Sunday, November 27, 2005

What Frank Said.

Dishonest, Reprehensible, Corrupt ...
By Frank Rich
The New York Times

Sunday 27 November 2005

George W. Bush is so desperate for allies that his hapless Asian tour took him to Ulan Bator, a first for an American president, so he could mingle with the yaks and give personal thanks for Mongolia's contribution of some 160 soldiers to "the coalition of the willing." Dick Cheney, whose honest-and-ethical poll number hit 29 percent in Newsweek's latest survey, is so radioactive that he vanished into his bunker for weeks at a time during the storms Katrina and Scootergate.

The whole world can see that both men are on the run. Just how much so became clear in the brace of nasty broadsides each delivered this month about Iraq. Neither man engaged the national debate ignited by John Murtha about how our troops might be best redeployed in a recalibrated battle against Islamic radicalism. Neither offered a plan for "victory." Instead, both impugned their critics' patriotism and retreated into the past to defend the origins of the war. In a seasonally appropriate impersonation of the misanthropic Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life," the vice president went so far as to label critics of the administration's prewar smoke screen both "dishonest and reprehensible" and "corrupt and shameless." He sounded but one epithet away from a defibrillator.

The Washington line has it that the motivation for the Bush-Cheney rage is the need to push back against opponents who have bloodied the White House in the polls. But, Mr. Murtha notwithstanding, the Democrats are too feeble to merit that strong a response. There is more going on here than politics.

Much more: each day brings slam-dunk evidence that the doomsday threats marshaled by the administration to sell the war weren't, in Cheney-speak, just dishonest and reprehensible but also corrupt and shameless. The more the president and vice president tell us that their mistakes were merely innocent byproducts of the same bad intelligence seen by everyone else in the world, the more we learn that this was not so. The web of half-truths and falsehoods used to sell the war did not happen by accident; it was woven by design and then foisted on the public by a P.R. operation built expressly for that purpose in the White House. The real point of the Bush-Cheney verbal fisticuffs this month, like the earlier campaign to take down Joseph Wilson, is less to smite Democrats than to cover up wrongdoing in the executive branch between 9/11 and shock and awe.

The cover-up is failing, however. No matter how much the president and vice president raise their decibel levels, the truth keeps roaring out. A nearly 7,000-word investigation in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times found that Mr. Bush and his aides had "issued increasingly dire warnings" about Iraq's mobile biological weapons labs long after U.S. intelligence authorities were told by Germany's Federal Intelligence Service that the principal source for these warnings, an Iraqi defector in German custody code-named Curveball, "never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so." The five senior German intelligence officials who spoke to The Times said they were aghast that such long-discredited misinformation from a suspected fabricator turned up in Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations and in the president's 2003 State of the Union address (where it shared billing with the equally bogus 16 words about Saddam's fictitious African uranium).

Right after the L.A. Times scoop, Murray Waas filled in another piece of the prewar propaganda puzzle. He reported in the nonpartisan National Journal that 10 days after 9/11, "President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda."

The information was delivered in the President's Daily Brief, a C.I.A. assessment also given to the vice president and other top administration officials. Nonetheless Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney repeatedly pounded in an implicit (and at times specific) link between Saddam and Al Qaeda until Americans even started to believe that the 9/11 attacks had been carried out by Iraqis. More damning still, Mr. Waas finds that the "few credible reports" of Iraq-Al Qaeda contacts actually involved efforts by Saddam to monitor or infiltrate Islamic terrorist groups, which he regarded as adversaries of his secular regime. Thus Saddam's antipathy to Islamic radicals was the same in 2001 as it had been in 1983, when Donald Rumsfeld, then a Reagan administration emissary, embraced the dictator as a secular fascist ally in the American struggle against the theocratic fascist rulers in Iran.

What these revelations also tell us is that Mr. Bush was wrong when he said in his Veterans Day speech that more than 100 Congressional Democrats who voted for the Iraqi war resolution "had access to the same intelligence" he did. They didn't have access to the President's Daily Brief that Mr. Waas uncovered. They didn't have access to the information that German intelligence officials spoke about to The Los Angeles Times. Nor did they have access to material from a Defense Intelligence Agency report, released by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan this month, which as early as February 2002 demolished the reliability of another major source that the administration had persistently used for its false claims about Iraqi-Al Qaeda collaboration.

