Post by HODPost by George SpelvinPost by HODPost by George SpelvinThen the terrorists already got their wish in 2000. We ended up with
a
Post by George SpelvinPost by HODPost by George Spelvincraven, moronic, AWOL, convicted criminal instead of the people's
choice. Maybe in 2004 we will get real honesty and integrity in the
White House.
Maybe in 2004 we will get real honesty and integrity in the White
House.
Post by George SpelvinPost by HODNo question your dream will come true.....Bush is sure to be re-elected!
So you think he will suddenly become honest and show integrity if he is
actually elected?
Typing slow just for you, Butthead!
He is and will continue to be honest in my opinion! If you can prove
differently, now is the time to do so!
Okay, but try to keep up. I'll type/paste at normal speed (I'll also
refrain from personal attacks because I don't need to insult you to
prove I'm right):
20 Lies About the War
Falsehoods ranging from exaggeration to plain untruth were used to make
the case
for war. More lies are being used in the aftermath. By Glen Rangwala and
Raymond
Whitaker
13 July 2003
1 Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks
A supposed meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the 11
September
hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official was the main basis for
this claim,
but Czech intelligence later conceded that the Iraqi's contact could not
have
been Atta. This did not stop the constant stream of assertions that Iraq
was
involved in 9/11, which was so successful that at one stage opinion
polls showed
that two-thirds of Americans believed the hand of Saddam Hussein was
behind the
attacks. Almost as many believed Iraqi hijackers were aboard the crashed
airliners; in fact there were none.
2 Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together
Persistent claims by US and British leaders that Saddam and Osama bin
Laden were
in league with each other were contradicted by a leaked British Defence
Intelligence Staff report, which said there were no current links
between them.
Mr Bin Laden's "aims are in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq",
it
added.
Another strand to the claims was that al-Qa'ida members were being
sheltered in
Iraq, and had set up a poisons training camp. When US troops reached the
camp,
they found no chemical or biological traces.
3 Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear
weapons
programme
The head of the CIA has now admitted that documents purporting to show
that Iraq
tried to import uranium from Niger in west Africa were forged, and that
the
claim should never have been in President Bush's State of the Union
address.
Britain sticks by the claim, insisting it has "separate intelligence".
The
Foreign Office conceded last week that this information is now "under
review".
4 Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons
The US persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength
aluminum
tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich
uranium for
nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy
Agency
said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the
IAEA,
Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the
tubes were
not even suitable for centrifuges.
5 Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the
first
Gulf War
Iraq possessed enough dangerous substances to kill the whole world, it
was
alleged more than once. It had pilotless aircraft which could be
smuggled into
the US and used to spray chemical and biological toxins. Experts pointed
out
that apart from mustard gas, Iraq never had the technology to produce
materials
with a shelf-life of 12 years, the time between the two wars. All such
agents
would have deteriorated to the point of uselessness years ago.
6 Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or
biological
warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus
Apart from the fact that there has been no sign of these missiles since
the
invasion, Britain downplayed the risk of there being any such weapons in
Iraq
once the fighting began. It was also revealed that chemical protection
equipment
was removed from British bases in Cyprus last year, indicating that the
Government did not take its own claims seriously.
7 Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox
This allegation was made by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his
address
to the UN Security Council in February. The following month the UN said
there
was nothing to support it.
8 US and British claims were supported by the inspectors
According to Jack Straw, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix "pointed
out" that
Iraq had 10,000 litres of anthrax. Tony Blair said Iraq's chemical,
biological
and "indeed the nuclear weapons programme" had been well documented by
the UN.
Mr Blix's reply? "This is not the same as saying there are weapons of
mass
destruction," he said last September. "If I had solid evidence that Iraq
retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons,
I would
take it to the Security Council." In May this year he added: "I am
obviously
very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of
mass
destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not."
