Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Bush plays politics with terrorism, resorts to McCarthyism and old lies

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Bush's new PR offensive is a recycled old lie and thinly disguised McCarthyism. Bush will try to convince the American people that Iraq is a part of the war on terror and, opposing the war is un-American. Never mind that Bush's war on terror is not only phony, it makes real terrorism worse and endangers American lives. What will happen when we get a real terrorist threat? Merely asking makes you a "Nazi appeaser". Bush and Rumsfeld breathe new life in odious McCarthyism. This cynical exploitation of fear does not makes us safer. It endangers us all.

Secondly, even Bush admitted —after having lied it about it for years —that Saddam had nothing to do with 911. So which is it? It's unclear how Bush intends to convince people that Iraq now has anything to do with terrorism when only a few days ago he told the truth at last by denying it. So —when Bush now says that Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism, Americans should ask themselves: was Bush lying then or is he lying now?
Clearly —the oft called "insurgents" had nothing to insurge against before the US invasion. Is this what Bush hopes you will believe are terrorists? If so, then Bush's failed US policy has caused it. It will simply dissipate when Bush admits that he has committed capital crimes and removes US troops from the war of aggression that he ordered in violation of Geneva, the UN resolution, Nuremberg Principles and US Codes, Title 18 § 2441. War crimes. Read Title 18. It's a capital crime.
And Bush has already lied about his new "PR offensive". He claims that it is not politically motivated.

But surely it is a response to the fact that the latest British terror alert did nothing to restore American confidence in Bush's utterly failed administration. Americans seem immune now to color codes, MSM hyperbole about improbable "binary bombs", and empty rhetoric about terrorism.
Bush now finds it impossible to tell the truth without confessing to a multitude of previous falsehoods. None of his various pretexts for war were true; all of them have been proven false during a long and miserably failed American occupation of a country that had nothing to do with 911, a sovereign nation that never attacked, never posed a threat to the people of the United States in any way.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, meanwhile, is among a growing chorus that sees the "war on terrorism" for what it is: a boogeyman exploited by a cynical, extremist administration that now dares to slap the label "Nazi appeaser" on legitimate dissent and criticism.

Olbermann has said what millions have already known: Bush is "playing politics" with terrorism", exploiting terrorism for political purposes and endangering American lives by doing so. Olbermann, at last, openly questions and documents the curious and statistically questionable timing of a series of phony terror alerts:

SLC Mayor: BuPresidensh Is The Worst t In History

(KUTV) Video: Mayor Anderson blasts President Bush

 Sky2 Video: Protesters march thru the streets of SLC

 Slideshow: Pres. Bush's Visit To SLC

During a large-scale protest in downtown Salt Lake City on Wednesday, Mayor Rocky Anderson unleashed perhaps his harshest criticisms yet of President George W. Bush -- just hours before the president was scheduled to arrive in Utah.

"Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the United States... and there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Anderson said from the steps of the Salt Lake City & County building.

Mayor Anderson also said that President Bush will go down in history as the worst president in U.S. history and called Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "incompetent." ...

Study calls Iran 'biggest beneficiary' of US war on terror

Another analysis blames weak US approach to Iran on poor intelligence.
Two new reports criticize the US's handling of Iran, just as the West gauges Iran's response to a proposal meant to rein in Tehran's nuclear ambitions. One report says the US war on terror has strengthened Tehran, the other slams America's poor intelligence on Iran.
The first report, released Wednesday by the non-government Royal Institute of International Affairs (also known as Chatham House) in Britain, says that Iran, despite being a part of US President Bush's "axis of evil," has been the "chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East."
The United States, with Coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments — the Taliban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in April 2003 — but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures. The outbreak of conflict on two fronts in June –July 2006 between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon has added to the regional dimensions of this instability.
Consequently, Iran has moved to fill the regional void with an apparent ease that has disturbed both regional players and the United States and its European allies. Iran is one of the most significant and powerful states in the region and its influence spreads well beyond its critical location at the nexus of the Middle East, Turkey, the Caucasus, Central Asia and South Asia.


