Well it's a new year, and you know what that means... time to update the administration's list of stated reasons for it's war in Iraq, why we are there, why we are/must “win,” and why the loss of American lives there is a “price worth paying.”
Whew! Just typing the above sentence exhausted me. I am so tired of three years of struggling with this administration's full frontal assault on our collective intelligence. Tired of trying to untangle their torqued logic, fractured facts and their Orwellian-ization of our language, our traditions, our laws, our Constitution.
But I must – we all must. Because that beast, now boxed into a canyon of it's own making, is more dangerous today than ever before. Though evermore transparent, their lies have become even bolder. And, even with four years of disproved and discarded lies in their wake, far too many Americans – and even the media, seem prepared to once again give them the benefit of the doubt – when doubt itself should by now be the order of the day.
So climb into your haz-mat suits and join me one more time as we descend into the Bush administration's cesspool of excuses, misinformation, disinformation and downright lies.
Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.
Unmitigated hogwash. Bush's version of events airbrushes over the fact that, for at least a year and half before the Golden Mosque bombing, Shiite death squads had been targeting Sunni politicians and clerics for assassination. Blaming the start of sectarian violence in Iraq on the Golden Dome bombing is not the root of the insurgency that now has US troops caught in a crossfire, but an excuse, a smokescreen to obscure the utter and complete bankruptcy of this administration's Iraq adventure.
LIE No. 2: When asked during his 60-Minute's interview last Sunday if he felt he owed the Iraqi people an apology for botching the management of the war, Bush responded, ``Not at all. ``We liberated that country from a tyrant,'' Bush said. ``I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude.''
Seriously! Let's try the question another way, George. Say I came down to your Crawford ranch – uninvited – with the self-appointed mission of ridding your ranch of rattle snakes. In the process I kill your horses, mow down your fences, burn down your barn, cut down the power poles to your home and accidentally killed half your neighbors in the process. Then, while I did get kill some big rattlers, I seemed to have stirred up nests of the little buggers and now you have more snakes on the plain than ever before. When you suggest I leave, instead I announce I am bringing in more of exterminators, promising this time to finish the job. Would you be reassured? Would you be thankful? Or might you feel that I owe you an apology – not to mention a new horse?
Lie No. 3: Bush also claimed that, “if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America.''
Lie No 4: In response to threats by Democrats to take a more active role in Iraq-war decision making, bush replied: ``You cannot run a war by committee,'' the vice president said of congressional input.
On really? You mean like the Dick Cheney's, “Office of Special Plans,” did?
Lie No. 5 Bush said: “Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success.”
Ah..... Earth to George, Earth to George, come in George. There is an alternative... it was called the Iraq Study Group Report, and you tossed it aside without so much as a “howdy do,” and proceeded to do just the opposite of what they suggested. And as for offering a plan that “has a better chance of success,” than yours – that sets the bar pretty low considering that your plan has, by all accounts, has no chance of success.
Lie No 6: On the threat that Congress might cut off funding for his troop “surge,: Bush replied: ``I fully understand they could try to stop me,'' Bush said of the Democrat-run Congress. ``But I've made my decision, and we're going forward.''\
Lie No. 7: Bush said that, besides surging more troops into Baghdad, he would also send more Marines to Anbar province to fight al Qaeda, which has made the province a home base for it's operations in Iraq. “Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and protecting the local population.”
Here's pop quiz George:
Question: How many members of al Qaeda were in Iraq before you invaded four years ago?
Answer: One (1) – al Zaqarwi, and he was in hiding, not from the US, but from Saddam's secret police.
Question: How many al Qaeda fighters are now in Iraq?
Answer: Estimates run between 5000 and 10,000.
So, the next time you hear George use al Qaeda's presence in Anbar province as an excuse for more US troops, remind him that that fact is a self-inflicted wound he's turned on its head to justify more of the same. Al Qaeda is there because George was kind enough to fly US targets in for them to practice on – and now he's sending more.
Lie No. 8: Bush claimed on 60-minutes that this time, “This time America will hold the Iraqi government accountable to benchmarks...”
Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha.Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha. Gasp. Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha.. gasp.. gasp... oh man, that's rich. Especially coming from an administration that hasn't held a single member of its own member accountable for mistakes, blunders, lies.
Oh man..where's a bookie taking odds on that actually happening. I need to get some dough down on that one.
Lie No. 9: Bush claims the Iraqi “leaders,” really do “get it” this time. “Their leaders understand this, and they are stepping forward to do it. But they need our help..” Bush claimed.
Do they George? Have you considered this – that they are just like you, that they “listen” the same way you “listen” to critics? I think so. I think they are exactly like you – they are bad listeners – but good liars. What the Iraqi “leaders” really understand is that, for the first time in decades, their country, and it's considerable riches, are up for grabs. Which is why we have the Shia, Sunni and Kurds whacking away at it like a giant pinata.
That's all the “leaders” of Iraq understand, George. Oh and the also understand that you're a sucker for a good line. So when they say they “need our help,” what they really mean is “we need you to hold-em while we hit-em.” What they really mean is, “don't pull out your troops until our tribe is in a strong enough position to 'deal with' the other two tribes." Sucker.
Lie No. 10: Failure in Iraq, would empower Iran, which poses a significant threat to world peace," Bush said in an interview aired on CBS's "60 Minutes.”
Too late amigo. Iran has watched your Keystone Cops operations next door in Iraq. And they watched as you snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan, and they feel empowered by it all. And now the Iranians know that, even when you're up against the wall, the best you can do is to scrape up an additional 21,500 troops. They know you've hollowed out America's once robust military, that our troops and reservists are exhausted by repeated deployments, that their gear is piled up in depots awaiting repair or replacement. If the Iranians were ever intimidated by US saber rattlings, they're over it now, thanks entirely to you.
