For Bush, Lies Are Truth, Truth Are Lies

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Lying
may be the lifeblood of politics, but sometimes it gets so absurd,
so bald, so over the top, I can't let it pass. If nothing else,
the big whoppers expose the contempt these jerks running for office
have for the voters. On Wednesday, October 20, I was watching CNBC
and it showed a clip of our truth-challenged prez at some campaign
stop saying, "I would only choose war as a last resort. You
know that." Words to that effect, though I couldn't confirm
them on the web.

C'mon!
The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. He thirsted to attack
from the beginning of his regime, and every political junkie knows
it. Here's two pieces of evidence: David Frum, ex-speechwriter for
Bush, writes
that in February '01 Bush was determined "to dig Saddam Hussein
out of power in Iraq" (p. 26). Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury
Secretary, went to the first meeting of the National Security Council
on January 30, 2001, and thought,
"Ten days in, and it was about Iraq" (p. 75). "From
the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking
at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country.
And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was all about
finding a way to do it. The President saying, u2018Fine. Go find
me a way to do this.'" (p. 86).

The
war-lust of this self-described "war president" and his
henchmen, plus the 9/11 dispensation to indulge in it, go far beyond
invading two countries and displacing one lousy tyrant in the middle
east. The monstrous neocon
cabal has ruled the clueless Bush since it took over.

From
the git-go, these armchair warriors claimed
that "there was no greater menace in the world than Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein" (p. 60). That's aside from the threat they
themselves pose to the world, I guess. Secretary of State Colin
Powell, reacting to Donald Rumsfeld's proposal to attack Iraq immediately
after 9/11, said to Army General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, "What the hell, what are these guys thinking
about? Can't you get these guys back in the box?" (p. 61).

We
should be so lucky. These guys are "steadfast," as the
President says, and it's too bad that they won't be "committed"
back to their loony box, where they rightfully belong. Fanaticism
is fashionable today, though. The good news is that they remain
fully eligible for indictment and subsequent trial for treason,
high crimes and misdemeanors, and then incarceration for life or
hanging.

One
of the remarkable features about Woodward's narrative
is reference to "Pearl Harbor." In Donald Rumsfeld's first
eight months back in the Pentagon, he struck two major themes. First,
"the military was hidebound and outdated" and required
"transformation." Rumsfeld's second theme was a "surprise.
He routinely handed out or recommended a book called Pearl
Harbor: Warning and Decision
by Roberta Wohlstetter. Rumsfeld
particularly recommended the foreword, written by Thomas Schelling,
who argued that Pearl Harbor was an ordinary blunder, the type government
specializes in. u2018There is a tendency in our planning to confuse
the unfamiliar with the improbable'" (pp. 22–3).

Three
comments:

  1. Isn't
    that rascally ol' Rumsfeld a prescient forecaster, suggesting
    that a Pearl-Harbor-type event might happen!? Marvelous to have
    his prophecy protecting us at DoD. How could he have known?
    Hmmmm.
  2. Pearl
    Harbor was no "ordinary blunder," but then again,
    9/11 wasn't either.
  3. Given
    the infirmities of so-called ordinary blunders, Ms. Wohlstetter's
    volume
    advocates preemptive strikes around the world, taking out trouble-makers
    before they can exploit our susceptibility to surprise attacks.
    The more government screws up in the homeland – faked or
    real – the more armed aggression (ahem, "preemption")
    overseas. Important book, alright, since it's the essence of
    the Bush doctrine.

Rumsfeld
and Pearl Harbor make quite a pair. As the initial U.S. attack on
Afghanistan slowed, Rumsfeld "was doing some research on the
historical context of one of his favorite subjects – Pearl
Harbor and World War II" (p.
283
). At a press conference on November 1, he lectured the media
on Pearl Harbor and its aftermath: "It took four months before
the United States responded to that attack with the Doolittle Raid
in April of '42…" (p. 285) and so forth and so on.

Rumsfeld's
homework on Pearl Harbor stinks. The parallels between Pearl Harbor
and 9/11 ill serve the Bush government. Robert Stinnett
proves beyond a doubt that FDR finally maneuvered the Japanese into
attacking Pearl Harbor and the devious Mr. Roosevelt knew every
bit of their plans, yet failed to warn the U.S. fleet at Pearl.
We had broken the Japanese military and naval codes long before.
Roosevelt's evil motive: stimulate rage, overcome dominant isolationist
sentiment and get a fuming, foaming-at-the-mouth United States into
full-bore war, especially against Germany.

And
our more recent "Pearl Harbor"? That's about as big a
mystery as who murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. September
11th has the fingerprints and DNA of the United States
government all over it. Most people don't get it yet because they
crave respectability, not the truth. Plus, when it comes to seeing
through government and its arsenal of dirty tricks, common sense
ain't common. Thinking is hard work, so better to just absorb news
shoveled by government and media spoon feeders. September 11th
was a big covert operation and American brainwashing has it that
a big conspiracy can't work (ignore the fact that they have in the
past using "compartmentalization," ideology and "incentives"),
besides it's too horrible to contemplate that "our own"
government could do this to America. The mainline press has avoided
in-depth investigation to see if the official 9/11 account fits
the evidence and is otherwise believable for very good reasons.