Fuzzflash said...

"I am in blood,
stepped so far that,
should I wade no more,
returning were as tedious as go o'er."

Here's the thing: Burnham Wood ain't comin' within cooee of Dunsinane till November's mid-terms. The tragically flawed and demonstrably stupid despot remains under the spell of the Dark Lord. Power drains daily from their grasp. "Shock and Awe" SFX await only: detonation, filming, editing, and mass edification.

October Surprises are such fun, and then it'll be Thanksgiving.

Len, Yes, it's copybook McCarthy era propaganda, unfortunately these pricks arn't junior Senators from Wisconsin, and there's no Ike to alert us about what we now have; the MIC Full-Nelson. Dig the You Tube link. Such a fantastic tool for cyber-pamphleteers.

Unknown said...

But McCarthy was smarter than Bush...but not by much. McCarthy had an advantage, however. Communism was an ideology and since little was really known about the Soviet Union in those days, it was easier to maintain a level of fear over an indefinite period of time. Bush, however, is trying to maintain a much, much higher level of fear, a level comparable to the adrenalin rush of 911 itself, over a period of years. And, terror is a tactic not an ideology. Someone in the Bush admin, at last, snapped to that. Hence, the recent mumbo jumbo about "Islamo-Fascism"! My God, they are so desparate that Rush Limbaugh gag writer is directing Bush strategy. Islamo-Fascism, my ass! Actually, I am growing more optimistic lately. Even Republicans know Bush is a fraud.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, the mask slipped for a moment way back when; when the White House spokesman was still that tonsured turd Ari Fleischer - remember him? Right around the time the Dixie Chicks came to grief for their unvarnished comments about Bush; in fact, I think he might have been speaking of that very issue - anyway, he said, "people need to watch what they what they do".

Well, that was a chilling moment in the ol' Land of the Free, what? Watch what they say, watch what they do? How much of a jump is it from there to, "papers, Comrade?"

Just as an aside, has Bush burned through more White House spokesmen than any other president? It seems that way, but I haven't done any research on the subject. I guess when you make 'em go out and lie day after day, ridiculous lies that wouldn't stand up to a Senate Committee comprised of the Little Rascals, their credibility is shot, and they have to step down. Take one for the team. I almost felt sorry for Scottie McClellan near the end, he was starting to look quite a little bit like a speed bag out there.

Anyway, the sad fact remains that Bushco is so successful at selling terror because an element of America wants to believe it. It's inconceivable that the most powerful country on the planet could be in dire distress, reviled by the world, education infrastructure crumbling, SAT scores at a 20-year low, miserable wages for the middle class downward, without some identifiable entity to blame. As it's equally inconceivable it could be the country's leaders, it must be someone else. The Muslims make a fine target, especially since an Islamic fundamentalist was indeed (as far as we know) responsible for a terrible attack on America. Yes, it's the Muslims who are wrecking America, and they want to come over here and wreck it some more, and maybe kill us in our beds while they're at it. President Bush may not be the brightest guy, but he's all that stands between us and Is-Lam-o-Facism.

Bush has studiously avoided (barring one or two slips, quickly recalled and redirected) the term, "Crusade", but that's just what this is. How easy to sell the war on terror when it's framed as a clash of religions!! That conflict is something that's NEVER going to go away, and never going to be decidedly won.

Of course, Bush has been at great pains to call Islam a "religion of peace", but everybody knows he's stupid, so they just assume he doesn't know much about it, and the Is-lam-o-Facists are tricking him. Curiously, they assume he's gotten a dose of the smarts when he says something they agree with.

The funny thing is, it takes Bush and Cheney together to equal the modern-day McCarthy; Bush as his mouth, and Cheney as his brain. It's really Cheney who is behind the erosion of civil liberties, the assault on broad prosperity, the drive for more and more war and more and more breaks for the wealthy. But Cheney rarely speaks in public, and his public speaking manner doesn't come close to revealing his malevolence. Bush is the mouthpiece, with his folksy charm, his pumping, revival-tent delivery, his complete air of comviction in what he's saying. I don't doubt he believes it, because he's missing a good-sized chunk of his attic insulation, and simply accepts the last thing he's told as fact. God help us, Americans still want to believe him.

