Lies and Obfuscations
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Friday 22 December 2006
A look back at some of the biggest falsehoods of 2006.
In the spirit of holding our political leaders accountable, this
year-end review will tabulate the worst lies told by Bush and company, along
with several stories that were underreported in the media. Much of what was
generated got lost in the fog of war, but the long arm of history will
retrieve these moments. As the president said in his news conference this
week, if they're still writing about No. 1 - George Washington - there's
plenty of time before the historians can properly evaluate No. 43. Judging
by the mess in Iraq, it could be 200 or 300 years - if ever - before Bush is
vindicated.
Bush has shifted his rhetoric in deference to the grim and deteriorating
reality on the ground in Iraq. Asked by a reporter on Oct. 25 if we are
winning the war, Bush said, "Absolutely, we're winning." Offered the
opportunity at his press conference to defend that statement, Bush has
adopted a new formulation. He now says, "We're not winning, but we're not
losing." That sounds like the definition of a quagmire.
Exploitation of the war gained Republicans seats in '02 and got Bush a
second term in '04, but it wasn't enough in '06. Karl Rove decided the best
way for Republicans to retain control of the House and Senate was to embrace
the war in Iraq and run against the Democrats as "Defeatocrats" and "Cut and
Runners." It might have worked, had not most Americans decided they did
indeed want to cut and run. Not right away - the voters want an orderly
exit - but they weren't buying Bush's big lie about the Democrats.
Bush campaigned this fall as though the Democrats were the real enemy,
not the terrorists. "They [Democrats] think the best way to protect the
American people is wait until we're attacked again.If you don't want your
government listening in on terrorists, vote for the Democrats." Now that the
Democrats have won, watch Bush try to off-load blame for the failure in
Iraq. If the Democrats won't go along with whatever cockamamie scheme he
comes up with, he can always accuse them of losing the war.
Days after giving Defense Secretary Rumsfeld a ringing endorsement,
declaring he would be there until the end, Bush fired him. It was the most
obvious lie of his presidency. And it tripped so easily off Bush's tongue.
There was none of the stammering that usually accompanies his public
utterances. It was as big a lie as Rove's assertion on National Public Radio
that all the public polls pointing toward a rout for the GOP were wrong. "I
have the math," Rove proclaimed. A lot of people believed Rove, but the
voters didn't.
The administration had the media snookered much of the time. Stories
that were underreported largely because they ran counter to administration
spin include:
a.. A study that shows the death toll among Iraqis has reached as high as
655,000. Extensively researched by teams of doctors commissioned by the
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Md., the
study - and the controversy over its sampling methodology - was given scant
attention by the media because it was so far out of line from the
administration's projection of perhaps 50,000 civilian deaths. That's still
a horrendous death toll of innocents in a country the size of Iraq. Now, 100
bodies routinely turn up every day in Baghdad's morgues, the victims of
sectarian violence, and the report, published in October in The Lancet
medical journal, seems to be closer to the truth than anything the Bush
administration has acknowledged.
b.. Private contractors in Iraq. There are 100,000 government contractors
in Iraq, a number that rivals the 140,000 U.S. soldiers in the country. It's
dangerous work; some 650 contractors have died there. They do a lot of the
jobs the military used to do, everything from providing security and
interrogating prisoners to cooking meals for the soldiers. They work for
military contractors like KBR and DynCorp International, which are helping
train the Iraqi police force. This is the largest contingent of civilians
ever operating in a battlefield environment, and there's been no
congressional oversight or accountability. That should change with the
Democrats taking over the investigative committees on Capitol Hill. The
abuses may be just waiting to be uncovered.
c.. America's secret torture prisons, whose existence Bush acknowledged as
part of his tough-guy campaigning this fall. Set up in the aftermath of 9/11
to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely, the legality, morality and
practicality of these so-called "black sites" have come under scrutiny.
