The Emperor’s New Wardrobe Malfunction

i say that it would take president bush outing himself as a homosexual for the american people to finally believe that the iraqi war was the plan all along. i mean, those bushies can’t be bothered to trust anyone who doesn’t dress in cheap polyester suits and dyes his hair using “just for men”

It would take more than half of Americans to be able to find where they live on a map
It would take more than the current 15% of the population to know 3 or more Supreme Court Justices.
It would take changing the minds of 70% of the population from believing that Sadam caused 9/11.
How about more than 40% knowing who their representatives and senators are.

In other words it would take Americans, who are mostly willfully ignorant idiots, and making them into informed thinking people.

If you know a stronger definition of impossible, let me know.

Information cannot argue with a closed mind. Which is why Fox provides propaganda, not news.

He is on beyond Teflon and I just don’t get it.
But then, I’m an East Coast, N.Y. Times reading, book reading, sushi eating wuss and as such, I just don’t count either.
(unless the polls are wrong, she asked hopefully?)
Well, but it’s a long long way from March to the election and the days grow weirder as we reach November.

And haven’t we known all along that Cheney was running the show?

Taken to its logical conclusion…

President Bush appeared on “60 Minutes” last night saying that the Bush Administration has done “a terrible job” conducting the war on terror, and to promote his new book, “Look, I Done Wrote A Book! (with Fred Barnes)”.

The Bush Administration immediately responded on the morning news shows. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that Bush’s comments were untrue, explaining that President Bush “was not invited to most of the administration’s meetings.”

Even if Cheney himself, along with Rice and the entire cabinet confessed that they were planning to invade Iraq from the beginning, people would still think the war was justified. The only thing that might possibly discredit Bush in the worshipful eyes of the far right would be if he had sex in the oval office. After all, the President’s sex life MUCH more important–and interesting–than stupid ol’ foreign policy.

I think Murray is right. People don’t care because “By God, we went over thar and kicked some serious butt. That ‘ll learn ‘em. You just don’t mess with the good ole U.S. of A!”

The short term costs of this misadventure, and most Americans can hardly think in any other timeframe,have been negligible, except for the roughly 500 killed and 5000 wounded.
During WWII there were shortages of various kinds, rationing, black outs of major cities and an enormous rate of conscription across the entire population. Today, thanks to the miracle of increased productivity, (read - an awesomely effective and destructive military manned by volunteers) we can go about our daily lives as though nothing were happening except on the TV. Since the average American’s life has not been affected in any discernible way since we invaded Iraq, why should they care?

And as for the casualties, because the admin, repeatedly calls the occupation of Iraq part of the “War on Terror” I think most people even accept the casualties as necessary cost of that bigger battle.

Now, if the cost of gas continues to go up and if you can directly attribute that increase because of the uncertainty in Iraq, then you’ll have people crying “Foul!”

Hey, I know more than three Supremes!

Florence Ballard, Scherrie Payne, Diana Ross, Susaye Greene, Lynda Laurence, Mary Wilson, Cindy Birdsong, and Jean Terrell.

Woo hoo! I’m in the 15%. My parents would be so proud, if they didn’t already have so much for which to be ashamed of me.

Pesky buzz, you are absolutely correct to point out that thousands of Iraqis have died in this war. I’ve seen estimates that range between 3000 and 8000 dead. (Outnumbering, I might add, the number of Americans killed on 9/11.)

I mentioned the American casualties solely because I was speaking of the costs of the war in this country.

Maybe if Mel Gibson made a movie about it? Call it “The Passion of the Bush?” If it were still popular, I suspect that an episode of the X-Files exposing the invasion of Iraq as an alien plot and exposing Dick Cheney as a blood-sucking vampire might also do the trick.

Seriously, public belief seems driven more by what we see in entertainment than anything that relates to real life.

Heh… “Passion of the Bush”. I believe a slightly non-Hollywood company is shooting that one right now. But I don’t think they can fit much foreign policy into a plot consisting mainly of three young cheerleaders willing to do anything for a ride home from practice…

Then again, the plot of this administration seems almost as hackneyed and cliche.

*ahem* Sorry for the segue. Carry on.

Jerry -

There’s an element of bait-and-switch to your argument - the UN/NATO thing. I’m sure that a lot more people would have supported the Iraq war if it had been a NATO thing. For many reasons, it wasn’t. Nor was it a UN thing. Nor did it have the broad international coalition of the first Gulf War.

So you’re kind of splitting hairs here. Kosovo is currently run by the UN, and NATO’s response to the crisis (which was a genuine crisis, not an ongoing reign of terror) was appropriate to NATO’s mission.

Yes, “the UN” has become shorthand for our willful alienation of so many of our closest traditional allies. We were receiving clear and unequivocal advice in the run-up to the Iraq war - the Germans, the French, etc. telling us that the inspections and a decade of UN actions were working (they were), that Saddam might not have WMD’s (he didn’t), that our “evidence” wasn’t compelling (it wasn’t), and that waiting a few more months as the inspectors did their job would solidify the picture (and yes, it would’ve). We called them “weasels” in repsonse, Congress actually renamed foods in their dining rooms, and it turned out that they were right all along. Oddly, we still haven’t apologized.

Also, when you say “we’re right in the middle of Syria and Iran,” who’s “we?” Our official plan is to turn the government over to the Iraqis and begin to remove our troops. They’ll be running the show, and this ain’t the cold war anymore - we can’t rely on every democracy to do what we say simply because they’re a democracy.

That touches on something I’m planning on writing about soon - this endlessly repeated article of faith that the cure for terrorism is democracy. Even Democrats don’t dispute it, but I’m not so sure it’s true. Freedom and democracy are great, great things, but they don’t cure cancer, destroy racism, do your grocery shopping for you, or bring back dead loved ones. I don’t know why we’re all so sure that “end terrorism” isn’t on that list…

1) “Religious” conviction. A certian percentage of the population, spread across all classes, has a sort of religious conviction that Republicans are good and Democrats are bad. Period. This faith is extended to any Republican who ascends to the Presidency, or even the Republican nomination, and is not revocable. Thus George W. Bush is good, and what he does is good, and what he says is true.

2) Craven careerism. A certain number of career journalists and career politicians will support a Republican President and party under any and all circumstances. They have a plan: demonstrate loyalty unflinchingly now in order to reap favors later– personal morals be damned.

3) “Objective” journalism. Journalists and editors, in a desperate attempt to appear objective, default to presenting Republicans and Democrats as the two sides in every story. So no matter what the Republicans get caught doing the story is framed as: Democrats accuse and Repulicans deny. Or: he says, she says. Unless and until the Republican and Democratic parties come out with a joint statement to the effect that the Bush administration was negligent with regards to Al-Queda and used 911 as a justification to prosecute a war they had no good reason to drag us into, the press will not treat those facts as facts.

Back to the topic at hand…

What is clear to me is that the Bush administration is better described as a cabal, consisting of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell, but only when some one blabs to him about where the next secret meeting will be held.

Bush’s hard-core supporters have known all along that he was lying. They’re happy to go along with it. They know their real agenda–tax cuts for the rich, pollution and a dismantled safety net for everyone else–would never win a popular vote. So they subvert democracy to win. They don’t care about the democratic process–they view people who don’t share their ideology as too stupid to vote.

Last post and then I’ll give yield the floor because neither side is going to change too much here.

Do we really forget so soon the cries of “Diplomacy Not Bombs!” or the puppeteers of the Washington Action Group (can’t have a good protest without the giant puppets). Not all non-republicans learned the lessons of Rwanda, much like not all Republicans are on board with the Iraqi campaign. Pat Buchanan would never be confused with a member of the Left but he is most certainly not in favor of the current administration’s foreign policy in regards to Iraq.

Bush ’41 didn’t take Saddam out in the first campaign precisely because of the international coalition. No Arab state would have supported his removal except Kuwait (the most aggrieved at the time). UN Resolution 660 only demanded Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait and Resolution 678 (the deadline setting resolution) only gave authorization to bring Iraq into compliance. So the question becomes, should we have acted unilaterally and removed the Iraqi leader without an international mandate? Isn’t that what we are being accused of now?

“The lust for oil” is so tired. If all the Corporate Cabal (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld – feel free to use that - as you are alleging they should be called) wanted was oil and infrastructure contracts they would have pushed to lift the sanctions and made those deals with Saddam. It would have been easier, with a lot less fallout.

“Tyrannies considered allies”. Now this is a more interesting argument. Rummy goes to Iraq in ’84. Just 4 years earlier – Iran, our declared enemy – had held US citizens for 444 days as hostages. Here’s where an age-old technique known as ‘the enemy of my enemy’ comes into play (something the Chinese do better than anyone else in the world). Remember – no one else in the region is any better for any kind of work against Iran. There is a certain amount of ‘nuance’ necessary to make this work. John Kerry is touting his skill at ‘nuance’ as one of his positive. (I think, Pat, your arguing that ‘nuance’ is a bad thing.) Now we make two trips (after gas attacks on Iranian troops and many years before gas attacks on Kurds) to reinforce that we want Iraq to beat Iran but we don’t want Iraq to use chemical weapons to do it and we’re condemned for dancing with the Devil. French diplomats get oil futures contracts worth millions of dollars and Chirac is practically playing tennis with the man regularly.

jerry
the conserva-troll

Just watched CSPAN-3 and Rumsfeld’s testimony before the 9/11 commission. Had to laugh in disgust at the Secretary’s slip during a long line of questioning surrounding just how much emphasis the new Administration had given to the threat posed by al Queda. In the midst of multipe questions about what the Admin knew & did about Usama, al Queda, and international terrorism before 9/11, Rummy actually referred to bin Laden as “Saddam”.

