Road to war, paved with lies

[RickSp]

David Schuster of MSNBC provides a good account of how the how the Bush administration sold the Iraq War to the American people in a well planned media campaign. A disturbing account of media manipulation and aggressive distortion of the facts to justify "a war of choice."

Road to war

The Bush administration had assembled a media strategy team known as the White House Iraq Group. It consisted of top officials, including those in the vice president’s office whose goals starting after Labor Day was to sell a war on Iraq, which had no detectable role on 9/11. On September 7, 2002, White House chief of staff Andy Card referred to the effort in an interview with The New York Times and said, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.” The next day, the White House marketers delivered their product, a New York Times front-page story. U.S. says Hussein intensifies quest for A-Bomb parts. Judy Miller attributing the story to Bush administration officials reported, “Iraq has stepped up it’s quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes meant for Iraq’s nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney referred to that article in a speech and again later in a scheduled appearance on “Meet the Press” that same day. He pointed out, “That he is in fact actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.” Cheney was not the only scheduled guest that day pushing The New York Times story and hammering the nuclear argument. In a unique media blitz, the White House dispatched five A-list administration officials to the television airwaves, one to each of the Sunday talk shows. On FOX News Sunday, Colin Powell, said about Saddam, “We saw in reporting just this morning, he is still trying to acquire, for example, some of the specialized aluminum tubing one needs to develop centrifuges.” Gen. Richard Myers, former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff said “Our intelligence is always imperfect and we usually find out that what we don’t know is the most troublesome. In this case, so we don’t know. Our estimate is at this point he does not have nuclear weapon, but he wants one.” On CNN, when Condoleezza Rice was asked if it’s possible the tubes were not for nuclear weapons. She replied, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” The nuclear claims led the papers and the nightly newscasts for two days in a row. Then on the anniversary of 9/11, President Bush said, “We will not relent until justice is done and our nation is secure. What our enemies have begun, we will finish.” In early October, the president spoke again about Iraq’s efforts to buy aluminum tubes, echoing Condoleezza Rice, “We cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Four days later, the Senate and the House voted to allow President Bush to launch a war on Iraq if Saddam doesn’t disarm. The resolution stated that Iraq posed, a continuing threat to the United States by, among other things, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability. Many Democrats who voted for the resolution emphasized that very point. Unbeknownst to the public at the time, however, two agencies in the administration, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Department of Energy, concluded the aluminum tubes were the wrong specification for nuclear materials. Agency officials, under orders not to talk publicly, thought the tubes were intended to be Iraqi artillery rockets, not nukes. In early January 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported, “While it would be possible to modify such tubes for the manufacture of centrifuges, they are not directly suitable for it.” The Bush administration dismissed the IAEA report and in the president’s State of the Union, the ultimate platform for the administration to sell the idea that Saddam was a nuclear threat.

[samsara15]

Lying is one of the things they do best. But what galls is that they deliberately did a sales job on the US public to persuade a gullible nation to support them. On the other hand, maybe they believe their own lies.

[RickSp]

Quote by: samsara15 Lying is one of the things they do best. But what galls is that they deliberately did a sales job on the US public to persuade a gullible nation to support them. On the other hand, maybe they believe their own lies.

The one element that I find surprising is how Judy Miller was effectively a full member of the White House Iraq Group, pumping out stories through the New York Times orchestrated exactly to fit with the White House marketing campaign. Bizarre how the paper so often associated with the "liberal media" was so totally subverted.

[Sonart]

.

And the aluminum tubes that played so predominantly in this story? They originated not from our intelligence, who, as the story declares, did not believe they had nuclear uses, but from the furtile imagination of one, Ahmed Chalabi... Dear Leader's favorite Iranian spy.

.

[Zeebadee]

"The Iraqi politician most associated with the discredited prewar intelligence that has the Bush presidency in turmoil visits Washington this week as he maneuvers for advantage before Iraq's December 15 elections."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...eut/index.html

He was welcomed in DC like a VIP. Can this administration really become any more disgusting??

[wise1ray]

The following is a non-exhaustive sampling of certain important precepts one must believe, pretend to believe, or advocate in order to be in the Democratic leadership fraternity, that bizarre cadre of partisan creatures dedicated to destroying President Bush personally as an alternative to devising a coherent, politically viable policy agenda:

Nazi and Communist propagandists were on to something in teaching that if you repeat a lie – even an outrageous one – often enough, people will begin to believe it.

