greet U.S. troops as liberators.

There were indeed scattered expressions of thanks when
U.S. divisions rolled in, but they were neither as extensive nor as
enthusiastic as Bush image-makers pretended. Within a day or two of the
Saddam government’s fall, the scene in the Baghdad streets turned to
wholesale ransacking and vandalism. Within the week, large-scale protests
of the U.S. occupation had already begun occurring in every major Iraqi
city.

29) A spontaneous crowd of cheering Iraqis showed
up in a Baghdad square to celebrate the toppling of Saddam’s statue.

A long-distance shot of the same scene that was widely
posted on the internet shows that the teeming mob consisted of only one or
two hundred souls, contrary to the impression given by all the close-up TV
news shots of what appeared to be a massive gathering. It was later
reported that members of Ahmed Chalabi’s local entourage made up most of
the throng.

30) No major figure in the Bush administration said
that the Iraqi populace would turn out en masse to welcome the U.S.
military as liberators.

When confronted with–oh, call them reality
deficits–one habit of the Bushmen is to deny that they made erroneous or
misleading statements to begin with, secure in the knowledge that the
media will rarely muster the energy to look it up and call them on it.
They did it when their bold prewar WMD predictions failed to pan out (We
never said it would be easy! No, they only implied it), and they did it
when the “jubilant Iraqis” who took to the streets after the fall of
Saddam turned out to be anything but (We never promised they would welcome
us with open arms!).

But they did. March 16, Dick Cheney, Meet the Press:
The Iraqis are desperate “to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will
welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that…. [T]he
vast majority of them would turn on [Saddam] in a minute if, in fact, they
thought they could do so safely”).

31) The U.S. achieved its stated objectives in
Afghanistan, and vanquished the Taliban.

According to accounts in the Asia Times of Hong Kong,
the U.S. held a secret meeting earlier this year with Taliban leaders and
Pakistani intelligence officials to offer a deal to the Taliban for
inclusion in the Afghan government. (Main condition: Dump Mullah Omar.) As
Michael Tomasky commented in The American Prospect, “The first thing you
may be wondering: Why is there a possible role for the Taliban in a future
government? Isn’t that fellow Hamid Karzai running things, and isn’t it
all going basically okay? As it turns out, not really and not at all….
The reality… is an escalating guerilla war in which ‘small hit-and-run
attacks are a daily feature in most parts of the country, while
face-to-face skirmishes are common in the former Taliban stronghold around
Kandahar in the south.'”

32) Careful science demonstrates that depleted
uranium is no big risk to the population.

Pure nonsense. While the government has trotted out
expert after expert to debunk the dangers of depleted uranium, DU has been
implicated in health troubles experienced both by Iraqis and by U.S. and
allied soldiers in the first Gulf War. Unexploded DU shells are not a
grave danger, but detonated ones release particles that eventually find
their way into air, soil, water, and food.

While we’re on the subject, the BBC reported a couple
of months ago that recent tests of Afghani civilians have turned up with
unusually high concentrations of non-depleted uranium isotopes in their
urine. International monitors have called it almost conclusive evidence
that the U.S. used a new kind of uranium-laced bomb in the Afghan war.

33) The looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities
presented no big risk to the population.

Commanders on the scene, and Rumsfeld back in
Washington, immediately assured everyone that the looting of a facility
where raw uranium powder (so-called “yellowcake”) and several other
radioactive isotopes were stored was no serious danger to the
populace–yet the looting of the facility came to light in part because,
as the Washington Times noted, “U.S. and British newspaper reports have
suggested that residents of the area were suffering from severe ill health
after tipping out yellowcake powder from barrels and using them to store
food.”

34) U.S. troops were under attack when they fired
upon a crowd of civilian protesters in Mosul.

April 15: U.S. troops fire into a crowd of protesters
when it grows angry at the pro-Western speech being given by the town’s
new mayor, Mashaan al-Juburi. Seven are killed and dozens injured.
Eyewitness accounts say the soldiers spirit Juburi away as he is pelted
with objects by the crowd, then take sniper positions and begin firing on
the crowd.

35) U.S. troops were under attack when they fired
upon two separate crowds of civilian protesters in Fallujah.

April 28: American troops fire into a crowd of
demonstrators gathered on Saddam’s birthday, killing 13 and injuring 75.
U.S. commanders claim the troops had come under fire, but eyewitnesses
contradict the account, saying the troops started shooting after they were
spooked by warning shots fired over the crowd by one of the Americans’ own
Humvees. Two days later U.S. soldiers fired on another crowd in Fallujah,
killing three more.

36) The Iraqis fighting occupation forces consist
almost entirely of “Saddam supporters” or “Ba’ath remnants.”

This has been the subject of considerable spin on the
Bushmen’s part in the past month, since they launched Operation Sidewinder
to capture or kill remaining opponents of the U.S. occupation. It’s true
that the most fierce (but by no means all) of the recent guerrilla
opposition has been concentrated in the Sunni-dominated areas that were
Saddam’s stronghold, and there is no question that Saddam partisans are
numerous there. But, perhaps for that reason, many other guerrilla
fighters have flocked there to wage jihad, both from within and without
Iraq. Around the time of the U.S. invasion, some 10,000 or so foreign
fighters had crossed into Iraq, and I’ve seen no informed estimate of how
many more may have joined them since.

(No room here, but if you check the online version of
this story, there’s a footnote regarding one less-than-obvious reason
former Republican Guard personnel may be fighting mad at this point.)

37) The bidding process for Iraq rebuilding
contracts displayed no favoritism toward Bush and Cheney’s oil/gas
cronies.

