Saturday :: Mar 18, 2006

Liar, Liar

by pessimist

George Bush has been accused by us on the Left as being verisimilitudinous at our most generous and an extremely blatant liar at our least. He has had the media rush to his defense when we have made either assertion, as if he needed their protection from us evil reality-basers.

It is still going on - sort of. The usual suspects are still at it. Noted media prevaricator Rush Limbaugh was taking critics of the vaunted Operation Swarmer to task the other day:

RUSH: We've got a whole slew of sound bites here on Operation Swarmer and the drive-by media and their attempt --that we noted yesterday, their attempt -- to portray this as a political act, that George W. Bush is sending American servicemen and women into battle to risk their lives just to get his poll numbers up. That's the thrust of the charge, that they think this is just a politically motivated attack, running around out there just to try to make Bush look powerful in the war on terror and the war in Iraq look like some good things are happening and the media is just talking amongst themselves about how, "This is all just a trick! It's just designed to counter these bad polls." The only people saying it are you, people in the media!

Then he deigns to quote former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who forgot more about diplomacy than Condi Rice ever knew about everything:

ALBRIGHT: They so far haven't found insurgents. So I hope very much that the coincidence of this being the third anniversary of the beginning of the war and the finding of intelligence to launch this Swarmer operation, uh, really produces the insurgents.

RUSH: All right. So she doesn't believe this. She thinks this is politically timed and that we haven't found any insurgents, it's a bogus operation, and Wolf [Blitzer] could have let her roll over on that and get away with it.

BLITZER: But it would be pretty devastating if the US military and American lives were put on the line, put in danger, to try to help the president political because that's the implication of what I hear you saying.

ALBRIGHT: I hope that the intelligence matches what they are trying to do.

Guess what? There was no match - and the media isn't 'Rushing' to his defense. In fact, for once, they are taking the opposite stance: revealing the truth, like they are supposed to be doing.

How Operation Swarmer Fizzled
Not a shot was fired, or a leader nabbed, in a major offensive that failed to live up to its advance billing
Posted Friday, Mar. 17, 2006

[C]ontrary to what many many television networks erroneously reported, the operation was by no means the largest use of airpower since the start of the war. ("Air Assault" is a military term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area.)
In fact, there were no airstrikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo op.
What’s more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance, said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders.

But where the real war is, it was reported - almost as an after thought:

A suicide bomber stepped into a bus and detonated his explosives belt, killing the driver and wounding four passersby.

It's no wonder Bu$hCo sought to manipulate the media by controlling who got access into Iraq. The embedded reporter was a brilliant move dredged up from WWII, when Western reporters stood out like sore thumbs in any war zone and wouldn't have been safe roaming about unprotected.

But all that was before the rest of the world got access to modern technology like the Internet.

Back in the '40s, could there have been native Iraqi bloggers like Riverbend, reaching the world with her testimony during 'Shock and Awe'? No - there was no way back then to get the word out except through official channels, so the embedded reporter idea was feasible.

That is no longer the case. As the US Crusade For IraNqi Crude developed, observers like Riverbend could report their eyewitness news, which others could then follow up and report about, and whose efforts would display for the world who was telling the truth - and who was not. The more the outside world - the non-embedded ones - would report what they saw and heard, the more it became clear that Bu$hCo was lying.

Is it any wonder that the world doesn't believe George anymore? Just like the proverbial Boy Who Cried Wolf, eventually the lies don't work any more.

Allen L Roland is a practicing psychotherapist, author and lecturer who also shares a daily political and social commentary on his weblog and website. He also guest hosts a monthly national radio show TRUTHTALK on Conscious talk radio. He posted this analysis of Salon's Tim Grieve looking into Bu$hCo's lack of effective truthiness on March 16, 2006:

by Allen L Roland

It's like Chinese water torture ~ listening to George W Bush cheerlead an increasingly obvious failed Iraq policy that myself and the vast majority of the American public have no belief in. Just how wide is the present credibility gap? Tim Grieve, Salon, presents the hard figures from the new CBS News Poll which reveals, for example, that 66% of Americans just don't believe Bush.

BUSH, IRAQ AND THE CREDIBILITY GAP [sorry, no link posted - ed.]
Tim Grieve / SALON

George W. Bush gave another one of those speeches Monday in which he explains the war in Iraq, but it's not so clear whether anyone is still listening.

According to a new CBS News poll, 66 percent of the public believes that the president describes conditions in Iraq as better than they really are. Only 31 percent of the public approves of the way Bush is handling Iraq; an astounding 70 percent now say that the war hasn't been worth the cost.

If Americans did tune into Bush's speech Monday, they would have heard a laundry list of statements that conflict with the way they view the situation in Iraq.

Grieve then presents some of what the president said in his speech at George Washington University, and what Americans told the CBS pollsters on the same points. I'll just point out a few highlights and recommend that you read the rest at the linked site:

The president: "Our strategy to protect America is based on a clear premise: The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations."