9 Previous weapons inspections had failed
Tony Blair told this newspaper in March that the UN had "tried
unsuccessfully
for 12 years to get Saddam to disarm peacefully". But in 1999 a Security
Council
panel concluded: "Although important elements still have to be resolved,
the
bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated." Mr
Blair also
claimed UN inspectors "found no trace at all of Saddam's offensive
biological
weapons programme" until his son-in-law defected. In fact the UN got the
regime
to admit to its biological weapons programme more than a month before
the
defection.
10 Iraq was obstructing the inspectors
Britain's February "dodgy dossier" claimed inspectors' escorts were
"trained to
start long arguments" with other Iraqi officials while evidence was
being
hidden, and inspectors' journeys were monitored and notified ahead to
remove
surprise. Dr Blix said in February that the UN had conducted more than
400
inspections, all without notice, covering more than 300 sites. "We note
that
access to sites has so far been without problems," he said. : "In no
case have
we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew that the inspectors
were
coming."
11 Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes
This now-notorious claim was based on a single source, said to be a
serving
Iraqi military officer. This individual has not been produced since the
war, but
in any case Tony Blair contradicted the claim in April. He said Iraq had
begun
to conceal its weapons in May 2002, which meant that they could not have
been
used within 45 minutes.
12 The "dodgy dossier"
Mr Blair told the Commons in February, when the dossier was issued: "We
issued
further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of
concealment.
It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports." It soon
emerged
that most of it was cribbed without attribution from three articles on
the
internet. Last month Alastair Campbell took responsibility for the
plagiarism
committed by his staff, but stood by the dossier's accuracy, even though
it
confused two Iraqi intelligence organisations, and said one moved to new
headquarters in 1990, two years before it was created.
13 War would be easy
Public fears of war in the US and Britain were assuaged by assurances
that
oppressed Iraqis would welcome the invading forces; that "demolishing
Saddam
Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk", in
the words
of Kenneth Adelman, a senior Pentagon official in two previous
Republican
administrations. Resistance was patchy, but stiffer than expected,
mainly from
irregular forces fighting in civilian clothes. "This wasn't the enemy we
war-gamed against," one general complained.
14 Umm Qasr
The fall of Iraq's southernmost city and only port was announced several
times
before Anglo-American forces gained full control - by Defence Secretary
Donald
Rumsfeld, among others, and by Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of Britain's
defence
staff. "Umm Qasr has been overwhelmed by the US Marines and is now in
coalition
hands," the Admiral announced, somewhat prematurely.
15 Basra rebellion
Claims that the Shia Muslim population of Basra, Iraq's second city, had
risen
against their oppressors were repeated for days, long after it became
clear to
those there that this was little more than wishful thinking. The defeat
of a
supposed breakout by Iraqi armour was also announced by military
spokesman in no
position to know the truth.
16 The "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch
Private Jessica Lynch's "rescue" from a hospital in Nasiriya by American
special
forces was presented as the major "feel-good" story of the war. She was
said to
have fired back at Iraqi troops until her ammunition ran out, and was
taken to
hospital suffering bullet and stab wounds. It has since emerged that all
her
injuries were sustained in a vehicle crash, which left her incapable of
firing
any shot. Local medical staff had tried to return her to the Americans
after
Iraqi forces pulled out of the hospital, but the doctors had to turn
back when
US troops opened fire on them. The special forces encountered no
resistance, but
made sure the whole episode was filmed.
17 Troops would face chemical and biological weapons
As US forces approached Baghdad, there was a rash of reports that they
would
cross a "red line", within which Republican Guard units were authorised
to use
chemical weapons. But Lieutenant General James Conway, the leading US
marine
general in Iraq, conceded afterwards that intelligence reports that
chemical
weapons had been deployed around Baghdad before the war were wrong.
"It was a surprise to me ... that we have not uncovered weapons ... in
some of
the forward dispersal sites," he said. "We've been to virtually every
ammunition
supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply
not
there. We were simply wrong. Whether or not we're wrong at the national
level, I
think still very much remains to be seen."