This principle holds true even if you are guilty of precisely the same thing as those you accuse (talking up Saddam's WMDs) and your complicity is conclusively demonstrated on audiotape and videotape.

When your obvious duplicity in this affair is illuminated by reference to the uncontroverted fact that when you made similar claims about Saddam's WMDs you had access to the same intelligence as the administration, you simply say the president pressured the intelligence community to doctor the data.

When this specious assertion is contradicted by unequivocal findings of bipartisan investigative commissions, you simply demand, with righteous indignation, more investigations.





In the meantime, you also charge that President Bush cherry-picked certain intelligence and deliberately relied on other discredited intelligence in order to bolster his case for war against Iraq. And you do that knowing that it is you who are retrospectively cherry-picking the evidence and presenting it as irrefutable proof that Bush lied.

For example, you triumphantly cite a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document dated February 2002, stating it was probable that an al-Qaida informant had fabricated his claim that Iraq trained al-Qaida in the use of biological and chemical weapons. You smugly point out that since this DIA document predated, by months, public statements by President Bush and his team in which they referenced the "impeached" terrorist's claim in support of their assertion of an Iraq/al-Qaida connection, Bush had to have lied.

What neither you nor your New York Times enablers divulge is that the CIA manifestly didn't agree with the DIA's assessment. (According to The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, CIA Director George Tenet, a year after the DIA report, testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq trained al-Qaida in document forgery, bomb making, poisons and gases.)

As another example, you figure that if you obfuscate artfully enough, the public will not realize that the infamous 16-word assertion in the president's State of the Union address that the Brits learned Saddam tried to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger is as true today as when he uttered it.

When confronted with the annoying detail that Bill Clinton likewise made bold assertions about Saddam's WMDs, you shrewdly calculate that this fact can actually be twisted in your favor. After all, though Clinton knew Saddam was hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, using them against us and distributing them to our terrorist enemies also to use against us, he chose – in his infinite wisdom – not to invade Iraq – apart from his cosmetic cruise missile volleys. And, since the Iraq War has proven to be such a delightful failure in your eyes, you declare that Clinton is vindicated for having chosen not to take out Saddam. Thus, those sour lemons are converted to lemonade.




Though you insist your foreign policy is guided both by humanitarian and national security interests, you are nevertheless unmoved by the remarkably positive developments that have occurred in Iraq as a result of our intervention. You essentially pooh-pooh our deposition of the murderous dictator Saddam and even moreso the Iraqi people's historic progress toward constitutional self-rule.

And, despite the terrorists' single-minded focus on preventing the democratization of Iraq, you still deny it's part of the War on Terror. The fact that we've sustained casualties apparently negates, in your mind, any good that has accrued, giving rise to the obvious question: Is any foreign policy cause worth dying for?

You also must conveniently ignore that, no matter what 20/20 hindsight may reveal after the fact, reasonable people agree that Saddam had WMDs, used them on his own people, had a legal obligation to prove he'd disposed of them and failed to meet that burden, choosing instead to submit a 12,000-page document of lies.

You must flagrantly disregard the inconvenient but undeniable fact that Saddam could have prevented an American attack if he'd complied with his treaties, cooperated with weapons inspectors and proven he'd disposed of his WMDs as required. By flipping us off instead, he invited the War.

You must also ignore that virtually all the world's intelligence agencies believed Saddam still had WMD stockpiles. Did Bush trick all of them, too?

You must steadfastly maintain that the Libby indictment directly taints Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the entire administration, even though special prosecutor Fitzgerald did not issue any indictments on underlying crimes and explicitly denied that the indictment speaks to the propriety of the war.

Indeed, using liberal logic, you are utterly undeterred by the lack of indictments as you clamor for a presidential "housecleaning." Such a disingenuous, nonsensical strategy might just fool people into believing your false claims that the administration "outed" Valerie Plame to punish her "useful idiot" husband and advance your fantasy of criminalizing the war and, ultimately, impeaching President Bush.

[RickSp]

Oh wise1ray, what an amusing bundle of lies, half-truths and outright slurs. I particularly like that you invoke the Nazis and Communists to claim that those who oppose King George's war are the liars. What a droll sense of humor. Oh you weren’t joking?

You claim that his critics and not Bush are guilty of cherry picking information. It is clear that your approach is to claim that those who dare criticize your mad king are guilty of all the crimes and abuses that the Bush administration have indeed committed. It is lazy man’s strategy that you seem to copy from Rush and his ilk.