The more we learn about the road to Iraq, the more we realize that it's a losing game to ask what lies the White House told along the way. A simpler question might be: What was not a lie? The situation recalls Mary McCarthy's explanation to Dick Cavett about why she thought Lillian Hellman was a dishonest writer: "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.' "

If Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney believe they were truthful in the run-up to the war, it's easy for them to make their case. Instead of falsely claiming that they've been exonerated by two commissions that looked into prewar intelligence - neither of which addressed possible White House misuse and mischaracterization of that intelligence - they should just release the rest of the President's Daily Briefs and other prewar documents that are now trickling out. Instead, incriminatingly enough, they are fighting the release of any such information, including unclassified documents found in post-invasion Iraq requested from the Pentagon by the pro-war, neocon Weekly Standard. As Scott Shane reported in The New York Times last month, Vietnam documents are now off limits, too: the National Security Agency won't make public a 2001 historical report on how American officials distorted intelligence in 1964 about the Gulf of Tonkin incident for fear it might "prompt uncomfortable comparisons" between the games White Houses played then and now to gin up wars.

Sooner or later - probably sooner, given the accelerating pace of recent revelations - this embarrassing information will leak out anyway. But the administration's deliberate efforts to suppress or ignore intelligence that contradicted its Iraq crusade are only part of the prewar story. There were other shadowy stations on the disinformation assembly line. Among them were the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, a two-man Pentagon operation specifically created to cherry-pick intelligence for Mr. Cheney's apocalyptic Iraqi scenarios, and the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), in which Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and the Cheney hands Lewis Libby and Mary Matalin, among others, plotted to mainline this propaganda into the veins of the press and public. These murky aspects of the narrative - like the role played by a private P.R. contractor, the Rendon Group, examined by James Bamford in the current Rolling Stone - have yet to be recounted in full.

No debate about the past, of course, can undo the mess that the administration made in Iraq. But the past remains important because it is a road map to both the present and the future. Leaders who dissembled then are still doing so. Indeed, they do so even in the same speeches in which they vehemently deny having misled us then - witness Mr. Bush's false claims about what prewar intelligence was seen by Congress and Mr. Cheney's effort last Monday to again conflate the terrorists of 9/11 with those "making a stand in Iraq." (Maj. Gen. Douglas Lute, director of operations for Centcom, says the Iraqi insurgency is 90 percent homegrown.) These days Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney routinely exaggerate the readiness of Iraqi troops, much as they once inflated Saddam's W.M.D.'s.

"We're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," the vice president said of his critics. "We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them." But according to a Harris poll released by The Wall Street Journal last Wednesday, 64 percent of Americans now believe that the Bush administration "generally misleads the American public on current issues to achieve its own ends." That's why it's Mr. Cheney's and the president's own words that are being thrown back now - not to rewrite history but to reveal it for the first time to an angry country that has learned the hard way that it can no longer afford to be without the truth.

-------

8 comments:

Lulu Maude said...

Ahhh... he's my hero... the best reason for buying the Sunday Times.

CLD said...

Finally, the sheeple are awakening.

Karen Zipdrive said...

Not all of them.
Clyde my political nemesis is furious over the X CNN flashed over Dick Cheney's face.
Bahhhh bahhh bahhhhh!

The Haikuist said...

Rich makes many valid points, but the one criticism I would make is that he is also making excuses for those Democrats who voted for the war. It didn't take a rocket scientist back in 2002 to know that Bush was lying at the time, and those of us in the antiwar movement were apparently smarter than those 100 or so Democrats that Rich seems to be defending.

Kate said...

Wow, it's like this Rich guy has been channeling your blog for the past 5 years, Karen. Outstanding. I'm so happy. This is very good news. I keep watching though, for the poll numbers to drop down to single digits.

Then can we take 'em out back behind the woodshed?

Karen Zipdrive said...

