Sunday, March 26, 2006

GOP Fraud, Lies, and Certitude: Sources and Affects

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The 14th-century philosopher William of Occam said Multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity. In other words, the best hypothesis is the one with the fewest number of unproven assumptions. Simple folk complicate Occam in the name of 'simplification'. Occam did not say that the 'simplest' explanation is the best, nor did he say that the simplest explanation is always true.

The key to Occam is the phrase: "...the fewest number of unproven assumptions". So called 'simple explanations' which assume as 'fact' propositions for which there is no evidence do violence to Occam's simple dictum: multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity.

Occam's razor is problematic for the conservative mentality accustomed to thinking in terms of absolute truths —a world of black or white, a world of you are either for us or against us, a world of if you are liberal you are a traitor! This mentality will discount a 'proposition' if conflicts with a pre-conceived notion, of one for which there is neither proof nor evidence. The GOP inclined, for example, will discount empirical evidence if it conflicts with cherished ideology. In other centuries, this 'top down' mentality burned witches, disemboweled heretics, and, more recently, in Kansas, forbids the teaching of biological science.

In advance of his time, Occam introduced a measure of probability into the very concept of truth i.e., the simplest solution is most probably correct.

Occam presaged Heisenberg's uncertainty principle by some 500 years or so. Heisenberg posited that either the position or the velocity of a sub-atomic particle may be known with certainty —but not both at the same instant. If one value is known, the other is only a probability. If the velocity is known precisely then the location may be expressed only as a probability inversely proportional to the degree to which the location is known.

More recently, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem strikes at the very heart of Russell and Whitehead's grounding of mathematics in pure logic. Gödel proved that in any formal system —consisting of a finite set of axioms and the meta-language in which the rules for inference are set —there will always be at least one true theorem that is not derivable by inference.

Both developments harken back to Occam. Truth is always fuzzy but common-sense has always been the enemy of bigotry, moral certitude, propaganda and state-sponsored lies. That's because liars and moral absolutists have something in common: God and truth is always on their side. Or so they would have you believe.

I would like to be as certain of one thing as Bush and Bushies are of all things. How is it possible that Bush and the GOP are so absolutely correct about all things as Bush would have you believe? The simplest and best explanation is simply: they are not! They know nothing. And what is known they lie about. Global warming is just such an issue. Bushies must surely know the truth of it but lie about it in order to protect a robber baron constituency of corporate sponsors.

The falsehoods of the Bush administration can be classified as:
  • Deliberate, planned campaigns of lies, falsehoods and propaganda!
  • Incompetent mistakes!
The war in Iraq is both. Colin Powell's infamous presentation to the United Nations was clearly a well-planned and orchestrated gestalt of deliberate lies based upon plagiarized student papers, exaggerations in which the Bush administration ignored evidence to the contrary, 20 old black and white satellite photos. The consequences have not yet dawned upon the American public and, indeed, even our elected officials.

Let's try to make clear the significance of this series of lies. If Bush deliberately misled the American people and the world in order to justify his attack and invasion of Iraq, then the war, itself, is and continues to be, a crime against the peace. Its continuation is but a series of individual crimes against humanity. As such, it violates the Nuremberg Principles that the United States had insisted upon at the end of World War II. Violations of Nuremberg are criminal offenses in the United States, prohibited specifically by U.S. Codes, Section 2441.
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

U.S Codes; Section 2441

Bush's order to attack —whatever Congressional authorization he may claim —violates both Nuremberg and U.S. Codes. Moreover, if Bush lied to the American people and to the world, he lied also to Congress. Whatever was passed by Congress is, therefore, null and void by virtue of Bush's deliberate fraud, itself a deliberate subversion of the Constitution. As such, it is most certainly high treason.

Sadly, the War against the people of Iraq is not the only fraud that Bush has perpetrated upon the world and the American people. A short list includes Global warming —about which the GOP and the oil industry waged a 15 year long campaign of lies and misinformation. Other lies, frauds, and hoaxes include the tax cut; faith-based initiatives; the unilateral and quite possibly illegal abrogation of Kyoto; "no child left behind"; his attack on Social Security; his illegal, unconstitutional widespread domestic wiretapping program; the Bush crack down on American civil liberties; his having arrogated unto himself the powers of judge, jury, and legislature.

All are based on lies!

All are illegal!

All make up the gestalt of frauds that ARE the Bush administration!

All make this administration the very worst in American history.

All make this "President" a clear and present danger to America and to the world.

An update:

Bush lies - he wanted war

For a long time, it seemed that I was the only blue-state person who did not think George Bush lied about how we came to invade Iraq. Then, last week, indomitable journalist Helen Thomas asked the President why he wanted "to go to war" from the moment he "stepped into the White House," and the President said, "You know, I didn't want war." With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.

I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there is plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the 9/11 attacks.

Richard Clarke, formerly the White House's chief anti-terrorism official, writes in his book "Against All Enemies" that within a day Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in terrorist attacks. When told no, the President said testily, "Look into Iraq, Saddam."

Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" says that not only was Bush fixated on Iraq, but by Thanksgiving of 2001, he had told Donald Rumsfeld to prepare a plan to invade that country, but not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said he would eventually have to take CIA director George Tenet into his confidence. "Fine," Woodward quotes Bush as saying, "but not now." ...

When will Bush's lies be punished?

Mar. 27, 2006 12:00 AM

According to NBC news, the United States paid a six-figure salary to the Iranian foreign minister to keep us briefed on the situation in Baghdad.

Moreover, it was reported that he told the United States well before our invasion that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which turned out to be true.

If this is so - and it would be amazing for NBC to report such news without factual support - Congress must immediately begin impeachment proceedings.

For the president of the United States to have had prior knowledge of the lies he was telling us and still go to war would be treason of the highest order.

When will the last of his lies be revealed?

- Don McGuire, Glendale


Post a Comment