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

'Anti-racism', All Trap, No Honey: A Discourse About Discourse

One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that

Was it deliberate malevolence or just criminal incompetence?

i began this blog a while ago, hoping to find something constructive to do with the anger, frustration and sense of helplessness i felt during and after katrina. i had some ideas and thoughts that i wanted to write out in long form, but due to events in my life i laid it all down for a while. i've been wanting to begin again but with the torrent of criminal behavior from this administration and its allies it's been difficult to decide where exactly to begin. then i saw a clip of historian doug brinkley on msnbc's scarborough country talking about bush's failure in leadership in leaving the gulf coast essentially a wasteland. people are expressing surprise at this apparent failure instead of realizing that failure is the man's middle name (the w is silent). the title of this entry comes from a chris floyd post about the federal declaration of emergency in louisiana prior to the hurricane and how it failed to cover the coastal counties (illustrated here ).

The Cuckoo Movement

A reed warbler raising a common cuckoo chick it hatched from an egg surreptitiously placed in its nest by the cuckoo's parent “Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”―  George Orwell Parasite to Virus Brood parasites are species that manipulate other organisms to raise their young for them. Among the best known of brood parasites is the cuckoo.  A number of cuckoo species have specialized to lay their eggs among hosts whose eggs theirs mimic closely enough to provide protective camouflage. The eggs hatch sooner than host eggs, the chicks grow faster, and they often eject the eggs or hatchlings of the host from the nest. The cuckoo chicks begin to mimic the cries of the host young to encourage the fostering birds to keep up with their growth to the detriment of their own young. Following one of the first documented cases of computer espionage in the mid 80s, the concept of brood parasitism was applied to malware.