It is particularly funny that you continue to attack the New York Times when the New York Times was an instrument of the Bush conspiracy to lie us into war. And you fall into the conservative rant about when Saddam really had WMD, ignoring, of course, that back then he was Ronnie Reagan's good buddy, aided by Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney. The rogues’ gallery hasn't changed even if the chairs have been rearranged. The irony that when Saddam had WMD, he was our ally, and when he had none, he became an evil monster who was too dangerous to leave alone, would be funny if tens of thousands of Americian soldiers had no been killed or maimed so far in this fool's campaign.

So please feel free to rant on. Your rhetorical pretzels are as amusing as they are absurd.

[Sonart]

Quote by: wise1ray Nazi and Communist propagandists were on to something in teaching that if you repeat a lie – even an outrageous one – often enough, people will begin to believe it.

You mean like Boy George continuing to imply that Iraq actually had something to do with 9/11. Oh goodie, this new guy's going to make our arguement for us.

Quote by: wise1ray This principle holds true even if you are guilty of precisely the same thing as those you accuse (talking up Saddam's WMDs) and your complicity is conclusively demonstrated on audiotape and videotape.

Meaning......... what?

Quote by: wise1ray When your obvious duplicity in this affair is illuminated by reference to the uncontroverted fact that when you made similar claims about Saddam's WMDs you had access to the same intelligence as the administration, you simply say the president pressured the intelligence community to doctor the data.

What I can appertain to your adumbration is the indubitable verisimilitude that our former prolocutor, William Clinton, if that be to whom you attest, did not, by any concrete happening, inaugurate belligerent martial enmity with the intent to ensconce our soldiery within the perifery of an exceedingly viperous dominion.

Whatever Bill Clinton thought, he didn't stupidly invade Iraq. In fact, he resisted intense Neo-Con lobbying to do so. And whatever the Democrats who voted for the invasion thought, they likely did so because of the nonsense Dear Leader and his intelligence briefers told them.

Quote by: wise1ray When this specious assertion is contradicted by unequivocal findings of bipartisan investigative commissions, you simply demand, with righteous indignation, more investigations.

Well we don't know that, do we, since we're still waiting for Phase 2 of the Senate Intelligence Committe Report that was promised 18 months ago, before being put on hold by the Republican committee chair

That would be the part of the report that talks about how the administration interpreted and used the intelligence it received.

Quote by: wise1ray (According to The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes

Ahh, yes, William Kristol's delightful little Neo-Con guidebook. Haven't the poor Neo-Cons been discredited enough, ray? :rolleyes:

Quote by: wise1ray When confronted with the annoying detail that Bill Clinton likewise made bold assertions about Saddam's WMDs, you shrewdly calculate that this fact can actually be twisted in your favor. After all, though Clinton knew Saddam was hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, using them against us and distributing them to our terrorist enemies also to use against us, he chose – in his infinite wisdom – not to invade Iraq – apart from his cosmetic cruise missile volleys.

And, according to the Kay report, Clinton got it exactly right, didn't he. According to Kay, any possible potential for weapons making was wiped out in Desert Fox, Saddam was left with basically no military capacity to threaten anyone, and in the end we did not stupidly bury the heart of our military neck deep in an insurgent quagmire we can't win and can't get out of.

.

[Boetie]

wise1ray posts: You must also ignore that virtually all the world's intelligence agencies believed Saddam still had WMD stockpiles. Did Bush trick all of them, too?

Someone on another thread tried to pull that same stupid statement above. The truth is the United Nations sent weapons inspectors to Iraq to verify stupid boy wonder Bush Jr's claim Iraq had WMD's. Everytime the inspector's returned to give the UN an update the inspectors came up empty handed.

It was left to Powell to try and convince this world that Saddam had WMD's and as we all know it was the most laughable piece of crock you ever did see. The world wasn't convinced.

Nevertheless a vote was to be taken whether the UN will sanction force or not. It was obvious the world was not persuaded to take the route Bush Jr wanted to take. Fearful boy Bush Jr decided to go at it unilaterally only to get pissed off at Wilson, because Wilson told the public the truth which is Bush Jr fixed the facts to fit the policy.

And now it the rats are coming out showing their loyalty to Bush Jr and disloyalty to the United States of America. You can tell these rats because they make up crap to defend the liar Bush Jr.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Boetie Someone on another thread tried to pull that same stupid statement above. The truth is the United Nations sent weapons inspectors to Iraq to verify stupid boy wonder Bush Jr's claim Iraq had WMD's.

That same faulty logic is CONSTANTLY coming from the pro-war side.
It's ridiculous.
Much of the world opposed this war. Apparently, they are wrong for doing that simply because the weaposn inspectors were in Iraq. It's such weird logic.