After a brief flurry about the use of torture tactics like "water boarding,"
where a prisoner is made to feel he's drowning, the story of these
CIA-operated overseas prisons faded. Yet they contributed to the central
tragedy of the Bush administration, the collapse of America's standing
around the world.
======== (addendum)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/123006Y.shtml
Poll: More Troops Unhappy With Bush's Course in Iraq
By Robert Hodierne
Military Times
Friday 29 December 2006
The American military - once a staunch supporter of President Bush and
the Iraq war - has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory,
according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.
For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling
of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve
of the way the president is handling the war.
When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war - in 2004 -
83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This
year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.
Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they
approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said
they disapproved. The president's approval rating among the military is only
slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his
popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush's handling of
the war. While approval of the president's war leadership has slumped, his
overall approval remains high among the military.
Just as telling, in this year's poll only 41 percent of the military
said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from
65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general
population today - 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.
Professor David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military
Organization at the University of Maryland, was not surprised by the
changing attitude within the military.
"They're seeing more casualties and fatalities and less progress," Segal
said.
He added, "Part of what we're seeing is a recognition that the
intelligence that led to the war was wrong."
Whatever war plan the president comes up with later this month, it
likely will have the replacement of American troops with Iraqis as its
ultimate goal. The military is not optimistic that will happen soon. Only
about one in five service members said that large numbers of American troops
can be replaced within the next two years. More than one-third think it will
take more than five years. And more than half think the U.S. will have to
stay in Iraq more than five years to achieve its goals.
***
Gerald Ford, Unsentimentally
By Matthew Rothschild
<http://www.progressive.org/node/4358>
December 27, 2006
Sorry, but I refuse to let my tear ducts open over the
death of Gerald Ford.
There's something profoundly undemocratic and vaguely
medieval about the almost mandatory salutes that we, the
people, are supposed to offer when a former President
dies.
The niceties of custom all too often reinforce the
habits of blind obedience to the unworthy wielders of
power.
Say no ill of the dead, we are told.
Hogwash. Let's look at Gerald Ford's record.
The first thing he did was to pardon Richard Nixon, even
though ten days previously he had said that the special
prosecutor should proceed against "any and all
individuals" and a year before, he averred that "I do
not think the public would stand for it."
The pardon short-circuited the necessary prosecution of
Nixon, which would have served as a salutary check on
future inhabitants of the Oval Office. Instead, the
pardon set a precedent for such flagrant lawbreakers as
we have in the White House today.
If impeachment of Bush and Cheney may be just a remote
possibility, prosecution and incarceration remain
inconceivable. And so Bush and Cheney, thanks to Ford,
can float comfortably above the law.
On domestic policy, Ford was a standard issue
Republican, vetoing social spending bills, cutting food
stamps and housing and education programs, infamously
denying aid to New York City while all the while
boosting Pentagon spending. And, in a move Bush and
Cheney would have applauded, he proposed the nation's
first official secrets act to provide criminal penalties
for the unauthorized disclosure of classified material.
On foreign policy, Ford was damnable.
He fronted for Pinochet in Chile, and kept aid flowing
to that vicious strongman.
And on December 6, 1975, Ford and Henry Kissinger flew
to Jakarta to meet with dictator Suharto and to give him
a green light to invade East Timor.
According to a declassified State Department cable, here
was part of their conversation.
Suharto to Ford and Kissinger: "We want your
understanding if we deem it necessary to take rapid or
drastic action."
Ford: "We will understand and will not press you on the
issue. We understand the problem you have and the
intentions you have."
Kissinger: "We understand your problem and the need to
move quickly, but I am only saying that it would be
better if it were done after we returned."
Ford and Kissinger returned to the United States, and
Suharto launched his invasion hours later.
Suharto's invasion and occupation cost the lives of
200,000 Timorese.
But never mind. We're not supposed to remember those
things. Just that Jerry Ford was such a nice guy.
_____________________________________________
Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.
Submit via email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Search the archives: portside.org/archive
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
