Thursday, September 13, 2007

Bush Delivers Smoke & Mirrors Propaganda Speech

Back in November, by an overwhelming majority, U.S. voters sent a loud message to Congress and President Bush that they wanted an end to the military fiasco in Iraq. Recently, polls consistency have shown that an overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens want the U.S. out of their country. And while the masses have spoken, our dangerous, delusional war-mongering psycho-in-chief went before the nation Thursday night to announce his latest hair-brained scheme: to create an enduring relationship and permanent military presence in the war-ravaged Middle Eastern country. Instead of talking about ultimately bringing the troops home and ending our occupation, Bush essentially promised never to leave, Korea-style. I truly think the man has lost his mind. In his desperation to salvage his legacy--inextricably tied to this debacle--he's becoming more stubborn, more delusional and more dangerous than ever. He also seems to be attempting to run out the clock, leaving the war for the next poor sucker to deal with.

It's infuriating how Bush has now painted a picture of two great Democracies--America and Iraq--standing up side by side to battle the brutal enemy that threatens to destroy them both: Al Qaeda. For Pete's sake, Iraq is no ally; no friend of the U.S. The fact is, the Iraqi government is closer in ties ideologically to Iran (remember the "Axis of Evil?") than it is to us. For Bush to imply that Iraq is aligned with us in this great battle for the Middle East is a despicable distortion of the realities on the ground.

We also heard how the infamous "surge" is working, but what does that actually mean anyway? Does anyone really doubt that more firepower from the greatest military force in the world could not succeed on some level in overpowering the enemy in a few select regions? (i.e Anbar, Baghdad) But it's only temporary. And it has not resulted in effecting any appreciable political progress there. And until there's political change in that country our military might is only as effective as we remain there. And that's exactly Bush's strategy. He has absolutely no vision or plan for the future in terms of how to truly achieve "victory" (whatever that means), bring our troops home and end the occupation. So he simply perpetuates the war. The longer he keeps it going, the longer he can dupe Americans and pretend that we're making progress; just keep the damned thing going so we never have to leave and face the inevitable.

To be sure, Bush is a pathological liar. He's been lying since 2002 when he first laid the groundwork for this neocon disaster. And he's continuously lied every step along the way since. He's lied over the reasons for war, the progress of the war, his plan for perpetrating the war, his horizon for the war, his justifications for the surge, his assessments of the threats and who the enemy is, and just about everything else. Thursday night was no different.

The president made his speech all about Al Qaeda, which is not the enemy we're fighting, although he'd sure as hell like all of us to believe that garbage again. Just listen to the rhetoric from his latest speech, the same smoke and mirrors from 2002:

If we pulled out of Iraq, "extremists would be emboldened"...and "gain 'nukular' weapons and dominate the region"'d be a "humanitarian nightmare" would
"leave our children to face a far more dangerous world"...that these "dangers can reach our cities, and kill our people"...and that "al Qaeda can gain new recruits, and new sanctuaries"..and that we "must defeat al Qaeda"...."liberating your country from terrorists and death squads...." and that to Americans, "the violent extremists who are targeting Iraq are also targeting you." He mentioned al Qaeda 12 times. Al Qaeda, al Qaeda, al Qaeda. Blah, blah, blah. Enough with this irresponsible, reprehensible deception...the incessant morphing of Iraq into al Qaeda. The reason why Iraq cannot sustain a true Democracy is because the Iraqis themselves don't seem to want it, and are killing each other daily in relentless sectarian violence. It's Sunni/Shiite violence which has paralyzed that nation, not al Qaeda.

"The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States," Bush said. "A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven." But what about Gen. David Petraeus' Congressional testimony this week in which he confessed that we may not be any safer here at home as a result of the war? Doesn't faze Bush one bit. Remember, this is a guy who earlier this week said "We're Kicking Ass" in Iraq. If we're really kicking so much ass, how come we're no closer toward a U.S. style democracy, and how come instead of pulling out a majority of our troops Bush is now talking about keeping them there forever? Congress, the media and American voters should be outraged, and should be demanding answers.

The war is a miserable failure, which is why Bush has changed the mission almost non-stop since the invasion. Consider this trail:

From the day of the invasion in March 2003: "There's a game plan, a strategy, to rid the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and rid his country of Weapons of Mass Destruction...and we're on plan.

May 1, 2003: "Major combat operations have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed....."

Two years later: "We will never accept anything less than complete victory.....we will complete our mission in Iraq...and leave behind a democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

Last year: "Our mission is to help the elected government in Iraq defeat common enemies. To bring peace and stability to Iraq and make our nation more secure. Our goals are unchanging. We are flexible in our methods to achieving those goals.

Then May 2, 2007: "Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success, as I've described, is, ya know, sectarian violence down."

June 28: "It's a new mission, David Petraeus is in Iraq carrying it out. It's goal is to help the Iraqis make progress toward reconciliation. To build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and is an ally against the extremists in this war."

WMD, bin Laden/al Qaeda connections, Democracy, humanitarian causes, stemming sectarian violence...this war has had more freakin' "missions" than the Franciscan Church.

Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies.....makes me sick. In his speech Thursday night Bush referred to the "coalition" of "36 countries" fighting al Qaeda and the enemy. I rest my case...


Anonymous said...

Rely on Patraeus for troop recommendations????????

We have heard those who oppose the war called traitors, despite the fact that one of our nations’ highest priorities is to preserve our freedom of speech. Also, we hear that those who oppose the war secretly want the U. S. to lose.