18 Interrogation of scientists would yield the location of WMD
"I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there ... once we
have
the co-operation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt
that we
will find them," Tony Blair said in April. Numerous similar assurances
were
issued by other leading figures, who said interrogations would provide
the WMD
discoveries that searches had failed to supply. But almost all Iraq's
leading
scientists are in custody, and claims that lingering fears of Saddam
Hussein are
stilling their tongues are beginning to wear thin.
19 Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis
Tony Blair complained in Parliament that "people falsely claim that we
want to
seize" Iraq's oil revenues, adding that they should be put in a trust
fund for
the Iraqi people administered through the UN. Britain should seek a
Security
Council resolution that would affirm "the use of all oil revenues for
the
benefit of the Iraqi people".
Instead Britain co-sponsored a Security Council resolution that gave the
US and
UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. There is no UN-administered trust
fund.
Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, the
resolution
continues to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay in
compensation for
the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
20 WMD were found
After repeated false sightings, both Tony Blair and George Bush
proclaimed on 30
May that two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories.
"We
have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for
the
production of biological weapons," said Mr Blair. Mr Bush went further:
"Those
who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned
weapons -
they're wrong. We found them." It is now almost certain that the
vehicles were
for the production of hydrogen for weather balloons, just as the Iraqis
claimed
- and that they were exported by Britain.
___________________________________________
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve
agent.
State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:
- Sarin gas
- Mustard gas
- VX Nerve agent
Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000
munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.
State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people
Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapons munition has been found anywhere in Iraq
We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing
fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to
disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical
weapons almost anywhere in the world
Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological
weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and
statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and
protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda
And implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11
Zero Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any
other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to
the US)
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to
purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons
production."
State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons
production
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of
leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons
production -- months before the war.
"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at
[past nuclear] sites."
Bush speech to the nation 10/7/2002
Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.
Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero
evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there IAEA report to UN
Security Council 1/27/2003
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and
not credible.
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear
weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
VP Dick Cheney Meet the Press 3/16/2003
Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact
The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival
of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
IAEA report to UN Security Council 3/7/2003
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
Iraqs Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq
UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations
from December 2002 into March 2003
____________________________________________________________-
The Other Lies of George Bush
by DAVID CORN
[from the October 13, 2003 issue]
This article was adapted from the new book, The Lies of George W. Bush:
Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).
George W. Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small, directly and by
omission.
His Iraq lies have loomed largest. In the run-up to the invasion, Bush
based his
case for war on a variety of unfounded claims that extended far beyond
his
controversial uranium-from-Niger assertion. He maintained that Saddam
Hussein
possessed "a massive stockpile" of unconventional weapons and was
directly
"dealing" with Al Qaeda--two suppositions unsupported then (or now) by
the
available evidence. He said the International Atomic Energy Agency had
produced
a report in 1998 noting that Iraq was six months from developing a
nuclear
weapon; no such report existed (and the IAEA had actually reported then
that
there was no indication Iraq had the ability to produce weapons-grade
material).
Bush asserted that Iraq was "harboring a terrorist network, headed by a
senior
Al Qaeda terrorist planner"; US intelligence officials told reporters
this
terrorist was operating ouside of Al Qaeda control. And two days before
launching the war, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other
governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess
and
conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Yet former deputy
CIA
director Richard Kerr, who is conducting a review of the prewar
intelligence,
has said that intelligence was full of qualifiers and caveats, and based
on
circumstantial and inferential evidence. That is, it was not no-doubt
stuff. And
after the major fighting was done, Bush declared, "We found the weapons
of mass
destruction." But he could only point to two tractor-trailers that the
CIA and
the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded were mobile bioweapons
labs. Other
experts--including the DIA's own engineering experts--disagreed with
this
finding.
But Bush's truth-defying crusade for war did not mark a shift for him.
Throughout his campaign for the presidency and his years in the White
House,
Bush has mugged the truth in many other areas to advance his agenda.
Lying has
been one of the essential tools of his presidency. To call the
forty-third
President of the United States a prevaricator is not an exercise of
opinion, not
an inflammatory talk-radio device. Rather, it is backed up by an
all-too-extensive record of self-serving falsifications. While
politicians are
often derided as liars, this charge should be particularly stinging for
Bush.