Doh!!

And another thing..

Does Dr. Rice’s contradiction between words and actions appear screamingly obvious to anyone else?

She says they were all very concerned about terrorism - so much so that Counter-terrorism was moved down, out of a cabinet level post.

Words, like Condi’s OpEd, are not themselves evidence of truth. Actions are. And her actions, not her words, say she’s lying.

So counter-terrorism chief Clarke wasn’t in the loop. Isn’t that a bit like saying you forgot to invite the bride to the wedding?

I’m not much for conspiracy theories, but I’m starting to think that there is something sinister going on in our Ivy League schools. I imagine an undocumented, nay, secret curriculum at these fine institutions, that teaches our future leaders how to put forth the lamest ideas and excuses and deflect all criticism. Somewhere, in the poorly-lit labs and offices of the Joseph McCarthy The-Dog-Ate-My-Homework Building, professors are codifying and refining the process of making up and, more to the point, getting away with, ridiculous, insulting lies. Absurd things, stuff that would get you fired from any decent corporation in a heartbeat, can be transformed with the Calculus of Bogosity into verbal gems that will win you a second term.

Either that, or we’re all dumb as stumps. I prefer my theory.

Jerry, I second what Murray said about taking a few minutes to read what you write before posting it.

Re: puppets, yes, I suppose a supporter of the recent Republican administrations would appreciate the use of puppets.

Re: the phenomenon of some members of the GOP expressing disagreement with the current administration’s invasion of Iraq under the pretext of fighting terrorism — it is heartening. Should more politicians of the right begin breaking ranks with Bush & Co., there may actually be a chance of clearing that pack of chronic liars out of the White House this autumn.

“Isnt that what we are being accused of now?” What ‘we’ are you referring to? I hope you don’t count the authors of most of the comments here among that ‘we,’ because I suspect you would find that few if any of them would consider themselves represented by the current administration.

You may be tired of the ‘lust for oil’ line, but that may simply be because it goes directly to what is, in part, at the heart of the matter, for reasons that are obvious to most who read Adam’s page. Of all the disputes around the world in which Bush Sr. could have chosen to intervene, some of which would undoubtedly have been seemed worthy to a country interested in strengthening democracy, he chose the one that concerned two countries in a strategically hot area, both of which coincidentally contained major sources of oil.

Yes, I know, strictly coincidence, U.N. resolutions, ‘enemy of my enemy,’ blahblahblah. Blather that circles carefully away from the U.S. government’s recent history of intervening in other countries in destructive ways (install a Shah in Iran, anyone?), then reacting with the aggrieved self-righteousness of an innocent victim when the repercussions of the intervening spin off in unforseen directions, directions contrary to the strategic interests of the U.S. (as defined by some in positions of power). The use of Saddam against Iran is simply one more tired illustration of the old saw He may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard. And our country’s connection with him involved far more than two trips/photo-ops.

You write, “Now we make two trips (after gas attacks on Iranian troops and many years before gas attacks on Kurds) to reinforce that we want Iraq to beat Iran but we don’t want Iraq to use chemical weapons to do it and we’re condemned for dancing with the Devil.” (Get out the handkerchiefs for that last bit.) I refer you to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm, which says in part:

“Reports by the US Senate’s committee on banking, housing and urban affairs — which oversees American exports policy — reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene….

“The Senate committee’s reports on ‘US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq’, undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis — the micro-organism that causes anthrax — were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

“One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers’ City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

“The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the U.S.”

Yes, so concerned about the atrocities, those folks in the White House. So nobly motivated.

Referring to U.N. resolutions from that era, BTW, is particularly hilarious considering the current administration’s disdain for more recent resolutions that were not in accord with the Bush family’s grudge-match/vanity project.

Murray,

I didn’t take it as a cheap shot. Trying to post on weighty topics while waiting for reports to finish running does not necessarily lead to the best work of anyone.

jerry
the conserva-troll

Murray, thank you for your last comment. I especially appreciated its civil tone, as I found myself unhappy with the excessively combative tone of my last comment. My feelings around the subject being batted back and forth are strong enough that it may be I should recuse myself from further spewings, as it’s possible they’ll do nothing more than generate ill will — not my idea of a positive contribution. (I also notice that after starting my last comment by echoing your call for writing clean-up, I didn’t spend enough time doing it myself, resulting in one or two unsightly bits of text. Further evidence of the need to recuse myself, listen more, talk less.)