Let’s consider some falsehoods concerning the war:
1.) We were told there were WMD and that we needed to act before the smoking gun became a mushroom cloud.
2.) We were told that Irag had chemical and biological weapons and unpiloted drones capable of dispersing such weapons on U.S. cities.
3.) We were told there was a connection between Irag and Al Qaida prior to 9-11. Al Qaida was not in Iraq before the invasion and now it is a breeding ground.
4.) We were told we would be accepted as liberators.
5.) We were told the occupation would be short and funded by Iraq oil proceeds. Iraq is costing $10 billion a month.
6.) We were told that the insurgency was in its “last throes”. .

The summer of 2007 has been the bloodiest of the war. We have lost 3,800 soldiers due to these falsehoods.
If we had more “traitors” and fewer cheerleaders we might not be in this quagmire.

Now we are told to follow Gen. Petraeus. How many times have we heard, just give us six more months?

Anonymous said...

Nothing we do matters does it?

Bush still gets his way and Americans will continue to die for lies.

I am totally disgusted with all politicians.

Call, write letters, email, protest: It makes no difference.

If anyone has any answers, please let us know.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with 8:08 and we have to include the media for being such whimps. The ONLY real news is on the high cable channels and forget the NMC's, ABC's CBS's they don't serve us anymore.

We have to get rid of this idiot before he has us in Iran.

Anonymous said...

How can we get rid of Bush before he bombs Iran?

I don't see it happening with the slim majority we have in Congress. Americans need a civics lesson on how our governement works. Congress is not just a simple majority for getting things done.

Anonymous said...

I think it's very clear what Bush is attempting to do: he wants to buy himself time so that Iraq becomes the next president's problem. Bush has no clear idea what "victory" means in Iraq, nor does he have any plans in place other than blindly following Petraeus' recommendations. In short, Bush is just throwing more troops into that country and placing their lives in extreme danger. I think most reasonable people will agree that his proposed redeployment of troops is only for show and a futile attempt to quiet his numerous critics.

More and more, flying by the seat of his pants seems to be Bush's idea of leading the "war on terror." And with the noises he and his lackeys are making about Iran, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he involves the US in that country, too. May God help us all!

Anonymous said...

Everyday that Bush can keep this invasion going means more money for his friends at Halliburton, Brown and Root and countless others, making tons of money at the price of a few thousand American lives. Wars are nothing more than a cash cow for these greedy bastards. What burns me is that the media does NOTHING to keep pounding the screw ups this idiot is doing.

I have become a Keith Olbermann fan, and Bill Maher on HBO fan. They at least are not afraid to go after this administration.

Anonymous said...

So what else is new? Even before he was President, Bush's character was exposed in Molly Iven's book about his governorship. And, so many of us knew then there were no WMDs. Yet, all these years later we are all putting up with it and are apparently "shocked" at what he does. Maher's queswtion to Hillary" "How can we vote for someone who was fooled by Bush?" is a valid question. We should ask all Americans how can we who have been fooled by Bush continue to put up with it. Nancy Pelosi said there're too many other things to do than to impeach Bush. Yeah? What? She/the Dems have done nothing else. We are all suckers -- the Democrats and the American people. After the first crash and the Depression, Americans marched on Washington with pitchforks demanding a solution. We just whine and complain.

Anonymous said...

We are now passed 9/11/2007. The Democrats have had control of the Legislative branch of government for the same amount of time that President Bush had control of the Executive branch in the year 2001.

What have the Democrats accomplished in the same amount of time that liberals claim Bush should have prevented 9/11 without infringing on the terrorists' civil rights?

The answer is simple: NOTHING

The Democrats have not accomplished a single thing, except raising the minimum wage for everyone except Nancy Pelosi's Samoa Tuna constituents.


Anonymous said...

Until the Dems can get a veto proof majority nothing will change.

Anonymous said...

What about the cost of this mess?

What will happen when the Baby Boomers want their Social Security?

All (blank) will break loose.

Ian Curran said...

The majority of Americans are now having the same response to Bush's pathological aversion to reality. The only positive thing I can see here is that maybe it will persuade Al Gore to run out of moral obligation to save America, and the world, from eight years of idiocy.

Anonymous said...

Democrats blocked Social Security reform

Seven Star Hand said...

Why use the number 36, in last night's speech?

Hello all,

Want to know the true significance of the number 36 in Bush's speech? There obviously are not 36 countries fighting in "Babble on." So why did our Bonesman President use it in his speech last night?

Discerning the truth about the USA


Anonymous said...

I wish someone would start a petition to urge Gore to run. He may be the country's only hope.

If the Baby Boomers are as passive about their social security rights as they are about what's happening in the country, they will remain the sheep they are.

Thank God the Dems blocked privatization of social security.
At least that was one accomplishment. Don't most of us wish they had blocked this war,

Anonymous said...

I don't think the Democrats are very different from the Republicans. As long as a congressperson or senator needs to raise outrageous amounts of money to get elected or re-elected, the people with money will decide how they vote. We need publicly funded elections with NO private money allowed. Then the polotitions would listen to the people that they supposedly work for.

Anonymous said...

1:24 AM,
You are correct, the Democrats are not very different from the Republicans. Its like coke vs. pepsi and used to keep each other in power.

If you are tired of washington corruption and want change in America:


Its better to not vote at all than to give your vote to either corrupt party.

Anonymous said...

11:45 Spoken like a current American. Lie down and do nothing. "That'll show 'em." However, things are looking better since a large number of courageous, active Americans chose to march on Washington yesterday and make their voices heard. That's what we need more of -- Not passive surrender.

Anonymous said...

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.

Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military -- except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat.

It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."

On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."

The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.

We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.

The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."

Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."

About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" -- although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.

In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."

Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, The New York Times began an article on the election this way:

"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election.
"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"

If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.

And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.

Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.