During the campaign of 2000, he pitched himself as a candidate who could
"restore" honor and integrity to an Oval Office stained by the misdeeds
and
falsehoods of his predecessor. To brand Bush a liar is to negate what he
and his
supporters declared was his most basic and most important qualification
for the
job.
His claims about the war in Iraq have led more of his foes and more
pundits to
accuse him of lying to the public. The list of his misrepresentations,
though,
is far longer than the lengthy list of dubious statements Bush
employed--and
keeps on employing--to justify his invasion and occupation of Iraq. Here
then is
a partial--a quite partial--account of the other lies of George W. Bush.
Tax Cuts
Bush's crusade for tax cuts is the domestic policy matter that has
spawned the
most misrepresentations from his camp. On the 2000 campaign trail, he
sold his
success as a "tax-cutting person" by hailing cuts he passed in Texas
while
governor. But Bush did not tell the full story of his 1997 tax plan. His
proposal called for cutting property taxes. But what he didn't mention
is that
it also included an attempt to boost the sales tax and to implement a
new
business tax. Nor did he note that his full package had not been
accepted by the
state legislature. Instead, the lawmakers passed a $1 billion reduction
in
property taxes. And these tax cuts turned out to be a sham. After they
kicked
in, school districts across the state boosted local tax rates to
compensate for
the loss of revenue. A 1999 Dallas Morning News analysis found that
"many
[taxpayers] are still paying as much as they did in 1997, or more."
Republican
Lieutenant Governor Rick Perry called the cuts "rather illusory."
One of Bush's biggest tax-cut whoppers came when he stated, during the
presidential campaign, "The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go
to the
bottom end of the spectrum." That estimate was wildly at odds with
analyses of
where the money would really go. A report by Citizens for Tax Justice, a
liberal
outfit that specializes in distribution analysis, figured that 42.6
percent of
Bush's $1.6 trillion tax package would end up in the pockets of the top
1
percent of earners. The lowest 60 percent would net 12.6 percent. The
New York
Times, the Los Angeles Times, ABC News and NBC News all reported that
Bush's
package produced the results CTJ calculated.
To deal with the criticism that his plan was a boon for millionaires,
Bush
devised an imaginary friend--a mythical single waitress who was
supporting two
children on an income of $22,000, and he talked about her often. He said
he
wanted to remove the tax-code barriers that kept this waitress from
reaching the
middle class, and he insisted that if his tax cuts were passed, "she
will pay no
income taxes at all." But when Time asked the accounting firm of
Deloitte &
Touche to analyze precisely how Bush's waitress-mom would be affected by
his tax
package, the firm reported that she would not see any benefit because
she
already had no income-tax liability.
As he sold his tax cuts from the White House, Bush maintained in 2001
that with
his plan, "the greatest percentage of tax relief goes to the people at
the
bottom end of the ladder." This was trickery--technically true only
because
low-income earners pay so little income tax to begin with. As the Center
on
Budget and Policy Priorities put it, "a two-parent family of four with
income of
$26,000 would indeed have its income taxes eliminated under the Bush
plan, which
is being portrayed as a 100 percent reduction in taxes." But here was
the punch
line: The family owed only $20 in income taxes under the existing law.
Its
overall tax bill (including payroll and excise taxes), though, was
$2,500. So
that twenty bucks represented less than 1 percent of its tax burden.
Bush's
"greatest percentage" line was meaningless in the real world, where
people paid
their bills with money, not percentages.
Bush also claimed his tax plan--by eliminating the estate tax, at a cost
of $300
billion--would "keep family farms in the family." But, as the New York
Times
reported, farm-industry experts could not point to a single case of a
family
losing a farm because of estate taxes. Asked about this, White House
press
secretary Ari Fleischer said, "If you abolish the death tax, people
won't have
to hire all those planners to help them keep the land that's rightfully
theirs."
Caught in a $300 billion lie, the White House was now saying the reason
to
abolish the tax--a move that would be a blessing to the richest 2
percent of
Americans--was to spare farmers the pain in the ass of estate planning.
Bush's
lies did not hinder him. They helped him win the first tax-cut
fight--and, then,
the tax-cut battle of 2003. When his second set of supersized tax cuts
was
assailed for being tilted toward the rich, he claimed, "Ninety-two
million
Americans will keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money." The
Tax
Policy Center of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute found
that,
contrary to Bush's assertion, nearly 80 percent of tax filers would
receive less
than $1,083, and almost half would pocket less than $100. The truly
average
taxpayers--those in the middle of the income range--would receive $265.
Bush was
using the word "average" in a flimflam fashion. To concoct the
misleading $1,083
figure, the Administration took the large dollar amounts high-income
taxpayers
would receive and added that to the modest, small or nonexistent
reductions
other taxpayers would get--and then used this total to calculate an
average
gain. His claim was akin to saying that if a street had nine households
led by
unemployed individuals but one with an earner making a million dollars,
the
average income of the families on the block would be $100,000. The
radical Wall
Street Journal reported, "Overall, the gains from the taxes are weighted
toward
upper-income taxpayers."
The Environment
One of Bush's first PR slip-ups as President came when his EPA announced
that it
would withdraw a new standard for arsenic in drinking water that had
been
developed during the Clinton years. Bush defended this move by claiming
that the
new standard had been irresponsibly rushed through: "At the very last
minute my
predecessor made a decision, and we pulled back his decision so that we
can make
a decision based upon sound science and what's realistic." And his EPA
administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, said the standard had not been
based on
the "best available science." This was a harsh charge. And untrue.
The new arsenic standard was no quickie job unattached to reasonable
scientific
findings. The EPA had worked for a decade on establishing the new,
10-parts-per-billion standard. Congress had directed the agency to
establish a
new standard, and it had authorized $2.5 million a year for studies from
1997
through 2000. A 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) had
concluded that the existing 50-ppb standard "could easily" result in a
1-in-100
cancer risk and had recommended that acceptable levels be lowered "as
promptly
as possible." EPA policy-makers had thought that a 3-ppb standard would
have
been justified by the science, yet they took cost considerations into
account
and went for the less stringent 10 ppb.
Bush's arsenic move appeared to have been based upon a political
calculation--even though Bush, as a candidate, had said he would not
decide key
policy matters on the basis of politics. But in his book The Right Man,
David
Frum, a former Bush economic speechwriter, reported that Karl Rove,
Bush's chief
political adviser, had "pressed for reversal" of the arsenic standard in
an
attempt to win votes in New Mexico, one of a few states that have high
naturally
occurring levels of arsenic and that would face higher costs in meeting
the new
standard.
Several months after the EPA suspended the standard, a new NAS study
concluded
that the 10-ppb standard was indeed scientifically justified and
possibly not
tight enough. After that, the Administration decided that the original
10 ppb
was exactly the right level for a workable rule, even though the latest
in "best
available science" now suggested that the 10-ppb level might not
adequately
safeguard water drinkers.
The arsenic screw-up was one of the few lies for which Bush took a hit.
On the
matter of global warming, he managed to lie his way through a
controversy more
deftly. Months into his presidency, Bush declared that he was opposed to
the
Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 global warming accord. To defend his retreat
from the
treaty, he cited "the incomplete state of scientific knowledge." This
was a
misleading argument, for the scientific consensus was rather firm. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international body
of
thousands of scientists assembled by the UN and the World Meteorological
Organization, held that global temperatures were dramatically on the
rise and
that this increase was, to an unspecified degree, a result of
human-induced
emissions.
In early June 2001 the NAS released a report Bush had requested, and it
concluded global warming was under way and "most likely due to human
activities." Rather than accept the analysis it had commissioned, the
Bush White
House countered with duplicity. Press secretary Fleischer maintained
that the
report "concludes that the Earth is warming. But it is inconclusive on
why--whether it's man-made causes or whether it's natural causes." That
was not
spinning. That was prevaricating. The study blamed "human activities"
while
noting that "natural variability" might be a contributing factor too.
Still, the Bush White House wanted to make it seem as if Bush did take
the issue
seriously. So on June 11, he delivered a speech on global warming and
pledged to
craft an alternative to Kyoto that would "reduce" emissions. The
following
February he unveiled his plan. "Our immediate goal," Bush said, "is to
reduce
America's greenhouse-gas emissions relative to the size of our economy."
Relative to the size of our economy? This was a ruse. Since the US
economy is
generally growing, this meant emissions could continue to rise, as long
as the
rate of increase was below the rate of economic growth. The other
industrialized
nations, with the Kyoto accord, were calling for reductions below 1990
levels.
Bush was pushing for slower increases above 2000 levels. Bush's promise
to lower
emissions had turned out to be no more than hot air.
September 11
As many Americans and others yearned to make sense of the evil attacks
of
September 11, Bush elected to share with the public a deceptively
simplistic
explanation of this catastrophe. Repeatedly, he said that the United
States had
been struck because of its love of freedom. "America was targeted for
attack,"
he maintained, "because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and
opportunity
in the world." This was shallow analysis, a comic-book interpretation of
the
event that covered up complexities and denied Americans information
crucial for
developing a full understanding of the attacks. In the view Bush
furnished,
Osama bin Laden was a would-be conqueror of the world, a man motivated
solely by
irrational evil, who killed for the purpose of destroying freedom.
But as the State Department's own terrorism experts--as well as
nongovernment
experts--noted, bin Laden was motivated by a specific geostrategic and
theological aim: to chase the United States out of the Middle East in
order to
ease the way for a fundamentalist takeover of the region. Peter Bergen,
a former
CNN producer and the first journalist to arrange a television interview
with bin
Laden, observes in his book Holy War, Inc., "What [bin Laden] condemns
the
United States for is simple: its policies in the Middle East." Rather
than
acknowledge the realities of bin Laden's war on America, Bush attempted
to
create and perpetuate a war-on-freedom myth.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush was disingenuous on other fronts. Days
after the
attack, he asserted, "No one could have conceivably imagined suicide
bombers
burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly
their
aircraft--fly US aircraft--into buildings full of innocent people." His
aides
echoed this sentiment for months. They were wrong. Such a scenario had
been
imagined and feared by terrorism experts. And plots of this sort had
previously
been uncovered and thwarted by security services in other nations--in
operations
known to US officials. According to the 9/11 inquiry conducted by the
House and
Senate intelligence committees, the US intelligence establishment had
received
numerous reports that bin Laden and other terrorists were interested in
mounting
9/11-like strikes against the United States.
Fourteen months after the attack, Bush said, "We must uncover every
detail and
learn every lesson of September the 11th." But his actions belied this
rhetoric.
His White House refused to turn over information to the intelligence
committees
about a pre-9/11 intelligence briefing he had had seen, and the Bush
Administration would not allow the committees to tell the public what
intelligence warnings Bush had received before September 11. More
famously, Bush
would not declassify the twenty-seven-page portion of the committees'
final
report that concerned connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi
Arabia.
And following September 11, Bush repeatedly maintained that his
Administration
was doing everything possible to secure the nation. But that was not
true. The
Administration did not move--and has not moved--quickly to address
gaping
security concerns, including vulnerabilities at chemical plants and
ports and a
huge shortfall in resources for first responders [see Corn, "Homeland
Insecurity," September 22].
It did not start with Iraq. Bush has been lying throughout the
presidency. He
claimed he had not gotten to know disgraced Enron chief Ken Lay until
after the
1994 Texas gubernatorial election. But Lay had been one of Bush's larger
contributors during that election and had--according to Lay
himself--been
friends with Bush for years before it. In June 2001, Bush said, "We're
not going
to deploy a [missile defense] system that doesn't work." But then he
ordered the
deployment of a system that was not yet operational. (A June 2003
General
Accounting Office study noted, "Testing to date has provided only
limited data
for determining whether the system will work as intended.") His White
House
claimed that it was necessary to drill for oil in the Arctic National
Wildlife
Refuge to "secure America's energy needs." But the US Geological Survey
noted
that the amount of oil that might be found there would cover up to
slightly more
than two years' worth of oil consumption. Such a supply would hardly
"secure"
the nation's needs.