Most notoriously, Dick Cheney’s former energy-sector
employer, Halliburton, was all over the press dispatches about the first
round of rebuilding contracts. So much so that they were eventually
obliged to bow out of the running for a $1 billion reconstruction contract
for the sake of their own PR profile. But Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg
Brown Root still received the first major plum in the form of a $7 billion
contract to tend to oil field fires and (the real purpose) to do any
retooling necessary to get the oil pumping at a decent rate, a deal that
allows them a cool $500 million in profit. The fact that Dick Cheney’s
office is still fighting tooth and nail to block any disclosure of the
individuals and companies with whom his energy task force consulted tells
everything you need to know.

38) “We found the WMDs!”

There have been at least half a dozen junctures at
which the Bushmen have breathlessly informed the press that allied troops
had found the WMD smoking gun, including the president himself, who on
June 1 told reporters, “For those who say we haven’t found the banned
manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.”

Shouldn’t these quickly falsified statements be
counted as errors rather than lies? Under the circumstances, no. First,
there is just too voluminous a record of the administration going on the
media offensive to tout lines they know to be flimsy. This appears to be
more of same. Second, if the great genius Karl Rove and the rest of the
Bushmen have demonstrated that they understand anything about the
propaganda potential of the historical moment they’ve inherited, they
surely understand that repetition is everything. Get your message out
regularly, and even if it’s false a good many people will believe it.

Finally, we don’t have to speculate about whether the
administration would really plant bogus WMD evidence in the American
media, because they have already done it, most visibly in the case of
Judith Miller of the New York Times and the Iraqi defector “scientist” she
wrote about at the military’s behest on April 21. Miller did not even get
to speak with the purported scientist, but she graciously passed on
several things American commanders claimed he said: that Iraq only
destroyed its chemical weapons days before the war, that WMD materiel had
been shipped to Syria, and that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda. As Slate media
critic Jack Shafer told WNYC Radio’s On the Media program, “When you…
look at [her story], you find that it’s gas, it’s air. There’s no way to
judge the value of her information, because it comes from an unnamed
source that won’t let her verify any aspect of it. And if you dig into the
story… you’ll find out that the only thing that Miller has independently
observed is a man that the military says is the scientist, wearing a
baseball cap, pointing at mounds in the dirt.”

39) “The Iraqi people are now free.”

So says the current U.S. administrator of Iraq, L.
Paul Bremer, in a recent New York Times op-ed. He failed to add that
disagreeing can get you shot or arrested under the terms of the Pentagon’s
latest plan for pacifying Iraq, Operation Sidewinder (see #36), a military
op launched last month to wipe out all remaining Ba’athists and Saddam
partisans–meaning, in practice, anyone who resists the U.S. occupation
too zealously.

40) God told Bush to invade Iraq.

Not long after the September 11 attacks,
neoconservative high priest Norman Podhoretz wrote: “One hears that Bush,
who entered the White House without a clear sense of what he wanted to do
there, now feels there was a purpose behind his election all along; as a
born-again Christian, it is said, he believes he was chosen by God to
eradicate the evil of terrorism from the world.”

No, he really believes it, or so he would like us to
think. The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, told the Israeli
newspaper Ha’aretz that Bush made the following pronouncement during a
recent meeting between the two: “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I
struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did,
and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.”

Oddly, it never got much play back home.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This was truly a collaborative effort from start to
finish. It began with the notion of running a week-long marathon of Bush
administration lies at my online Bush Wars column (bushwarsblog.com).
Along the way my e-mail box delivered more research assistance than I’ve
ever received on any single story. I need to thank Jeff St. Clair and the
Counterpunch website (counterpunch.org), which featured the Lies marathon
in addition to posting valuable reportage and essays every day; I also
received lots of lies entries and documentary links from BW readers Rob
Johnson, Ted Dibble, and Donna Johnson, as well as my colleagues Mark
Gisleson, Elaine Cassel, Sally Ryan, Mike Mosedale, and Paul Demko. Dave
Marsh provided valuable editing suggestions.

I also found loads of valuable information through
Cursor and Buzzflash, the two best news links pages on the internet, and
through research projects on the Bushmen posted at Cooperative Research
(cooperativeresearch.org), Whiskey Bar (billmon.org), and tvnewslies.org.

But the heart of the effort was all the readers of
Bush Wars who sent along ideas and links that advanced the project. Many
thanks to Estella Bloomberg, Vince Bradley, Angela Bradshaw, Gary Burns,
Elaine Cole, George Dobosh, Deborah Eddy, David Erickson, Casey Finne,
Douglas Gault, Jean T. Gordon, Doug Henwood, George Hunsinger, Peter Lee,
Eric Martin, Michael McFadden, George McLaughlin, Eric T. Olson, Doug
Payne, Alan W. Peck, Dennis Perrin, Charles Prendergast, Publius, Michele
Quinn, Ernesto Resnik, Ed Rickert, Maritza Silverio, Marshall Smith,
Robert David Steele, Ed Thornhill, Christopher Veal, and Jennifer Vogel.
And my apologies to anyone else whose e-mails I didn’t manage to save.

Editor’s note: In the interest of relative brevity
I’ve stinted on citing and quoting sources in some of the items below. You
can find links to news stories that elaborate on each of these items at my
online Bush Wars column.

###


 

If you’re following the party line you don’t
have to document anything; you can say anything you feel like…  that’s
one of the privileges you get for obedience.  On the other hand, if you’re critical of received opinion, you have to
document every phrase”.  – Noam Chomsky

 

“There is no flag large enough to cover
the shame of killing innocent people”.  –  Howard Zinn

 


Page 1 of 11


Copyright © 2008 GetRealList
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
FAIR USE NOTICE