Think
about it: A few smart guys in caves over in Afghanistan and 19 Arab
dummies here certainly did not pull this event off. They could never
arrange a U.S. Air Force stand down on 9/11, the precise demolition
of three steel skyscrapers at World Trade (after hitting only two
of them with planes!), a small military drone or cruise missile
to fly into and explode at the Pentagon, a shootdown of Flight 93
(or whatever plane it was), the suppression of intelligence from
the field prior to 9/11, criminal destruction of evidence post-9/11,
resistance to any independent investigation, and incriminating evidence
of cover ups and consciousness of guilt by high government officials.

Even
Bob Woodward,
establishment journalist that he is, finds it ironic that 9/11 was
oh-so-Hollywood:

"September
11 was not only the deadliest attack on the American homeland,
surpassing Pearl Harbor in body count, but the most photographed
and filmed violent assault in history…It was almost as if the
terrorists had a perfect sense of the American thirst for the
theatrical and dramatic. It seemed they realized that the country
had a news media and value system that would push all these images
back in every face time and time again" (pp. 94–5).

We're
supposed to believe that Muslim extremists in caves had such deep
insight into the American psyche that they sat back and asked, "What
would Hollywood do, given a really big budget, to really frighten
Americans and get their dander up and c'mon after us?" No,
it wasn't a small group of foreign terrorists who thought this up
in a cave and executed it well. An American covert-operations
mindset was at work, with emphasis on "American" (= unAmerican
betrayal in this case!). There are criminals in America, ya know,
and some work as spooks or higher in government.


How could terrorists get the President to act like the guiltiest
person imaginable? He refused to testify alone, under oath and therefore
subject to perjury, before the softball 9/11 Commission. That's
like the vast majority of criminal defendants who refuse to take
the stand in their own defense in courts throughout the land. This
president, unlike his predecessor, knows he isn't smart enough to
talk his way through an interrogation, even with friendly interrogators.
It would've been satisfying to see Bush "taking the 5th."
Innocent people thirst for a platform to explain their innocence.
The guilty don't want to be cross-examined because their fabrications
are easily torn asunder.

Then
we have the morning of 9/11. The President behaved strangely, concentrating
on reading an enthralling story about a girl's pet goat in a Florida
classroom while New York City burned, thousands died and duty called.
The Secret Service has the best communications equipment in the
world and yet the President feigned ignorance about the hijackings
and first crash at 8:46a into World Trade. Vice President Cheney
slipped up during an interview on "Meet the Press" on
September 16, when he said, "The Secret Service has an arrangement
with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was…"
– and stopped himself, before finishing the sentence.
Actually, this aspect of the scandal goes much further because the
Secret Service has its own radar system that allows it to see "what
FAA's radar was seeing" (pp.
6–7
), so the President knew from 8:20a on (as a criminal
conspirator, of course, he would know far earlier).

On
September 13th, Bush scheduled a televised conference
call with New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and New York Governor George
Pataki. "Bush appeared uncomfortable, almost distracted as
he talked…" That's odd behavior. A reporter asked the President,
"Could you give us a sense as to what kind of prayers you are
thinking and where your heart is, for yourself, as you…" It
was "instantly obvious that he was struggling with his emotions.
"I think about the families, the children." He turned
his head and his eyes filled with tears. "I am a loving guy,"
he said (p.
54
).

Reminds
me of another sentimental slob, that affable double-murderer, O.J.
Simpson. Remember his good-bye (suicide) note? "First, everyone
understand I had nothing to do with Nicole's murder. I loved her,
always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I
loved her so much [I'd hate to see what he'd do to somebody he hated]…Despite
our love, we were different…please, please leave my children in
peace…I want to send my love and thanks to all my friends…I think
of my life and feel I've done most of the right things…I've lived
a good life. I'm proud of how I lived. My mama taught me to do unto
others. I treated people the way I wanted to be treated. I've always
tried to be up and helpful, so why is this happening…At times I
have felt like a battered husband or boyfriend, but I loved her.
Make that clear to everyone…" (pp. 307–8).
Nicole was stabbed seven times in her neck and scalp and nearly
decapitated. Goldman was stabbed thirty times, and both victims
had defensive wounds to their hands trying to ward off the assault.
The bodies were lying in a pool of their own blood, their clothing
drenched (p. 18).

Feel
the love? Criminals believe they are decent people. Just a few minor
trip-ups here and there. Doesn't matter if they raped babies, sodomized
6-year-olds, or any other crime imaginable. They occasionally experience
guilt and remorse from a conscience that's only partially operable.
Conscience inflicts pain and we all want to avoid pain. "When
they commit a crime, they can shut off considerations of conscience
as quickly and totally as they can shut off an electric light,"
writes criminal psychologist Stanton E. Samenow
(p. 163). The fact that a criminal can feel guilt helps him maintain
the belief that he is a decent person, "a loving guy."

Finally,
there's the big-picture rationale for mass murder. That lovable
communist, "Papa Joe" Stalin, tells us, "You cannot
make a revolution with silk gloves, " (Bartlett's
Familiar Quotations
, 15th edition, p. 766). Bush
and his neocons are self-styled revolutionaries, aiming to remake
the world into a U.S. pond and therefore the loss of lives 9/11
(it's only one month's highway traffic death toll, whatever) were
an unfortunate but necessary price paid to awaken
the American people. But conscience occasionally creeps in unexpectedly,
and emotion bursts through.

October
27, 2004

Morgan
Reynolds [send him mail],
retired professor of economics at Texas A&M University and former
chief economist, US Department of Labor, lives in Hot Springs Village,
Arkansas.

Morgan
Reynolds Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts