Journal Interrobang's Journal: I Certainly Hope It's Alzheimer's 6
We found out only in retrospect that Ronald Reagan really wasn't as deliberately malicious as he seemed to be; there really was something wrong with his brain, and all that confusion, misremembering, and lack of knowledge ("Did I authorize that?") actually was because his brain was rotting out from the inside, and not because he was actually as dumb and vicious as he seemed at the time.
I certainly hope someone can find a similar excuse to exonerate George W. Bush from the errors of his administration. (A certain cynical part of me suggests that Reagan and Bush the Younger are more like puppets than agents, and a careful look at those around them suggests some candidates for possible manipulators.) Some people have suggested "dry drunk" syndrome, others have suggested that Bush II is simply too incompetent to handle the situations at hand with any degree of aplomb. (Even Bush the Elder suggested that Bush II's "great team around him" plays a critical role in the Administration's direction.)
Even so, a lot of people have been quick to defend Bush and his Administration. Incidentally, many of these same people vilify Clinton (arguably one of the better presidents of the US in quite some time, and with the recent poll numbers to back it up). Let's get one thing straight: Clinton didn't lie. How can that be, you ask? Well, Ken Starr asked him if he had had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Remember that Bill Clinton is a lawyer and would be very familiar with the law in Washington, DC. Under DC law, "sex" is defined as penetrative penis-vagina intercourse, and fellatio is not covered by that definition. Does that sound like rhetorical quibbling to you, dear readers? It sounds like a lawyer giving an honest lawyer's answer to a question no one should have been asking in the first place. (I come from a political tradition that includes the line "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation," recall.)
Now that I'm done talking about Bill Clinton (and not a character too soon -- I would much rather not have talked about him at all, because it seems to me that many of these yellow-dog Republicans make arguments by invoking Clinton's penis), I'd like to talk about George W. Bush.
I must refrain from partisan comments because I'm not a Democrat, nor can be one, nor wish to be one, but here's an interesting point to ponder: If a Democrat were president right now, assuming all other things being equal, would the US be trying to impeach its president? John Dean has written a FindLaw article making a very timid case that Bush himself ought to be impeached, or at the very least, the US ought to be considering withdrawing "the benefit of the doubt" any time now.
Let's see, now. Did Bush lie? Did he knowingly perpetuate untruths for political gain? I think so, and, further, I think his administration did its own fair share of whacking the truth out of shape to boot. I have compiled a dossier of articles and sources which, I hope, demonstrate the lies, and the many ulterior motives driving the rationalisations driving the lies.
Who Said What, When? In this excellent compiled article , Counterpunch delivers a bipartisan slam, including such tasty quotes as:
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
--George W. Bush September 12, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
--Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
--Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003
We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
--Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
--George Bush April 24, 2003
I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.
--Colin Powell May 4, 2003
I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
--Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
--Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003
Note that Paul Wolfowitz is also one of the Project for a New American Century people, so there's more to the "bureaucratic reasons" than first meets the eye, especially considering that they've been after Iraq for quite a while now, and renewed the push with greater vigour at an extremely politically opportune time. (Am I the only one who remembers that most Americans seem to think that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are the same person?)
Then, of course, there's the convenient "shadow government" just waiting to get in there, crony capitalism, crony capitalism, and yet more crony capitalism.
And if that isn't enough for you, have some faked intelligence. Have some more faked intelligence. Even the CIA didn't like it.
A Thorough Search of the Press reveals enough buried information to choke an elephant:
About inspections:
The UN Inspectors Leaving Iraq â" Then and Now
Iraqâ(TM)s Use of Chemical Weapons, Then and Now (check the sources quoted in these articles before dismissing them out of hand, please)
Scott Ritterâ(TM)s speech to the Iraqi Parliament, with findings
Blix and ElBaradeiâ(TM)s reports summarized in The Guardian
Seymour Hersh (Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who uncovered the My Lai Massacre) talks about the Bush Administrationâ(TM)s lying about Iraqâ(TM)s WMD
About oil:
Oil and Iraq Carving up the oil spoils before the fact
Look at scans of the original memos and documents, plus the report
The Crude Vision report
More on Crony Capitalism, and other Misdemeanours
Bush on the economy â" this article is by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz
Kevin Phillips comments on Enron and the Bush Administration
Bushâ(TM)s Enron Connection
Ken Layâ(TM)s contributions to Bush, among other things
Chevron named a tanker after Condi Rice (scroll down, theyâ(TM)re in alphabetical order)
She is a corporate board member for Chevron
Dick Cheneyâ(TM)s company made megabucks doing business with Iraq
US diplomats lobbying to increase Halliburton revenues
Harvard bailed out Bush when he was with Harken Energy
More on Bushâ(TM)s parlaying Harken insider trading into success
A good Q-and-A on the Bush/Harken story
About Recycled Criminals (The USual Suspects):
FASâ(TM)s posting of the findings on Iran-Contra (Poindexter)
Iran-Contra criminals in the Bush Administration
Todd Paulâ(TM)s article on Bush I and Iran-Contra
Bush appointees are Iran-Contra criminals
Colin Powellâ(TM)s shady background
Track Record
Bush and his cabinet lying
Bush says one thing, does another
How Affirmative Action Helped George W. Bush (He didnâ(TM)t get into those good schools â" and out of them again â" on his own merits; now he wants to say that affirmative action is unconstitutional.)
The Ideology
Another reason not to trust these folks any further than you could spit them (not that you'd want them in your mouth in the first place, whoops, are we back to Clinton again?) is that they seem to be a collective pack of raving lunatics. First, they're American imperialists (but I told you that already) who apparently want to get rid of international law; secondly, they're charismatic Christian eschatological types who are doing a pretty good job of pissing off the world because of it. Thirdly, theyâ(TM)re universally neoconservative, and are also interested in reducing the US federal government to the size where it can be âoedrowned in the bathtub,â to quote Grover Norquist, one of the leading lights of the âoeNeo-McKinleyistâ neoconservative movement afoot in Washington these days.
Given all that, and the simple application of Occamâ(TM)s Razor (in this case, evoked by the phrase âoeCui bono?â), and considering that these peopleâ(TM)s lies make them richer, I know whom Iâ(TM)d rather trust. After all, they say, âoeNever attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity,â and Iâ(TM)d really much rather that were the case, but I think the evidence is clear.
I certainly hope someone can find a similar excuse to exonerate George W. Bush from the errors of his administration. (A certain cynical part of me suggests that Reagan and Bush the Younger are more like puppets than agents, and a careful look at those around them suggests some candidates for possible manipulators.) Some people have suggested "dry drunk" syndrome, others have suggested that Bush II is simply too incompetent to handle the situations at hand with any degree of aplomb. (Even Bush the Elder suggested that Bush II's "great team around him" plays a critical role in the Administration's direction.)
Even so, a lot of people have been quick to defend Bush and his Administration. Incidentally, many of these same people vilify Clinton (arguably one of the better presidents of the US in quite some time, and with the recent poll numbers to back it up). Let's get one thing straight: Clinton didn't lie. How can that be, you ask? Well, Ken Starr asked him if he had had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Remember that Bill Clinton is a lawyer and would be very familiar with the law in Washington, DC. Under DC law, "sex" is defined as penetrative penis-vagina intercourse, and fellatio is not covered by that definition. Does that sound like rhetorical quibbling to you, dear readers? It sounds like a lawyer giving an honest lawyer's answer to a question no one should have been asking in the first place. (I come from a political tradition that includes the line "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation," recall.)
Now that I'm done talking about Bill Clinton (and not a character too soon -- I would much rather not have talked about him at all, because it seems to me that many of these yellow-dog Republicans make arguments by invoking Clinton's penis), I'd like to talk about George W. Bush.
I must refrain from partisan comments because I'm not a Democrat, nor can be one, nor wish to be one, but here's an interesting point to ponder: If a Democrat were president right now, assuming all other things being equal, would the US be trying to impeach its president? John Dean has written a FindLaw article making a very timid case that Bush himself ought to be impeached, or at the very least, the US ought to be considering withdrawing "the benefit of the doubt" any time now.
Let's see, now. Did Bush lie? Did he knowingly perpetuate untruths for political gain? I think so, and, further, I think his administration did its own fair share of whacking the truth out of shape to boot. I have compiled a dossier of articles and sources which, I hope, demonstrate the lies, and the many ulterior motives driving the rationalisations driving the lies.
Who Said What, When? In this excellent compiled article , Counterpunch delivers a bipartisan slam, including such tasty quotes as:
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
--George W. Bush September 12, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
--Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
--Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003
We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
--Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
--George Bush April 24, 2003
I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.
--Colin Powell May 4, 2003
I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
--Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
--Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003
Note that Paul Wolfowitz is also one of the Project for a New American Century people, so there's more to the "bureaucratic reasons" than first meets the eye, especially considering that they've been after Iraq for quite a while now, and renewed the push with greater vigour at an extremely politically opportune time. (Am I the only one who remembers that most Americans seem to think that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are the same person?)
Then, of course, there's the convenient "shadow government" just waiting to get in there, crony capitalism, crony capitalism, and yet more crony capitalism.
And if that isn't enough for you, have some faked intelligence. Have some more faked intelligence. Even the CIA didn't like it.
A Thorough Search of the Press reveals enough buried information to choke an elephant:
About inspections:
The UN Inspectors Leaving Iraq â" Then and Now
Iraqâ(TM)s Use of Chemical Weapons, Then and Now (check the sources quoted in these articles before dismissing them out of hand, please)
Scott Ritterâ(TM)s speech to the Iraqi Parliament, with findings
Blix and ElBaradeiâ(TM)s reports summarized in The Guardian
Seymour Hersh (Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who uncovered the My Lai Massacre) talks about the Bush Administrationâ(TM)s lying about Iraqâ(TM)s WMD
About oil:
Oil and Iraq Carving up the oil spoils before the fact
Look at scans of the original memos and documents, plus the report
The Crude Vision report
More on Crony Capitalism, and other Misdemeanours
Bush on the economy â" this article is by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz
Kevin Phillips comments on Enron and the Bush Administration
Bushâ(TM)s Enron Connection
Ken Layâ(TM)s contributions to Bush, among other things
Chevron named a tanker after Condi Rice (scroll down, theyâ(TM)re in alphabetical order)
She is a corporate board member for Chevron
Dick Cheneyâ(TM)s company made megabucks doing business with Iraq
US diplomats lobbying to increase Halliburton revenues
Harvard bailed out Bush when he was with Harken Energy
More on Bushâ(TM)s parlaying Harken insider trading into success
A good Q-and-A on the Bush/Harken story
About Recycled Criminals (The USual Suspects):
FASâ(TM)s posting of the findings on Iran-Contra (Poindexter)
Iran-Contra criminals in the Bush Administration
Todd Paulâ(TM)s article on Bush I and Iran-Contra
Bush appointees are Iran-Contra criminals
Colin Powellâ(TM)s shady background
Track Record
Bush and his cabinet lying
Bush says one thing, does another
How Affirmative Action Helped George W. Bush (He didnâ(TM)t get into those good schools â" and out of them again â" on his own merits; now he wants to say that affirmative action is unconstitutional.)
The Ideology
Another reason not to trust these folks any further than you could spit them (not that you'd want them in your mouth in the first place, whoops, are we back to Clinton again?) is that they seem to be a collective pack of raving lunatics. First, they're American imperialists (but I told you that already) who apparently want to get rid of international law; secondly, they're charismatic Christian eschatological types who are doing a pretty good job of pissing off the world because of it. Thirdly, theyâ(TM)re universally neoconservative, and are also interested in reducing the US federal government to the size where it can be âoedrowned in the bathtub,â to quote Grover Norquist, one of the leading lights of the âoeNeo-McKinleyistâ neoconservative movement afoot in Washington these days.
Given all that, and the simple application of Occamâ(TM)s Razor (in this case, evoked by the phrase âoeCui bono?â), and considering that these peopleâ(TM)s lies make them richer, I know whom Iâ(TM)d rather trust. After all, they say, âoeNever attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity,â and Iâ(TM)d really much rather that were the case, but I think the evidence is clear.
tsk tsk tsk... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:tsk tsk tsk... (Score:3, Funny)
The next day they ran a letter to the editor that offered an alternative: "W's Marvelous Deception."
Aah..So many acronyms, so few weapons.
(By the way, thanks ?! for articulating that so well. Or maybe I just think that because I agree with you. GWB's hypocrisy, stupidity and blatant disregard for humanity leave me too angry to formulate coherent thoughts anymore.)
Chinese whispers (Score:1)
My theory on the dissapearing WMD's and Bush/Blaire/Howard's insistance of their existence is this: There's mutiple layers that this information goes through. The raw data comes from multiple sources (satellite photos, aerial photos, communications intercepts, defector interviews, etc) and they have to be analysed into a concrete whole. The information passes up through (language and photographical) interpreters , analysts, experts, commanders, advisors, etc until it gets to GWB and his cabinet (is that th
thanks for summing up my opinion, too! (Score:2)
sol
probably not alzheimer's (Score:2)
Re:probably not alzheimer's (Score:1)
Either way, he's Reagan-fucking us all.
Tucker