Speaking for his boss, Fleischer in 2002 said, "the President does, of
course,
believe that younger workers...are going to receive no money for their
Social
Security taxes." No money? That was not so. A projected crunch will hit
in four
decades or so. But even when this happens, the system will be able to
pay an
estimated 70 percent of benefits--which is somewhat more than "no
money." When
Bush in August 2001 announced he would permit federal funding of
stem-cell
research only for projects that used existing stem-cell lines--in a move
to
placate social conservatives, who opposed this sort of research--he said
that
there were sixty existing lines, and he asserted that his decision
"allows us to
explore the promise and potential of stem-cell research." Yet at the
time--according to scientific experts in the field and various media
reports--there were closer to ten available lines, not nearly enough to
support
a promising research effort.
Does Bush believe his own untruths? Did he truly consider a WMD-loaded
Saddam
Hussein an imminent threat to the United States? Or was he knowingly
employing
dramatic license because he wanted war for other reasons? Did he really
think
the average middle-class taxpayer would receive $1,083 from his second
tax-cut
plan? Or did he realize this was a fuzzy number cooked up to make the
package
seem a better deal than it was for middle- and low-income workers? Did
he
believe there were enough stem-cell lines to support robust research? Or
did he
know he had exaggerated the number of lines in order to avoid a
politically
tough decision?
It's hard to tell. Bush's public statements do suggest he is a binary
thinker
who views the world in black-and-white terms. You're either for freedom
or
against it. With the United States or not. Tax cuts are good--always.
The more
tax cuts the better--always. He's impatient with nuances. Asked in 1999
to name
something he wasn't good at, Bush replied, "Sitting down and reading a
500-page
book on public policy or philosophy or something." Bush likes life to be
clear-cut. And perhaps that causes him to either bend the truth or see
(and
promote) a bent version of reality. Observers can debate whether Bush
considers
his embellishments and misrepresentations to be the honest-to-God truth
or
whether he cynically hurls falsehoods to con the public. But believer or
deceiver--the result is the same.
With his misrepresentations and false assertions, Bush has dramatically
changed
the nation and the world. Relying on deceptions, he turned the United
States
into an occupying power. Using lies, he pushed through tax cuts that
will
profoundly reshape the US budget for years to come, most likely insuring
a long
stretch of deficits that will make it difficult, perhaps impossible, for
the
federal government to fund existing programs or contemplate new ones.
Does Bush lie more than his predecessors, more than his political
opponents?
That's irrelevant. He's guiding the nation during difficult and perhaps
perilous
times, in which a credible President is much in need. Prosperity or
economic
decline? War or peace? Security or fear? This country has a lot to deal
with.
Lies from the White House poison the debates that must occur if
Americans are
going to confront and overcome the challenges of this century at home
and
abroad.
Presidential lying, in fact, threatens the country. To render informed
and wise
choices about the crucial and complicated controversies of the day,
people need
truthful information. The President is generally in a position to define
and
dominate a debate more than other political players. And a lie from the
White
House--or a fib or a misrepresentation or a fudged number--can go a long
way
toward distorting the national discussion.
Bush campaigned for the presidency as the fellow who would bring honesty
back to
the White House. During his first full day on the job, while swearing in
his
White House staff, he reminded his cadre, "On a mantelpiece in this
great house
is inscribed the prayer of John Adams, that only the wise and honest may
rule
under this roof." But Adams's prayer would once more go unanswered.
There has
been no restoration of integrity. Bush's promise was a lie. The future
of the
United States remains in the hands of a dishonest man.
Got lots more. Let me know if you need any help understanding.
--
Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to
develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years."--Colin
Powell, May 2001