Haikuist:
The Democrats were inundated with cooked intelligence and spin that would have made all of them seem like Maxine Waters had they stood against granting Bush the right to go to war.
You have to remember, at the time Bush and his band of criminal cronies were still riding high off the fumes of 9/11.
They knew when to hatch their dastardly plan because Karl Rove is an expert at well-timed treachery; a skill that will serve him well in prison.
The Dems were outnumbered and they virtually had to play ball.

dusty said...

Exactly Karen..the Dems were damned if they did and damned if they didnt..it was a no win situation. Most of the public wanted to beleive the Administration. The fact that most of our fatalities have come after the country was "won" have finally turned the tables on the Bush regime.

Inheriting Syria said...

Impeachment
http://i-m-democracy-4-u-now.blogspot.com/2006/12/imepeachment-silent-i-word.html

Writer’s Help Wanted:

My cranium gray matter says impeachment but there must be another way?

Amy & David Goodman’s book:
“Static” Just one particular page is 153 which talks about torture:
President Bush declared on December 15, 2005 that the legislation he was signing, after fighting it for months, made it “clear to the world that this government does not torture.” But the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (the McCain amendment) had been almost completely eviscerated by that point. At the insistence of Republican senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, with the acquiescence of Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, the bill stripped Guantanamo detainees of the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts, thereby reversing a landmark decision that explicitly affirmed these rights for the detainees. So while the act bans torture, Guantanamo detainees, who UN Investigators, among others, confirm are being tortured by their American captors, have no way to enforce the law. Page 154, two weeks later, “December 30, 2005”, President Bush issued a “signing statement”. “The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president ... as commander in chief.”

Impeachment: The silent “I” word.
In other words, President Bush was able to disregard the legislation he signed into law two weeks earlier because he was the President? Now one year later the public is in the bliss of signet anesthesia. Americas must blame themselves for allowing Nancy Pelosi Henry A Waxman, Tom Lantos and the media to be silent in using the “I” word.

Connection between the Vietnam War and Iraq war.
One year one month and another media silent Anniversary?

From Scott Shane of the New York Times News Service
Friday, December 2, 2005.
Page A8:
The National Security Agency releasing hundreds of pages of long-secret documents on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident that played a critical role near the beginning of the Vietnam War.

The material was posted on the Internet at midnight Wednesday included one of the largest collections of secret, intercepted communications ever made available for study. The most provocative document is a 2001 article in which an agency historian argued that the agency’s intelligence officers “deliberately skewed” the evidence passed on to policymakers on the crucial question of whether North Vietnamese ships attacked U.S. destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964. Based on the mistaken belief that such an attack had occurred, President Johnson ordered air strikes on North Vietnam, and Congress passed a broad resolution authorizing military action.

The historian, Robert J. Hanyok, wrote the article in an internal publication and it was classified top secret despite the fact that it dealt with events in 1964. Word of Hanyok’s findings leaked to historians outside the agency, who requested the article under the Freedom of Information Act in 2003.

Some intelligence officials said they believed the article’s release was delayed because the agency was wary of comparisons between the roles of flawed intelligence in the Vietnam War and in the war in Iraq. Hanyok declined to comment on Wednesday. But don Weber, an agency spokesman, denied that any political consideration was involved.

“There was never a decision not to release the history” written by Hanyok, Weber said. On the contrary, he said, the release was delayed because the agency wanted to make public the raw material Hanyok used for his research.

“The goal here is to allow people to wade through alll that information and draw their own conclusions,” he said.

Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, called the release of the document “terrific,” noting that the eavesdropping material known as signals intelligence, or signet is the most secret information the government has.

“NSA may be the most closed mouthed of all U.S. government agencies,” said Blanton. “The release of such a large amount of signet is unprecedented.”

Truly Yours,
Signet Anesthesia,
Sinet-Anesthesia-4u@hotmail.com

PS
According to what I have read I’m requesting your help to have Americas become more informed regarding the misleading of America by the media and the administration. Jimmy Carter’s 21st book: “Palestinian Peace Not Apartheid” page 209 talks about Israel’s bias control of America’s media.

Need Motivation?
“Writing to Change the World” By Mary Pipher

Free Blog http://www.blogger.com/start