Like McCarthy, Cheney believes himself unstoppable. If he can continue getting Bush to take the heat for his maneuvers, he might be right. It's funny watching Bush try to explain something he couldn't possibly have thought up himself - his simian little face goes all squinchy with concentration, just before he comes out with something profoundly stupid, followed by his, "we're wise to 'em, ain't we, pard?" grin.

Bush couldn't be trusted to look for lettuce in a salad. Cheney's the real power behind the presidency.

Fuzzflash said...

Hey you Commies, check out Olberman on Rumsfeld on Crooks and Liars Homepage. Promise you won't be disappointed. Cracked up when I realised he was going to quote Uncle Ed.

Unknown said...

fuzzflash, thanks for the heads up.

SadButTrue said...

Here's the link to that Olbermann video:

Olbermann on C&L

Unknown said...

Thanks, sadbuttre...I tried to embed that particular video, but, for some weird reason, it would never load. So I took it off.

Olbermann's work is very much like Murrow's technigue, that is, using the subjects own words and tactics to expose them.

Anonymous said...

Len, you wrote Bush will try to convince the American people that Iraq is a part of the war on terror and, opposing the war is un-American. He has already begun doing so - during a TV interview made during his photo op in New Orleans yesterday or the day before - I do believe the video is available here on C&L.

As for embedding a quicktime video, here is the coding (I put spaces between the < and > bracket and the text part of the coding so that it will show in text form - just remove the spaces there and you'll have the correct coding):

< div align="center" > < embed src="" width="320" height="260" autostart="false" > < /embed >< /div >

Anonymous said...

Excellent Post Len!

Anonymous said...

Hey, Len; as you suggest, the war in Iraq will be the defining issue of the upcoming elections, unless the Republicans can somehow create a diversion between now and then. It's too soon to get a war with Iran underway, although many who are devoted trend-watchers are sure Bush will try to get it on before the end of his presidency. Putting oneself in his position, he might not be able to get the needed congressional support after the elections, because Congress might be heavily Democratic.

Still, a quote I saw in a Washington Post forum, from a woman in New York, haunts me; "I pray to God we can somehow survive this plague of an administration, this horrible curse upon our people".

Predictably (as indeed many did predict), the Great Decider is trying to frame the mess the Iraq war has become as a grand conflict, the defining issue of our generation. His speeches are abundant with links between the War on Terror and World War II - casting himself, no doubt, as Churchill. In fact, a couple of his sycophants have drawn that comparison before. I'm sure there's a subterranean hum in Bladon churchyard, caused by Churchill spinning in his grave.

Reframing a sordid, bungled and messy war as a clash of mighty civilizations is just the thing that causes Americans to give forth a ragged cheer, and throw their shoulders once more to the wheel. After all, it was the worst kind of sedition to suggest the Nazis had a point, and maybe they should have won. It is being painted now as similarly treasonous to imply the wretched Iraqi people have any say in the grand swirl of mighty forces at play in Bush's fevered mind.

There's a sample of the effort to reframe the denate here

Anonymous said...

I meant "debate", of course, not "denate". I usually proofread several times before sending, but somehow that one slipped by. Funny how obvious it looks once the message is posted.

Fuzzflash said...

Mark, you reference Chimpie's cerebration deficit, "because he's missing a good-sized chunk of his attic insulation", beautifully. Guess he musta wasted a mess more o' tha stuff when he did those "three Shakespeares" and "a Camus" recently.

With his Presidentin' 'n' brush-cuttin' 'n' trail-bike ridin', how on earth does the man ever find the time to keep up with all that book learnin' ?

Unknown said...

Vierotchka, thanks for the coding...I had snagged the YouTube code but something snafued. Will try again. And thanks for the C&L link. As you know, C&L is a friend of the "Cowboy" : )

Thanks Seamus...

Mark, that is a haunting quote. It's hard not to share that sentiment hearing the hysteria underlying Bush's voice and his absurd statements re: Iraq today. Mankind has never been in more danger. Bush, personally, is not merely a "curse" upon his people but upon all of mankind. I heard Iraqi citizens today on NPR say that they were better off under Saddam. I heard Iraqis tell NPR that they never asked Bush to invade their country. I heard Iraqis tell what THEY think of the American occupation. I heard Iraqi citizens tell Bush to GO HOME and get out of their country!

Anonymous said...

Hey, fuzzflash, Ha, Ha!!! I saw an excellent debunking of that very thing on another blog (I believe it was the Carpetbagger Report, really good, I recommend it - ). Anyway, somebody had taken the time to tot up how many pages there were in every one of the books on his "reading list", and how long it takes an average reader (meaning someone who can actually read) to get through a page. To cut it short, the analyst concluded it would be impossible for him to actually read that many books, and get any work done at all, considering all the briefings he has to attend, plus his supposed daily exercise regimen, bla, bla. Mind you, he could skim through most books in a couple of hours - but he wouldn't absorb or remember anything after.

As I believe I've suggested before, this is an administration, and a president, whose first instinct is to lie, even when the truth will serve just as well. It's too late for a sudden spike of inta-leckshoolism to make people who loathe him, like him. As if actually reading Camus would make any difference - like wearing wire-rims and getting a bowl-cut would turn him into John Denver. He's slowly waking up to the fact that people genuinely hate him; and so, in his clumsy way, he's trying to reinvent himself, but he's too lazy to expend any real effort - hence the let's-pretend.

In fact, it's more likely Karl Rove or Josh Bolton told him he might want to grab a clue, since he is so thick he's almost soundproof, and totally oblivious to what everybody thinks. Thick as two short planks, as I believe the Europeans say; I get all my worldly experience from my wives - I was married to a Brit for 16 years.

Unknown said...

He's slowly waking up to the fact that people genuinely hate him...

He's the only person I have ever encounterd personally or via the media with absolutely NO redeeming qualities. NONE!

Even Hitler, a most loathesome piece of work, had an eye for form and proportiona and had real drafting talent. Bush is an utter waste of protoplasm.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Len; check this out. Sickening. It probably should have been posted against the last story, but I didn't see it until now.

It begs the question once again how oil executives can be called before a Congressional Board of Inquiry, and all be struck with indoor memory loss - no, we never discussed pricing in any context that could be construed as "fixing" - and be allowed to get away with it. That as soon as complaints reach critical mass, some sort of government investigation is initiated which inevitably finds, ruefully, that oil is a commodity and when the price goes up, some people benefit; that's just the natural order of things.

Well, some oil and war profiteers now reap the GDP of a small country in salaries, and are so rich they will never live long enough to spend all their money. This at a time when layoffs outpace hirings, and entire conglomerates are moving overseas for even more profits. When a Republican-dominated congress kills minimum-wage adjustment by inserting so much pork into the bill that no person of conscience could vote for it.

This should be posted prominently on the side of every voting booth. Maybe it wouldn't make any difference - perhaps these people have so much power that they will just ride America's back like vampires, until it burns out like a dead star.

Anonymous said...

While we're on the subject of the Bush maladministration and its parade of blunders, you might like to see the latest video I posted, because we must never forget.

Unknown said...

Mark, great article and comments. I am afraid that short of miracle Bush has finished off America as we knew it. Even if Bush is overthrown, there is no guarantee that whatever emerges from the ashes of the coup d'etat will be any better. If as many as 30 percent of the population are still fooled, that number is way too high. About that many thought Nixon was Okay doky following Watergate. Among those Nixon die hards are Rumsfeld, Cheney and other Bush admin notables. As happened after Watergate, the GOP will simply harden and radicalize even further.