The public: When asked to say, in their own words, why Bush decided to invade Iraq, only 3 percent of those polled said it was to free Iraqis or spread democracy.

The president: The terrorists' "only hope is to try and provoke a civil war."

The public: Seventy-one percent say that Iraq is already in the midst of a civil war.

The president: "We will help the Iraqi people succeed."

The public: 47 percent say it is "not very likely" or "not likely at all" -- a dramatic, 12-point increase in the grim view over the past two months.

The president: "The terrorists are losing on the field of battle, so they are fighting this war through the pictures we see on television and in the newspapers every day."

The public: Fifty-three percent say that neither side is winning Iraq.

The president: "We will leave behind a democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself."

The public: Only 5 percent say that Iraq will become a stable democracy within the next year or two.

The president: "And a free Iraq, in the heart of the Middle East, will make the American people more secure for generations to come."

The public: Sixty-four percent say that the creation of a stable democracy in Iraq won't make any difference in keeping Americans safe from terrorism.

Occasionally, serendipity steps in and lends a hand.

It has been understood that support for King George was beginning to wear thin in some Red State areas. I happened to stumble upon this post from deep in the heart of Red State Georgia while researching mine, and it was too appropriate not to quote [adapted from the abridged original]:

Bush's last will and testicle
Opinion by Lydia Cornell
Sat Mar 18, 2006

MACON,GA. - I agree with Feingold: we must Censure, then Impeach George Bush. Our president broke the law by not going to the FISA court to "legally" wiretap us...

Wouldn't it be wonderful to find out Bush is just an actor-clown they hired to make us go crazy? I just wish Donald Trump would hurry up and say "Bush, you're fired!" Would that it were all a bad dream!

After 911, we had the whole world on the brink of love. Everyone's heart was open. Most Muslims were shedding tears for us. At that moment, our leader had a choice: Love or Fear.

Worfeus, a historian and commenter on my blog, said: "I think if the Taliban were part of the planning body of 911, then we should have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, it seemed like the right thing to do. But the idea that [we went to war because] they were hiding Bin Laden doesn't wash with me," Worfeus says.

"If getting Bin Laden was the goal, WHY on earth did we BROADCAST for 2 months Exactly WHEN and WHERE we were coming, and WHAT we'd do when we got there?
"That's like calling up criminals and telling them you're coming over to arrest them later in the week. What idiot would possibly think they'd still be there when they got there?"

I'll never forget when you first said you would go to the ends of the earth to find Osama, then you turned around and acted like we were all crazy for asking if you'd caught him yet. You said, "Osama? I don't spend that much time (thinkin') about him.

Now explain to me why you justify illegal spying on Americans, yet you're willing to sell our ports to the very people you are afraid we're talking to on the phone! Does the UAE get to be wiretapped too? Or just American moms and dads who might be wearing 'Peace' signs on their t-shirts.

Our enemies hate us for our freedoms. Our troops are fighting for our freedoms. Is this so we can be wiretapped so we can have no freedoms? Or are they fighting for our president to be able to break the law and sell our ports to a nation that funds terrorists?

Mr. Bush, my jaw dropped open the day you said something like, "Heck other countries get to own parts of America, why not the United Arab Emirates, who've been our allies on the war on terror? Just because they harbored some 911 terrorists and cooked their books for them, and don't keep any paperwork and go on hunting trips with Osama and support the Taliban - is no reason for bigotry. We don't want them to think we don't it's because they're Muslim."

But Mr. Bush, wasn't it only a short time ago that you said something like: "Any nation that does business with terrorists, or harbors terrorists, is a terrorist...” I guess you only meant that about your fellow Americans: Democrats or liberals - since Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage constantly bash liberals as being traitors!

Why are we traitors? Because we value life so much we are horrified by this illegal war? Because we are pro-LIFE in the best sense of the word: we want our troops home alive? And this offends you? (Oops, I shouldn't have said "LIFE"; I know how much you care about frozen fetal cells.)

After hearing Ruth Bader Ginzburg talk about the right-wing death threats she and Sandra Day O'Connor received, I have one question:

You never hear about Left-wingers threatening people's lives whose ideologies they disagree with.

I say this: WE ALL SHOULD MARCH right up to Mr. Bush's front door (which is our front door, since we paid for it) and hold him accountable for causing, directly or indirectly, more deaths & destruction than anyone else has in this new century. If his goal is to spread democracy, he sure is killing a lot of people to do it.

Remember: Every moment is a choice between LOVE AND FEAR.

Lydia Cornell

I strongly urge that you read her entire post. She speaks many additional truths that our Red State friends should be reading. It will be people like Lydia Cornell that will bridge the gap between the divides of America, the land that used to be one nation and not two peoples.

I love it when beautiful women prove to have brains and know how to use them! Her words give me hope - and for me, that is saying a lot!

[PS - those caps in the full line above are in the original.]

Copyrighted [©] source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.


This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

pessimist :: 5:27 PM :: Comments (8) :: TrackBack (0) :: Digg It!