The September 18th issue of Newsweek has a thought-provoker by Jonathan Alter entitled “An Alternative September 11 History” describing post 9/11 events as they “could have been.” Who knows, perhaps this is the way events unfolded on an Earth in a parallel universe–the one through the wormhole. We always thought that the universe through the wormhole was the “evil twin” but perhaps it’s the other way around. I have it! We really are the good folks from the good Earth, but we’ve been sucked through the wormhole and have ended up on this evil mirror world where greed and hate, intolerance and fear are the underlying values rather than the compassion and openness, charity and peacefulness of our home world. Sigh. Now, how do we get back home?
Voltaire said, Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Just a couple of examples of each (yes, I will restrict myself to only two apiece):
- George W. Bush, Radio Address, October 5, 2002: The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing. The regime is guilty of beginning two wars. It has a horrible history of striking without warning. In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. Saddam Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people, and we have every reason to believe he will use them again. Iraq has longstanding ties to terrorist groups, which are capable of and willing to deliver weapons of mass death. And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents.
- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003: Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- From The Washington Post, Dec. 8, 2004: "A former U.S. Marine staff sergeant testified at a hearing Tuesday that his unit killed at least 30 unarmed civilians in Iraq during the war in 2003 and that Marines routinely shot and killed wounded Iraqis."
- From NPR's Steve Inskeep and Peter Kenyon, June 2, 2006: "The U.S. military confirms it is investigating a report that American troops killed Iraqi civilians in a Sunni village northwest of Baghdad. The news comes amid allegations that American Marines killed 24 unarmed civilians at Haditha."
From The Daily Kos: in an interview with CNN's John King, First Lady Laura Bush answered a question about her husband's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech of May 1, 2003, by saying that (paraphrasing) "the fact is that the mission had been accomplished for those aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Their job was complete, and they were coming home."
Laura, Laura…the last remotely respectable inhabitant of the White House…even you…say it isn't so?
She also flip flopped about the singing of the National Anthem in Spanish…in less than 30 seconds she went from saying it was OK to saying it wasn't.
Yeah, the National Anthem statements were interesting. The American Progress Action Fund's Progress Report yesterday had it on the "Daily Grill:"
“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with singing [the national anthem] in Spanish.”
– First Lady Laura Bush, CNN interview, 5/3/06
“I think it should be sung in English, of course.”
– Laura Bush, speaking just 25 seconds later in the same interview, 5/3/06
The latest comment came when someone pointed out that her husband had said that it should be sung in English. Way to stand by your man, babe. Don't let those pesky thoughts of your own get in the way.
From the American Progress Action Fund's Progress Report: 347 Days and Counting:
"QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.
RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were."
– Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 5/4/06, publicly confronted by a former CIA analyst over his Iraq WMD claims
"We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
– Rumsfeld, 3/30/03, on Iraq WMD
Wonder how we got into this mess? You may have heard your grandmother say something like "bad things come in threes." Well, Granny wasn't kidding. Call them what you will, the threesome of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, but check out this article, "U.S. endorsed Iranian plans to build massive nuclear energy industry, Cheney Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz behind Iran Nuclear Program initiated during Ford Administration" on Global Research.Ca (Center for Research on Globalization) by Ed Haas.
In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive that granted Iran the opportunity to purchase U.S. built reprocessing equipment and facilities designed to extract plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.
When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, the current Vice President of the United States, Richard B Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.
In August 1974, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975) and was the Ford Administration’s Secretary of Defense from 1975–1977.
The current President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz served in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under President Gerald Ford. Wolfowitz is considered as a prominent architect of the Bush Doctrine, which has come to be identified with a policy that permits pre-emptive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States.
 Washington Post, Realism, Rewarded, George F. Will, May 12, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051101815.html, [Accessed March 4, 2006]
And there we thought Gerald Ford's administration was dull! Little did we realize that the boys were already setting things up. They just needed a front man! It would be interesting to count the "threes" we've had to deal with since the 2000 election.
This is a lot like the Rumsfeld/Saddam connection that Julian Borger wrote about on Tuesday December 31, 2002 in The Guardian, titled "Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'", "Declassified papers leave the White House hawk exposed over his role during the Iran-Iraq war."
I could state the obvious, that here are two glaring examples of geopolitical hypocrisy, but I'm sure you are already there.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!
–Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17. Scottish author & novelist (1771 – 1832)
The President's reaffirmation of his full support of Donald Rumsfeld is to be expected from someone who regards loyalty more highly than qualifications. Besides, it has been Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld who have been pulling Bush's strings and if he loses one of his handlers what would the puppet do? The increasing number of statements by retired generals will hopefully alert at least some of the American public who admire the military to Rumsfeld's incompetence. Maybe they'll figure out that the commander-in-chief has an arrogant twit for a Secretary of Defense who doesn't know jack about the real military.
This is a great graphic in the W. Post this morning. Be sure to check the timeline, both sides. The DIA team on the ground in Iraq faxed their report stating that the trailers were not for bio. weapons on the 27th. The DIA and CIA file a statement contradicting the report on the 28th. Bush, Powell, Cheney and Tenet all made subsequent statements using the 28th statement, not the official report, reaffirming that the trailers were for biological weapon manufacture and justified the war.
It is interesting that the official report is still classified and NOT to be released! The selectivity of declassification by the Bush Administration is blatantly political and should be addressed by every possible congressional committee as well as discussed by the American public — providing they decide to inform themselves!
So now the generals are speaking out. General Newbold says he wishes he had spoken out earlier and refers to those who swaggeringly make the decisions to go to war but don't have to bury the results. Well said, but over three years too late. The dead are still buried. Now we can only hope that his call to the active-duty generals and military leaders will speak out before we end up in Iran. If that happens the terrorists have not only won the battle but they have won the war.
Our only hope is that enough people (including the generals, etc.) will speak out and wake the American people up to the fact that our world will never be the same. We can, however, keep it from getting worse if we get the nutcases out of the White House.
At the very least the President AND his vice president should be censured for the lies and manipulation that got us into the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld and all other authors of the abysmally planned Iraq scenario have to be FIRED.
A serious discussion should happen in Congress — both Senate and House — regarding restriction of presidential powers. The best thing that could happen for our country and the world at this point is that Bush and Cheney are both impeached (can a vp be impeached?). If not, go ahead, let him get in as pres. and then impeach him, too!
Looks like Rummy and Rice have a problem. I almost fell out of my chair when I heard Condoleeza Rice say that "I know we've made tactical errors, thousands of them I'm sure, but when you look back in history, what will be judged is, did you make the right strategic decisions." I disagree with her view on the strategic decisions but to have her actually make this comment should make it obvious that the kids are fighting in Bush's 'family'. Donald Rumsfeld's tactic is to make her look dumb: "I don't know what she was talking about, to be perfectly honest." Does his being 'perfectly honest' give his statements more credence than hers? He goes on, explaining why she doesn't know what she's talking about: "If someone says, well, that's a tactical mistake, then I guess it's a lack of understanding, at least my understanding, of what warfare is about." Rumsfeld continues, "Why? Because the enemy's got a brain; the enemy watches what you do and then adjusts to that, so you have to constantly adjust and change your tactics, your techniques and your procedures." Well Donny boy, you've finally said something I agree with. When someone [you] jumps into a situation which you, in your arrogance know nothing about [Iraq] even though you think you do, and not only lack insight into the possibilities surrounding the situation but refuse to accept that there even are possibilities beyond the scenario you have painted, you are at the mercy of the reactionaries. All they have to do is sit back and see what you are doing and then pop in a surprise. Of course the enemy will adjust! You, however, have simply perpetuated the concreteness of your original war plan, too few troops, too little security, lack of control, poor management, and the Iraqis, who were at the mercy of both sides, are now just trying to stay alive (see Drudge Retort). Don't worry though, I'm sure you were right in April of 2003 when you said, "It's untidy, and freedom's untidy. Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things." For those who need a reminder of how things were going at that time see The Guardian.