Kind of like the idea that the innocent people of Iraq must be denied food
and aid because Saddam is a bad guy. Madelleine Albright even admitted, on 60 Minutes no less, the terrible suffering caused by sanctions. Yet people still insist the suffering of Iraqis was entirely Saddam's fault. No it wasn't, and neither was the gassing of Kurds, where Saddam enjoyed much US support. America and European countries played key roles in the vast majority of Iraq's development, yet Iraq is the only ass-backwards country we should worry about? It's sickening! Bah!

Grandpa h.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: RickSp Bizarre how the paper so often associated with the "liberal media" was so totally subverted.

Why doesn't your cynicism kick in over the WHOLE ROTTEN MESS, not just the stinking war? Ah, well.

wise1ray, since you are posting here for the first time I will cut you some slack. But to post another person's work without attribution is known as plagiarism in these parts. You need to read the forum rules, but anyone should know better than to do what you did.

This guy wrote what you posted: http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/arch...a_ma.html#more

Now, this is a debate site. You are encouraged to have opinions here and duke it out with us in your own words with backup from your favorite media authors. But just pasting an article written by someone else, without any attribution or comment is contemptible. Shape up or hit the trail.

[grandpa]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Why doesn't your cynicism kick in over the WHOLE ROTTEN MESS, not just the stinking war? Ah, well. wise1ray, since you are posting here for the first time I will cut you some slack. But to post another person's work without attribution is known as plagiarism in these parts. You need to read the forum rules, but anyone should know better than to do what you did. This guy wrote what you posted: http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/arch...a_ma.html#more Now, this is a debate site. You are encouraged to have opinions here and duke it out with us in your own words with backup from your favorite media authors. But just pasting an article written by someone else, without any attribution or comment is contemptible. Shape up or hit the trail.

Well, patrick--I should say maybe you are overreacting on this one. I don't think it's too awful to post a news article and leave it at that.
Usually people will talk regardless of who the original messenger is--
and I think that's what's most important.

Grandpa h.

[Zealot]

Quote by: grandpa Well, patrick--I should say maybe you are overreacting on this one. I don't think it's too awful to post a news article and leave it at that. Usually people will talk regardless of who the original messenger is-- and I think that's what's most important. Grandpa h.

The topic of this thread is about a paved road of lies and a similar road to hell is paved with good intentions. I agree with you grampa on this one. Possibly he did what you call nit......, but with good intentions, right?

Zealot

[RickSp]

Quote by: grandpa Well, patrick--I should say maybe you are overreacting on this one. I don't think it's too awful to post a news article and leave it at that. Usually people will talk regardless of who the original messenger is-- and I think that's what's most important. Grandpa h.

Nothing wrong with posting an article. Plagarizing an article is another thing entirely.

[PatrickHenry]

No attribution means you are pretending you wrote what is posted. You boys need to get up to speed on the rules of the forum and the conventions regarding plagiarism. The mods will back me on this one...

[RickSp]

Quote by: PatrickHenry No attribution means you are pretending you wrote what is posted. You boys need to get up to speed on the rules of the forum and the conventions regarding plagiarism. The mods will back me on this one...

There is actually something kinda funny about plagerizing the article. The thread is about lying and here comes someone to defend the liars, who is himself fact stealing someone's words without attribution.

[Matt W]

What Pat said. Plagarism has the potential to get the site in trouble. Don't do it, people - source your facts at all times, where possible.

[RickSp]

More on the lies of Libi (al-Libi not Scooter - with so many prevaricators it does get confusing). Provided with attribution:
Lying with Intelligence

Who in the White House knew about DITSUM No. 044-02 and when did they know it? That's the newly declassified smoking-gun document, originally prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency in February 2002 but ignored by President Bush. Its declassification this weekend blows another huge hole in Bush's claim that he was acting on the best intelligence available when he pitched the invasion of Iraq as a way to prevent an Al Qaeda terror attack using weapons of mass destruction. The report demolished the credibility of the key Al Qaeda informant the Administration relied on to make its claim that a working alliance existed between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. It was circulated widely within the US government a full eight months before Bush used the prisoner's lies to argue for an invasion of Iraq because "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases." Al Qaeda senior military trainer Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi--a Libyan captured in Pakistan in 2001--was probably "intentionally misleading the debriefers," the DIA report concluded in one of two paragraphs finally declassified at the request of Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and released by his office over the weekend. The report also said: "Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest."