The Ostroy Report

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the GOP/Tea Party. We support President Obama and the Democratic agenda and seek to preserve the Senate majority while taking back the House. But we're also not afraid to criticize the left when necessary.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Lies, Lies and More Lies. Bush Fires More Weapons of Mass Deception at American Legion Propaganda Speech


Honest Abe he's not. But for just a second last week we had a rare moment of truth (albeit off the cuff and under pressure from a dogged reporter) when President Bush admitted that the Iraq war had "nothing" to do with the war on terror. All that of course changed Thursday during Bush's first in a brand-new series of PR speeches designed to justify the Iraq war, bolster the Busheviks' image and perhaps salvage the midterm elections for Republican incumbents.

Speaking before thousands of veterans at the American Legion convention in Salt Lake City, UT, Bush was in rare form, once again masterfully morphing Saddam and bin Laden, Iraq and al Qaeda, in an effort to confuse the hell out of Americans and scare them into the voting booths. It was a most shameful, pathetic and desperate display of lies and deception, and it came a day after his miserable failure of a Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, accused those against the war of being like Nazi-era appeasers. Just when you think this administration cannot sink any lower they find new cracks in the political pavement through which to crawl and spew their bile.

Let's remember again that a week ago Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11 and the war on terror. But to his applause-generous audience Thursday, Bush lobbed these weapons of mass deception:

"The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq."

"Some politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror. That would come as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the third world war is raging in Iraq. It would come as news to the number-two man of Al Qaida, Zawahiri, who has called the struggle in Iraq, quote, 'the place for the greatest battle.' It would come as news to the terrorists from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and other countries who have come to Iraq to fight the rise of democracy."

"The truth is there is violence, but those who cause it have a clear purpose. When terrorists murder at the World Trade Center or car bombers strike in Baghdad or hijackers plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic or terrorist militias shoot rockets at Israeli towns, they are all pursuing the same objective: to turn back the advance of freedom and impose a dark vision of tyranny and terror across the world."

"As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They're successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to communists, and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be: This war will be difficult; this war will be long; and this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists and totalitarians, and a victory for the cause of freedom and liberty. We're now approaching the fifth anniversary of the day this war reached our shores."

"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation ... and on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism."

Bush's new Traveling Bullshit Campaign is a desperate attempt to save face and drum up support for a war that two-thirds of Americans are against, and 61% of whom see as separate from the global war on terror, according to recent polls. Yet the president stated, "My series of speeches, they're not political speeches." I'm not sure what's worse: his blatant lying, or the mainstream media's impotence in calling him on it.

This is not the first time Bush has hit the road for a PR mission. He did so last Fall and early Spring this year to no avail. The war took more violent, unsuccessful turns, his poll numbers dropped precipitously, and so did voters' patience. There's little doubt that the same will happen again. Bush can't simply make the war a success by saying it is. The "news on the ground," which he likes to curiously cite so often, contradicts him at every turn, and it will continue to.

More important is that voters will not likely accept the new round of incendiary rhetoric about Iraq, the war on terror, and calculated comparisons to World War II. The simple fact is, we've been fighting terrorists for decades. It's nothing new. Terrorists killed Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972; bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983; tossed Leon Klinghoffer off of the Achille Lauro in 1985; and have been committing random acts of violence since. George Bush did not invent the battle against terrorists despite coining the grammatically-challenged phrase, "war on terror." So for him to compare it to WW II and the battle against the Nazis and Fascists is more reprehensible, completely irresponsible, and supremely insensitive to the millions of victims who died at the hands of these brutal dictatorships.

The Iraq war is not about fighting terrorists, at least in the sense of retaliation for 9/11. Roughly 95% of those we're battling there are home-grown insurgents; Saddam loyalists and holdovers from his Baathist regime. It's also about Sunnis vs. Shia. Our soldiers are dying in the middle of a civil war. A war that has nothing to do with protecting America from those who attacked us five years ago.

"There is a struggle going on in Iraq," said Sen. Jack Reid (D-RI) on MSNBC's Hardball Thursday evening. "But at this moment it appears to be a struggle among the Shia community as to who will control Iraq in the future...This is a fight that goes back many, many years between ethnic groups within Iraq. To see this as 'the great struggle' misperceives the point."

