Skip to main content

Mr. President, my question is exactly how much more blame should the media accept for your fuck up in Iraq?

I am admittedly a lazy poster. It's not that I lack for worthy subject matter. If anything I'm overwhelmed by the depth and breadth of subject matter, as well as by the still inescapable feeling that the fuckers are trying to break us. I have been wanting to go back to last week's press conference and Bush's answer to Helen Thomas' question of why he wanted to go into Iraq. His answer was so ridiculously false and convoluted as to not be an answer. Helen later said what she, and I, and many others believe which is that 9/11 was the excuse and not the reason. The evidence has been there for years. As Helen mentions to Wolf Blitzer, Iraq had been on the administration's radar from the beginning. Several of the war architects belonged The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) which had been advocating for military action in Iraq for years. Then there's the "new" Downing Street Memo. The New York Times finally published a front page story on the British documents that have long underminded all of Bush's assertions. This story has been batted around in the international press and blogosphere for a while now.

I think that the reason that my mind keeps returning to my octogenarian sweetheart's question is because in light of the administrations new talking point that the media coverage is to blame for the lack of progress in Iraq, it's a question that should be asked every chance the press gets. Is there anyone in the media, even at Fox, that truly believes that the coverage is more responsible than the lies that led to this unneccessary war, lack of a plan, and poor execution for the mayhem in Iraq which is seeding mayhem throughout the middle east? Hell, is there anyone in the administration who actually believes that? Certainly not at the State Department. Are there any journalists who aren't inflamed and offended that the administration is spending more time strategizing how to shift the blame to them than creating a new plan for our involvement in Iraq, especially in light of this?

If you haven't seen the video or read the transcript of Bush's press conference I urge everyone to. Everyone needs to know how much trouble we're in. The transcript and an analysis from Alex at Martini Republic follows:

QUESTION (Helen Thomas): I’d like to ask you, Mr. President — your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime.

Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth — but what’s your real reason? You have said it wasn’t oil, the quest for oil. It hasn’t been Israel or anything else. What was it?

BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist — that I didn’t want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect.

QUESTION: And…

BUSH: Hold on for a second, please. Excuse me. Excuse me.

No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it’s just simply not true.

BUSH: My attitude about the defense of this country changed in September the 11th. When we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people.

Our foreign policy changed on that day. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life.

And I’m never going to forget it. And I’m never going to forget the vow I made to the American people, that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn’t allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy, and that’s why I went into Iraq.

(CROSSTALK)

BUSH: Hold on for a second. Excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for Al Qaida.

BUSH: That’s where Al Qaida trained and that’s where…

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Helen, excuse me.

That’s where — Afghanistan provided safe haven for Al Qaida. That’s where they trained, that’s where they plotted, that’s where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That’s why I went to the Security Council. That’s why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed.

And the world said, “Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.” And therefore, we worked with the world. We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world.

And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did. And the world is safer for it.

So, Bush says he attacked Iraq because:

a) the world changed after 9/11 (this is the catch-all for everything, apparently)

b) he wanted “to make sure that we didn’t allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy, and that’s why I went into Iraq. . . . Hold on for a second. Excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for Al Qaida.”

c) Afghanistan provided safe haven for Al Qaida. That’s where they trained, that’s where they plotted, that’s where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

d) “he [Saddam] chose to deny the inspectors,” which, of course, is not true. It was Bush told the inspectors to leave. Iraq was pleading for the inspectors to return to Iraq, if only to avoid being crushed by US forces.

So, according to President My Pet Goat, he invaded Iraq because “the World changed” and because the Taliban provided a safe haven for al Qaeda in Iraq — no, check that — Afghanistan. And because of some bullshit Bush made up about Iraq “denying the inspectors.”

Update: Crooks & Liars comes up big time, once again — with a video of Bush’s meltdown.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Making the White Supremacist Argument in Blackface

What are the stakes that people imagine to be bound up with demonstrating that capitalism in this country emerged from slavery and racism, which are treated as two different labels for the same pathology? Ultimately, it's a race reductionist argument. What the Afro-pessimist types or black nationalist types get out of it is an insistence that we can't ever talk about anything except race. And that's partly because talking about race is the things they have to sell. Adolph Reed Jr. If it's not clear already, it's worth thinking about the ways in which the history revision of the 1619 Project is less about understanding history than it is using history to justify a specific approach to defining and dealing with racism in the present. It serves the same purpose as all of the moral idealism pretending to represent justice-- identity politics, intersectionality, reparations-- that exist in the discourse to deter economic redistribution generally, and specifical

Anti-racism - Class = Status Quo: The Neoliberal Argument Against Coalition

I was approached a few months ago around the idea of collaborating to make the progressive case for reparations. I've said before that while the idea of reparations is morally appealing I don't believe in them as an immediate political project. It's not clear to me that it's possible to build a coalition around a reparative justice focused on just 13% of the population. Encouraged by a recent Twitter conversation that included economists Sandy Darrity and Darrick Hamilton where they suggested that saying reparations will never happen is cynical I've begun trying to think of them as an eventuality and lay out the steps to reaching them. Doing this has made clear that our understanding of reparations as a form of compensation to the descendants of the enslaved is not the reparative justice that we think it to be. If we were living with the kind of understanding of justice that made reparations possible we would not be a nation where war, healthcare, education, and cr

Is Cynicism More Disqualifying Than Ignorance?

I was somewhat reluctant at the time to ascribe any specific intent to Elizabeth Warren's DNA stunt, just focusing on what it said about her political instincts. In retrospect, because of subsequent choices, I see it as craven cynicism. I get that, "I have a plan for that!" is supposed to be her new brand, but obviously, a working plan isn't a central part of that. Her brand should actually be "Pandering Cynic". I now find myself wondering if even she thinks the policy she offers will do what she says it's intended to do. I've been saying in my head that I feel irrational anger towards her, but it's actually quite rational and specific. My posting schedule has been off because I've been playing with the idea of submitting pieces for publication. I've been thinking a lot about how we talk about disparities and how the conversation is used as a cudgel against universal policy. The closest to a good faith version of this argument is