Vierotchka, poignant and tragic reminder of an uncaring, criminal, treasonous administration of murderers, incompetents, blackguards, and traitors deliberately leaving New Orleans to its fate. After the tragedy in New Orelans, there is no denying that many GOP White Supremacists were planning to rebuild the Crescent City as a White majority city. Bush said that no one could have foreseen the levee breach. In fact, every one had foreseen it. Bush was either lying or stupid or both. And, many were planning to capitalize upon it.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Vierotchka, thanks for the link lesson! It worked - now I have a question; does the extension of the URL have to be htm or html for it to work? There are loads of articles in the alternative press or on others' blogs that simply dead-end in a number, or the word "article" or something of that nature. Can I just add something to complete it? I tried constructing a link to "Achenblog" (on the Washington Post's site), which was not html. It showed up as a clickable link, but when I tried it, Firefox couldn't locate it.

Thanks again for the tip, I feel like a programmer now!

Anonymous said...

Len; this article -

- says as clearly as anything I've seen (with accompanying credits to the New Orleans Times-Piucayune to back it up) that the Army Corps of Engineers was well aware the levees would not withstand a major storm. They had been subsiding for some years, and while it is perhaps true that few might have forseen the levees would actually breach, there was every reason to believe a strong surge could overtop them.

The reason is also clear - money diverted to the Iraq war budget. Bush certainly couldn't claim to be unaware of that! Similarly, while it might be argued a storm of Katrina's ferocity was not anticipated, it was known how bad it would likely be in enough time to at least carry out evacuations, instead of sitting there in a trance, or ignoring local crises while caught up in the ecstacy of playing "War Preznit".

The "no one could have anticipated" defense is one likely to fool only the incurious, who follow the preznit's lead with cowlike docility in any case. Hopefully there will not be enough of them remaining to leave a single Republican standing - although, as you've suggested, that might not make much difference, as the Democrats are not that much removed from Republicans. As Gore Vidal tells us,

“There is only one party in the United States – the Property Party, and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt - until recently – and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But essentially, there is no difference between the two.”

Political debate has sunk to such a sorry level under this preznit that I almost expect him to say "no one could have anticipated that New Orleans was below sea level"; or, another favourite, the straw-man tactic - "Some people say New Orleans is above sea level - I strongly disagree".

Jennie said...

I don't know if this is going on in your neck of the woods, too, but between Wednesday night and Thursday morning the price of gas went down at least a dime a gallon and in some areas up to a quarter a gallon cheaper! I don't know if this is just a corporate political plot to make Americans think everything is getting better right before the midterm elections, or if it is just a diversion tactic away from the many crises in the Middle East, but something is up.

If you've seen this in your neighborhood and know why gas prices are falling, let me know.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Jen; there's some degree of explanation here -

- a series of newsclips on the issue. In one, Tom Kloza of the Oil Pricing Information Service (who would have thought we'd need such an organization?) opines that a tight rally on Wall Street, gasoline surpluses at the sales point in anticipation of hurricane activity which did not materialize and the Fed backing off from another interest hike have combined to drive prices down. He was at pains to observe the phenomenon had only affected gasoline prices; diesel fuel, heating oil and jet fuel remain from 3 to 5 times higher than normal.

He seems positively chirpy with optimism that prices will stay low for a while (as if $69.00 a barrel is low!!)or go even lower, because American consumers as an aggregate are paying about $100,000,000.00 per day lower prices than this time last year.

Still, I agree with you that something's up. Perhaps you noticed that, as soon as more bad news hits the oil market (like a pipeline rupture or a rig falling over), gas prices jerk upward immediately, like that day. There's no reason for that, the dealer and his suppliers both know the problem doesn't affect the gas supplies he already has on site, which are bought and paid for. But they know customers are acutely aware of fluctuations in the oil market, and will pay more.

Also, while increases are instant, price climbdowns are painfully slow. A drop of as much as a quarter per gallon is impossible to write off to a brief blip of good economic news. Similarly, other fuels are already priced relative to gasoline, and pretty much the remaining difference is in refining; diesel requires much less, while jet fuel needs much more. There's no real reason they should stay high while the motor fuel index drops.

It does sound like a government attempt to either relieve America's gathering fury using ways it can control (God knows pumping sunshine up everybody's ass about how swimmingly things are going in Iraq isn't working any more), or to divert attention preparatory to the elections. If so, it won't be sustainable. If Mr. Optimistic Tom Kloza is being truthful, and Americans are paying $100 mil per day less than last year, how long do you think they can keep that up?

Unknown said...

Just heard on PBS —a majority of Americans reject Bush's latest strategy: linking Iraq with the "war on terrorism". In my opinion, both are failed; both are premised upon Bush lies. Irag, meanwhile, continues its slide into chaos. MSM is still saying Civil War is possible. But Shi'ites and Sunnies are clearly involved in a violent conflict for control of Central Iraq; Kurds are trying to secure the NW. What is that if not Civil War? Moreover, so-called "insurgents" —more properly described as "resistance" —oppose the US occupation which has failed to get the hell out of the way. What is that if not a guerilla war? At last —the US is in crossfire of a Civil War and bogged down in a guerrilla resistance that it cannot win.

Note to Bush: please spare us the "no one could have foreseen that three wars would break out in Iraq" defense! EVERYONE could foresee it except ideological Republicans, Neocons, and Bill O'Reilly!

Anonymous said...

Bush's war of choice in Iraq is a splendid example of self-fulfilling prophecy. There was no al Qaeda presence there prior to the invasion - now it is the preferred destination for terrorists of every stripe to train in killing westerners and gaming against their tactics. There was no insurgency prior to the invasion - now the country is a hotbed of violence.

After the first Gulf War (which also wrecked Iraqi infrastructure, chiefly in Baghdad), Saddam Hussein's administration had the power grid repaired and chucking out amps in 6 months.

Now we are occupied in semantics, batting around terms which will be an acceptable substitute for "civil war". For somebody who prides himself on being plain-spoken (another word for "ignorant", in this case), Bush is having a hard time saying "civil war". Meanwhile, daily life for Iraqis grows ever more wretched, and there is no doubt they will hate America to the marrow of their bones for at least a generation.

While we're at it, can somebody explain to me why a supposed force of "Dead Enders" and Baathist sympathizers, that might generously number 20,000 at the most, can still be effective if there are about 10,000 "insurgents" in Abu Ghraib and other prisons around Baghdad - and American patrols claim to kill 10-20 "insurgents" in every firefight? Riddle me this, riddle me that. By the bye, why is the profoundly incompetent Donald Rumsfeld still fronting Defense?

On September 22, 2003 at a conference of the American Enterprise Institute, neocon Richard Perle said, "a year from now, I'd be surprised if there's not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush".

At the Baghdad airport taxi stand, ask to be taken to "Liar Smackhead Infidel Dork Square".

Anonymous said...

Moving in a new direction for a minute, have a look at this. Sure looks like entrapment to me.

I wonder what effect this will have on the strikingly similar "terror plot" in England.

Unknown said...

Entrapment, indeed! And JUST A DAY after the Pentagon itself warned of an increase in Sectarian violence in Iraq, there is proof of it: Gunmen kill 14 Pakistani, Indian pilgrims in Iraq

Unknown said...

And JUST A DAY after the Pentagon itself reports alarming increases in "Sectarian" violence: British police arrest 16 in anti-terror raids

And what is "Sectarian Violence" BUT civil war?

Bushies have lied to us from the very beginning of an administration that must itself be called: FRAUD! Iraq is at the nexus of most of the lies.

Bush attacked and invaded Iraq so that US oil companies could literally steal Iraqi oil.

Anonymous said...

Mark, html and htm are different things - a link ending with htm will not work if you add an l to the end. I don't know why your firefox wouldn't recognize the link; it is dead easy to make a typo when writing coding, so perhaps you omitted something or put a space where there shouldn't have been one. I make such mistakes all the time!

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that within days of Bush's "confession" about Iraq and 9/11, the "No.2 al-Qaeda" leader was caught with ties to Iraq...hmm...

Unknown said...

Brad, it has become a pattern, hasn't it? An infallible pattern!