And as Democratic strategist Bob Shrum said, the Busheviks, by throwing around terms like Nazis and Fascists, "Number one, you know they're desperate, and number 2, you wonder, did they just figure this out? Three years into the war they're deciding what it's all about? They're gonna run the third 9/11 election in a row because they have nothing else to run on."

19 Comments:

  • At 12:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Our favorite line out of Bush's BS fest in Salt Lake was this one...

    "We're in a war we didn't ask for."

    Excuse us, didn't we (Bush) invade Iraq? Hasn't he already admitted that 9/11 and Iraq are NOT connected?

    Oh my god... just how stupid is the man? Not to mention the L on the forehead people who still tow the GOP party line!!!

     
  • At 8:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    They are starting to beat the drums for war with Iran just like they did for Iraq. Let's see if Americans fall for this fear tactic to get people to vote Repub in November.

    Look for an "October Surprise" to make sure Americans are scared.

    History is going to look very negative on this time period. Qusetions will be asked regarding how can the American people be so dumb to fall for Repub tricks over and over and over.

     
  • At 1:50 PM, Anonymous Larry said…

    Democrats need to understand nuance. I always hear from liberals that conservatives don't understand nuance, but its actually the other way around.

    Iraq may not have been involved in 9/11, but Iraq is part of the war against Islamo-Nazis, coined the 'war on terror' for politically correct reasons.

    Liberals like to pretend that Bush is linking 9/11 and Iraq, yet whenever I ask for a reliable and verifiable quote from Bush or anyone in his administration that CLEARLY supports liberal accusations - I get no quote.

    Liberals like to talk tough and say they support the war on terror, but don't support Iraq. Well then, what war do liberals support? Afghanistan? Great. I'm sure that our military in Afghanistan appreciates their 'support'. Don't liberals understand that Al Qaeda is also outside of Afghanistan? Do we have to let terrorists attack us from other countries before we can take the fight to them?

    Saddam had chemical weapons. We found over 500 artillary shells with Sarin and Mustard gas. These weapons were in Saddam's possession during Desert Storm and he agreed to destroy them. They were not disclosed in Iraq's report to the United Nations, thus they were breaches of the agreement between Iraq and the United Nations. Saddam thumbed his nose all the United Nations for 13 years before we threw him out of office. Saddam and the United Nations created the largest organized criminal activity in United Nations history under the oil-for-food fraud. Saddam was paying palestinian families when a family member became a suicide bomber bombers - killing innocents. Saddam WAS HARBORING members of Al Qaeda. Saddam was planning on restarting his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were removed. How long should we have waited for Saddam to 'change his ways' through 'diplomacy' ?

    9/11 was an Al Qaeda attack on the United States. One 'battle' in the war they declared against the United States on Bill Clinton's watch.

    Afghanistan is a United States battle against Al Qaeda IN AFGHANISTAN.

    Iraq is a United States battle against Al Qaeda IN IRAQ, as well as against a supporter of global terrorism.

    Republicans will run on a platform to fight the war against islamic nazis because that is the most important issue of the day. If Democrats had their way, terrorism would continue to spread like during Bill Clinton's years, when we were attacked 7 times in 8 years, each with growing sophistication. Or during Jimmy Carter's years, when we had Americans held hostage in Iran for 444 days.

     
  • At 2:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    In response to Larry's comments:

    You and Bush have something in common -- You are fantastic liars!!
    Not nuanced at all, but flat out, bald-faced liars and fear mongerers...

     
  • At 3:44 PM, Anonymous larry said…

    Where are any of my lies?

     
  • At 3:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Larry, Larry,

    Sorry for this lengthy post, but I can't let "scary Larry" walk away that easy. Quotes and responses follow:

    "Iraq may not have been involved in 9/11, but Iraq is part of the war against Islamo-Nazis, coined the 'war on terror' for politically correct reasons."

    So we've killed 2600+ soldiers in the name of polical correctness? How quaint. They weren't part of this before we went in by the way.

    "Liberals like to pretend that Bush is linking 9/11 and Iraq, yet whenever I ask for a reliable and verifiable quote from Bush or anyone in his administration that CLEARLY supports liberal accusations - I get no quote."

    Do you expect one? Even Bush and his cronies are not stupid enough to "CLEARLY" define this link, but it was STRONGLY IMPLIED over and over again in the lead up to the war. They know that the average American will not delinieate the difference and will make the association fed through the implication.


    "Saddam had chemical weapons. We found over 500 artillary shells with Sarin and Mustard gas."

    These were WAY past shelf life and were useless even during Gulf "War" I. Try again. Even the administration gave this arguement up a long time ago.


    "Saddam was planning on restarting his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were removed. How long should we have waited for Saddam to 'change his ways' through 'diplomacy' ?"

    As to restarting his WMD "program", you have no proof of this because there is none. As far as how long we should have waited, I can't say, but I do recall that prior to 9/11, Colin Powell had stated on more than one occassion that "Saddam is contained".

    "One 'battle' in the war they declared against the United States on Bill Clinton's watch."

    You sure about that? It could've been under Bush I's watch. At any rate, Clinton warned baby bu$h they would spend a great deal of time focusing on al Qaeda, but they were too smart to listen (i.e., they really wanted Saddam).

    "Afghanistan is a United States battle against Al Qaeda IN AFGHANISTAN."

    Instead of 'is', try 'was'. It originally started that way and with great support or at least understanding (something needed to be done). But then most of the special forces were pulled out and the fire turned down because baby bu$h really wanted Saddam.

    "Iraq is a United States battle against Al Qaeda IN IRAQ, as well as against a supporter of global terrorism"

    There was no problem with al Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion. There's still not a great deal of presence there now because the Iraqi sects don't like al Qaeda very much.

    "If Democrats had their way, terrorism would continue to spread like during Bill Clinton's years, when we were attacked 7 times in 8 years, each with growing sophistication. "

    You mean it's much better now with multiple attacks everyday? Yeah, that's alot better. Give me a break.

    "Republicans will run on a platform to fight the war against islamic nazis because that is the most important issue of the day."

    No, what rethuglicans are running (and counting) on is fear, ignorance, and greed. Looks like they've got your vote!

    Have a nice day,
    Jag

     
  • At 4:17 PM, Anonymous Vierotchka said…

    Where are any of my lies?

    Where are there not?

     
  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger jag_blogger said…

    Larry, Larry,

    Sorry for this lengthy post (and the fact that it may post twice), but I can't let "scary Larry" walk away that easy. Quotes and responses follow:

    "Iraq may not have been involved in 9/11, but Iraq is part of the war against Islamo-Nazis, coined the 'war on terror' for politically correct reasons."

    So we've killed 2600+ soldiers in the name of polical correctness? How quaint. They weren't part of this before we went in by the way.

    "Liberals like to pretend that Bush is linking 9/11 and Iraq, yet whenever I ask for a reliable and verifiable quote from Bush or anyone in his administration that CLEARLY supports liberal accusations - I get no quote."

    Do you expect one? Even Bush and his cronies are not stupid enough to "CLEARLY" define this link, but it was STRONGLY IMPLIED over and over again in the lead up to the war. They know that the average American will not delinieate the difference and will make the association fed through the implication.


    "Saddam had chemical weapons. We found over 500 artillary shells with Sarin and Mustard gas."

    These were WAY past shelf life and were useless even during Gulf "War" I. Try again. Even the administration gave this arguement up a long time ago.


    "Saddam was planning on restarting his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were removed. How long should we have waited for Saddam to 'change his ways' through 'diplomacy' ?"

    As to restarting his WMD "program", you have no proof of this because there is none. As far as how long we should have waited, I can't say, but I do recall that prior to 9/11, Colin Powell had stated on more than one occassion that "Saddam is contained".

    "One 'battle' in the war they declared against the United States on Bill Clinton's watch."

    You sure about that? It could've been under Bush I's watch. At any rate, Clinton warned baby bu$h they would spend a great deal of time focusing on al Qaeda, but they were too smart to listen (i.e., they really wanted Saddam).

    "Afghanistan is a United States battle against Al Qaeda IN AFGHANISTAN."

    Instead of 'is', try 'was'. It originally started that way and with great support or at least understanding (something needed to be done). But then most of the special forces were pulled out and the fire turned down because baby bu$h really wanted Saddam.

    "Iraq is a United States battle against Al Qaeda IN IRAQ, as well as against a supporter of global terrorism"

    There was no problem with al Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion. There's still not a great deal of presence there now because the Iraqi sects don't like al Qaeda very much.

    "If Democrats had their way, terrorism would continue to spread like during Bill Clinton's years, when we were attacked 7 times in 8 years, each with growing sophistication. "

    You mean it's much better now with multiple attacks everyday? Yeah, that's alot better. Give me a break.

    "Republicans will run on a platform to fight the war against islamic nazis because that is the most important issue of the day."

    No, what rethuglicans are running (and counting) on is fear, ignorance, and greed. Looks like they've got your vote!

    Have a nice day,
    Jag

     
  • At 11:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Leviticus 19:11

     
  • At 12:37 AM, Anonymous James C. said…

    Larry, Blah, blah, blah, Lie a litle spin a little. Blah, blah, blah, blah blah. Tell a half truth and another little lie. Blah, blah blah. After the first paragraph I got tired of the same old shit. I didn't waste one more minute reading or trying to understand your twisted drivel. You deserve Bush.

     
  • At 12:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Have you noticed how the "Larrys" are now beating the dead horse called the Clinton administration? News Flash Repugs! Clinton's administration has been over for years now! Intelligence "failures" and 9/11 happened under BUSH'S watch. The Iraq war started under BUSH'S watch. GOP/"Larry" pointing fingers at Clinton is juvenile beyond belief. We're with James C. We don't read the "Larry" posts on beyond the Larry said.

     
  • At 11:34 AM, Anonymous Larry said…

    Hey Liar,
    If you don't read my posts, why do I get always get responses attacking me?

    When I do get responses that are not attacks, they are lies, like saddam's chemical weapons were useless during Operation Desert Storm.

     
  • At 2:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Larry:

    1. Many people use the sign in Anonymous. They are not all the same person. (Seomtimes you, yourself, sign in as Anonymous.)
    2. Liar is Anonymous who does not now read your posts.
    3. Many people no longer respond to you.
    4. Some newcomers respond at first and then stop.
    5. Those who still read your posts and who are not otherwise occupied wonder whey you supporr Bush if you hate lies and liars so much.

     
  • At 7:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So, Larry wants quotes about Bush linking Iraq to 9/11. Well, I'm sure that even Larry will admit that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. That being the case, Bush declared on October, 14, 2002, "There is a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein." On March 17, 2003, right before invading Iraq, Bush said that Saddam's government had "aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda." And on May 1, 2003, Bush said that the toppling of Saddam's government had "removed an ally of Al Queda". There are many more quotes of Bush and his administration's officials deliberately and repeatedly falsely asserting a connection between Iraq and 9/11 or Al Quida. Shall we quote from Cheney or Rumsfeld as well?

    If Larry so strongly believes in that aweful, useless war in Iraq, perhaps he should get out from behind his computer, grab a gun and go head off to Iraq to fight in his war.

    The likes of "Larry" have had thier 15 minutes. And they have screwed up this country like no other time in history.

    Maybe it's time we simply ignore these conservative thugs and get on with trying to repair the damage that they have inflicted on this great country.

     
  • At 3:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Larry, this is where the Democrats Play Rough (according to Ostroy). If you can't handle the game - go to another part of the playground and have a nice day.

     
  • At 9:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    If this is what democrats call "playing rough", I'm very thankful that democrats are not protecting my national security.

     
  • At 2:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Still avoiding the truth, eh 9:44 PM? Try the factual report just released. Twenty-nine pages to be factual and exact. It outlines how Bush foreign policy has degraded our national security. Educate yourself. A copy to read is located on Buzzflash.com.

    Somehow, I suspect you won't bother because that would mean taking initiative with an open mind and then drawing a logical conclusion - like, here's a little help, the more civilians killed in Iraq (which was not part of 9/11 or al Queda in 2001 as admitted by your dear leader Bush) on a daily basis the more enemies of the United States created.

    Do yourself a favor. Get smart.

     
  • At 11:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Anonymous 2:23,
    Oh yeah, F- You. I'm a conservative who LOVES George Bush. He will go down in history as the best president in the United States. If you have a problem with the GOP or conservatives and you want to take it offline, email me directly so we can chat. I'm at markkarlin @ aol.com

    Use it or lose it buddy. F- You!

     
  • At 2:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It appears, according to the post above, that no more needs to be said about open-mindedness and logic.

    Pathetic, really.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home