So, the next time you want to lecture someone on the dangers of “empowering Iran,” go stand in front of a mirror and give that lecture. Because you're clearly the one that needs to hear it. Oh, and then there's that other boast you made – warning Tehran that if any Iranians are caught in Iraq "we will deal with them."
Ah yes, another “bring-em on,” taunt. The last time you tried that, they did...and still are bringing-em on. Sir, do you have a learning disability?
Lie No. 11: Dick Cheney chimed in on Fox News Sunday: "The threat that Iran represents is growing," Cheney said, in words reminiscent of how he once built a case against Saddam Hussein. "It's multidimensional, and it is, in fact, of concern to everybody in the region." Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, went further when he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the United States was resisting an Iranian effort "to basically establish hegemony" throughout the region.
Let's get this straight once and for all. Whether or not Iran becomes the dominant player in the Middle East is not going to be decided by the US, any more than Iran could determine if the US will continue being the dominant player in the western hemisphere. What US meddling can do though is to make Iran's radicals stronger, not weaker. As for Iran's march towards nuclear weapons, that's not going to change either. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Hell, even Pakistan, a nation where most of the population still lives in 14th century squalor, has nukes and missiles to deliver them.
So what does a nuclear-armed Iran really mean to us? When Iran gets nukes, all it gets is its own place in the circular firing squad made up of other nuclear-armed nations, where there's only a single rule – “one false move and everyone gets it.” It's a sobering reality. There's nothing quite like mutually assured destruction to make a fella think twice, and trice, and more.... before saying “Hey, you! Yeah, I'm talkin' to you. You wanna piece of this?”
Lie No. 12: In an interview before she left on her latest Mideast trip, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described what she called an "evolving" administration strategy to confront "destabilizing behavior" by Iran across the region.
And just what role does Ms. Rice believe the US itself has played in “destabilizing,” the region? What if Iran had, let's say, invaded and occupied Mexico? Might not the US, Canada and much of Central and South America consider such an act a tad threatening? Might they not try, in various ways, to throw monkey wrenches – to “destabilize” – Iran's efforts to consolidate its hold on Mexico? Would we expect anything less? So why is the administration so “shocked” by Iran's meddling right next door in US-occupied Iraq? Isn't such meddling by Iran a double “Duh?” Of course it is. But for this administration it's just another self-inflicted wound now being repurposed as justification for more of the same.
Lie No. 13: Bush told 60-Minutest that he got no particular satisfaction from seeing Saddam hang. ``I'm not a revengeful person,'' he said.
Give me a break! We know too much about the Bush family's history of vengeance against those they don't like or those they once liked but no longer like. Bush family vengeance is legendary.
Lie No. 14: Bush also claimed on "60-Minutes,"``I really am not the kind of guy that sits here and says, 'Oh gosh, I'm worried about my legacy.''
Liar. Protecting your legacy is precisely why you are sending more troops to Iraq – to insure that the inevitable failure of your policies there does not occur during your term. That way you can claim it was your successor, and/or Congress that screwed up a perfectly good plan. In other words, you care so much about your legacy you are prepared to see more other America family's kids die to protect it. You might call that "prudent." – I call it murder.
But this administration doesn't always lie. Occasionally they speak truth – even if inadvertently.
Truth No. 1: Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday on Fox News how the Iranians "sit astride the Straits of Hormuz" and its oil-shipping channels, how they support Hamas and Hezbollah.
Yes, Dick, it always been about oil, hasn't it? All that blather about WMD and democracy was window dressing. It's always been about oil, Iraq's oil, Iran's oil, Saudi Oil. That's why the blood of American kids is soaking into the sands of the Middle East. Sure Hamas and Hezbollah are termites, but they're not our termites and they are not chewing away at our house. They chew away at social and financial structures of the Middle East, and only the folks in those countries can exterminate them. And eventually they will have to do just that if they ever want to join the rest of us living in the 21st century. If, six years ago, this administration not actively undermined alternative energy research, had not nixed higher millage standards for cars, and had not shot down the greenhouse gas limits linked to burning oil products... we'd be in a stronger position today to tell the folks of the Middle East – including Hamas and Hezbollah, to pound sand.
Truth No. 2: The president told 60-Minutes that he watch only part of the Internet-aired video of the execution of Saddam Hussein, which showed some Iraqis taunting Saddam as he stood with a noose around his neck on the gallows. But that he could not watch the final moment, of Saddam plummeting through the trapdoor to his death.
Interesting. You never saw combat yourself, or the gore that inevitably follows. Yet you have sent thousands of American kids off to war in Iraq to have arms and legs blown off, and say you sleep like baby every night. Yet you didn't have the stomach to watch the execution of the man you went to war to dethrone. You could not watch even that relatively antiseptic bit of killing. Some warrior President you are. You're admission of this was a rare exposure of your true self. You Sir, are a sissy.
Truth No. 3: In his weekly radio address Saturday, President Bush stated that, “Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people.”
by Stephen P. Pizzo The War: Jenna & Barbara Bush will not be part of their dad's troop surge. Ditto for any member of the Cheney clan. ...
by Stephen P. Pizzo The Washington media spent the holidays trying to guess what the President's new plan for Iraq might be. Meanwhile in the...
by Stephen P. Pizzo At the moment all the focus is on what George W. Bush is going to do about the mess he's made of Iraq. But the larger...
by Stephen P. Pizzo Traditional conservative, William F. Buckley was once asked how he would describe a “liberal.” He thought for...
by Stephen P. Pizzo If Democrats are not going to impeach George W. Bush then the very least they can do is refrain from applauding him. ...
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites