The Bush Regime Is Still Determined to Lie to the American People

RumsfeldParticularly in light of the capture of Saddam Hussein, the Duh-bya reelection machine — i.e., the entire executive branch — is determined to keep making sure people think there’s a connection between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. A recent column in the Post draws attention to Rumsfeld’s decision to combine the Afghanistan and Iraq wars into a single campaign medal, despite there being absolutely nothing in common between the two, in defiance of decades of military protocol. There’s no possible legitimate reason for this — it serves only to keep the lie alive. I don’t know how many times we can say it before it’ll sink in: The Iraqi invasion had absolutely nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Nothing! I can only hope that this decision — if left unchanged, which seems likely — serves to remind our honorable veterans that there was a lie in the first place.

In the end, I don’t know what’s worse: Rummy’s flagrant disrespect for those who serve or the fact that I can find so little coverage of it save for the above-linked opinion piece (of course, there’s no mention of it on the War Department’s site). Senator Jeff Bingaman is trying to change that, though his proposed amendment was defeated along party lines. In contrast, the GOP-controlled House already passed such a bill. I never thought I’d see it, but apparently some things are too reprehensible even for the Republicans — House Republicans at that.

“Classic” reader comments:

Troy · Tue, Dec 23rd 2003, at 10:48AM

I read what you wrote on StarkTruth so I figured I would see if you are as intelligent as you claim to be... What a disappointment. How can you say that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror? Have you no military concept? Have you no recollection of history? What would have happened if Europe would have preformed a preemptive strike on Hitler when he broke the treaty? Millions of people would not have been needlessly killed across the continent. Your hero, Clinton, who's approval ratings were lower than G Dubya's, helped shut down milosovich in the Balkans even though he posed no immediate threat to the US. And he never went to the UN. This attack on Iraq has the many people rethinking their failing religion that calls for the deaths of non believers. Saudi Arabia is now holding elections, Libya no longer want to be on our shit list, giving access to UN inspectors. Did you ever serve in the military? Ribbon are awarded for theaters of operations all the time. Us soldiers should expect to receive the SWA service ribbon as well as any others the Gov deems so. Also troops who never set foot in that area will receive a ribbon for serving in war time. Your lost.

Bill Coughlan · Tue, Dec 23rd 2003, at 11:17AM

Ah, the idiots come out to play. And sometimes they make it so easy for me...

The invasion of Iraq didn’t have a thing to do with the war on terrorism. The strategists at the top of the Bush regime have cleverly changed the word “terrorism” to “terror” so they can claim anything is related to the attacks of 9/11, without actually coming out and saying it. “Ooh, Saddam is bad, he inspires ‘terror’... we’re not saying anything, but you can put two and two together.”

As for comparing Saddam Hussein with Hitler, are you out of your fucking mind? It didn’t work ten years ago, when Saddam Hussein actually invaded another country; what makes you think it’s any more valid now? Let me spell it out, so even a mental midget like yourself can understand: Saddam’s Iraq posed no legitimate threat to the United States. In case you haven’t been following current events, he didn’t have the so-called “weapons of mass destruction” your overlord used to justify our invasion. To imply that he was a threat to “millions” is rank stupidity. Now, let’s see, who has invaded a foreign nation over the objections of pretty much the whole world, and actually does pose a threat to millions...?

The DoD’s decision to group both the Afghanistan campaign and the Iraq invasions under the single “Global War On Terrorism” medal is political posturing at its worst.

I don’t know where you got the idea that Clinton was my hero. I’ve certainly never written that, or at least not that I can remember.

Oh, and their “failing religion”? I thought this wasn’t a war against Islam. After all, that’s what Duh-bya said, right around the time he called it a “crusade.” I guess that at least as far as you’re concerned, he was wrong.

Sometimes these things just write themselves.

Troy · Tue, Dec 23rd 2003, at 11:43AM

If you can't see the lines between Hitler, Saddam and Milosovich let me draw them a little clearer for you. Since you don't see Saddam as a threat to millions. First the small potatoes that your crony Clinton went after with air strikes. Was it one or two mass graves found, and used for justification for war at 10 thousand feet? Remember the term "ethnic cleansing"? OK that is dot one, next you have Hitler and a thing called the holocaust. See, since you seem to have forgotten, he was trying to wipe out everyone he did not find to be among the superior race, along with some other goals. Ok once again we have mass graves, and "ethnic cleansing". I say again, if Europe would have done a pre-emptive strike, lives would have been saved. The same argument that you are making now (saddam was not a threat to us) was used during that period before WWII as a reason to not go after Hitler, and for the US to remain neutral. And for the third dot, Saddam. He has killed and tortured more than we have been able to recover. Men Women and Children. He had a jail for children! Yet you want to defend him because we have not found any WMD's. Please don't let your hatred for Bush blind you to the suffering of these people. Did Saddam not use WMD's on the Kurds for our third batch of "ethnic cleansing"? I will agree that the WMD's have turned out to be a bad choice to argue for this war. It is my opinion that he should have used the "ethnic cleansing" argument. I will point out that Clinton did indeed state that Bush was justified to go to war over the WMD's. And why do you call me a "mental midget" when I don't reduce myself to the level of name calling and vulgarity as you did? Or maybe I just touched a nerve and you could not help it?

Bill Coughlan · Tue, Dec 23rd 2003, at 12:16PM

You’re right. I shouldn’t have called you a “mental midget.” It might be considered offensive to little people.

Saddam Hussein was evil. We have no argument there. Taking him out was a noble goal, as I stated just last week. And at no point have I ever defended Saddam Hussein. Your accusation to that effect reminds me of the GOP ad questioning the patriotism of anyone who criticized Bush’s handling of the Iraqi invasion — Disagree with me? You must be a traitor!

But here’s the kicker, the point you seem all too ready to gloss over: Duh-bya didn’t use the “ethnic cleansing” argument — which had the benefit of actually being true — to go after Saddam. He did use the “weapons of mass destruction” argument — a lie — to convince the American people to go to war. He told us that Saddam and al Qaeda were connected — another lie. Slobodan Milosevic’s atrocities had the added danger of destabilizing Europe, unlike Saddam Hussein’s. But if, as you say (and frankly, I don’t argue), the “ethnic cleansing” argument was sufficient to justify war (even if not right now, while we were embroiled in an anti-terrorism conflict), then little George had an obligation to use that argument. Frankly, if he had, he might have convinced the rest of the world that the United States actually was in the right, as opposed to being a bully determined to pursue its own interests at the expense of world security.

Oh, and I like that — despite my only having referred to him twice (and really only in passing) in the history of my weblog — you think Clinton was my “crony.” I never imagined that folks would think we were personal buddies (and apparently had been for some time now), but it’s nice to hear.

Troy · Tue, Dec 23rd 2003, at 1:03PM

So you didn't vote for Clinton? And the point you say I "gloss over" is in fact a point I made so how is that glossing over it if I brought it up in the first place? Furthermore I'm not offended by the "mental midget" comment. It does not take a GED to call people names. I was looking for intelligent conversation and was disappointed by your response that contained such simpleton dialect. My final note is this, I don't always agree with how Bush handles things, I truly wish he had some public speaking skills. What I do believe in is his moral values. And whether he argued about mass graves or mass destruction, you said it best when you called it a "noble cause". So the ends justifies the means and millions of people are safer the world over because of it. I am finished with you, and your ego for now. Good day sir.

Bill Coughlan · Tue, Dec 23rd 2003, at 1:19PM

Oh, the “crony” comment was just flagrant mocking of your obvious idiocy. No, I suppose it doesn’t take a GED — as you’ve so aptly demonstrated.

If you call the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers based on a lie “moral values,” then your definition of “morality” leaves quite a bit to be desired.

Then again, since you didn’t know the definition of “crony” (a relatively simple word I recall mastering somewhere in junior high school), I wouldn’t be surprised if you were similarly lacking in your understanding of the word “moral.”

Jeff 1971 · Wed, Dec 24th 2003, at 5:42PM

Troy, North Korea admitted to a nuclear program in October 2002, nearly half a year before the Iraqi invasion. Do you really believe it was about weapons of mass destruction? North Korea is working on them. China has them. So does Russia. So why Iraq?

Maybe it's about rescuing people from an evil government. Approximately how many people do you think have died as a result of the war in The Democratic Republic of Congo? "War? Congo?", you're probably saying to yourself right now. Yep! Believe it or not, despite it not being hyped in the media, stuff actually happens elsewhere in the world. Anyway, the answer is 3.5 million have died. So why save the Iraqi people?

Do you know who Felicien Kabuga, Augustin Bizimana, Idelphonse Hategekimana, Augustin Ngirabatware, Idelphonse Nizeyimana, Protais Mpiranya, Callixte Nzabonimana, Yusuf John Munyakazi, Ryandikayo, Charles Sikubwabo, Aloys Ndimbati are? Don't feel bad because neither did I. I stumbled across the list while looking for information about the genocide in Rwanda. They're wanted fugitives for war crimes - crimes against humanity. Try to guess how many died in Rwanda within a 100 day period in 1994. Answer: 800,000. So why Saddam Hussein?

The ends justify the means? I guess that makes it okay to rob a bank as long as you give the money to the poor. Right? It's okay for the police to break into someone's house without a warrant as long as they find something illegal. Right? I could go on forever with scenarios, but hopefully you get the point.

Keep thinking about that question: Why Iraq?

Bill Coughlan · Wed, Dec 24th 2003, at 9:31PM

Actually, the “end justifies the means” analogy I was going to use was that if you’ve got an ant problem, you should go ahead and burn down your house. After all, that would mean no more ant problem, right?

Pretty much what the Bush regime has done here. But frankly, Jeff, I think your response was much better.

Troy · Sun, Dec 28th 2003, at 10:20AM


You have brought up some very interesting points. First Rwanda 1994. Who was president? Clinton went after targets in the former Yugoslavia because they were hard targets. Meaning easily identified. Tanks, troop positions etc. Clinton learned a lesson in Somalia about going after unconventional enemies. Rwanda was not a conventional problem. North Korea, I agree is an enemy and if you have read any of the stories coming out of there the atrocities against humanity are staggering. I believe we need to take them out as well, however, it won't be as easy as Iraq. The NK army is huge, and well trained. They would not wait for us to build up our military in SK like Saddam did. They would attack first. Seoul would be captured. In Iraq we have lost less people then we did on Sept 11th. In a war on the Korean peninsula, it would be a huge tragedy and the loss of life would be huge. To a lesser point, the US has less of an interest in NK. I don't feel that your mention of Russia is valid. They are not a terrorist state. Neither is China, though I do feel they are a threat as well. If Europe is looking for another super power to offset the US look no further than China. So by toppling Saddam we have hopefully started the first domino and a chain reaction that will bring more stability and democracy to that region of the world. Jeff you really have impressed me with your statements. Therefore I invite you to more debate. I also frequent starktruth.com you may duel me there as well. Another point that should be made here is Rwanda is yet another problem that has to due with Muslims. And the Fall of Saddam will open doors to Christianity, a far more peaceful religion, also as stated democracy, a far more stable form of Gov.

Bill Coughlan · Fri, Jan 2nd 2004, at 12:25PM

Democracy has no more claim to “stability” than does autocracy. Saddam Hussein’s regime was hardly unstable. A democracy (or, to be more accurate, a constitutional republic) may be more desirable, but that doesn’t make it stable. In fact, given the extremist factions in the region — both governmental and independent — maintaining a democracy will prove far more difficult than keeping a dictator in power.

To be honest, what the neoconservative crusade wants is instability in the region, i.e., the toppling of autocratic governments and the installation of so-called democratic ones. Should they succeed (and given their staggering success in Iraq so far, I ain’t holding my breath), a collection of “democratic” nations may prove more advantageous to American interests, but not inherently more stable.

And Christianity’s a “far more peaceful religion” than Islam? Um, really? Could have fooled me.

Leaving aside the likelihood that Christianity may actually end up more oppressed than under the secular government of Saddam Hussein — if, as is being demanded, the new Iraqi constitution enshrines the supremacy of Islam — Christianity is in no way a more peaceful religion than Islam.

Yes, Islam has extremist adherents who use their religion as an excuse for committing atrocious acts. So does Christianity (in fact, from an historical standpoint, you’d be hard-pressed to find a more brutal religion than Christianity). Yes, certain violent dogmas are enshrined in the texts of the religion — again, same with Christianity. But as the religions are observed by the vast majority of their practitioners, the radical passages are not adhered to.

To claim righteousness on the basis of your religion is exactly the same argument the radical Muslim terrorists use. By doing the same, you lose any moral credibility against the argument; it becomes a “my religion is better than your religion” debate — an argument which cannot be won.

Arrogance like that puts you firmly in the company of nutballs like General Boykin. If you’re comfortable with that, fine, but don’t expect to be taken seriously by anyone else.

Troy · Tue, Jan 6th 2004, at 5:54PM

Ok let me rephrase my point. In the last 100 years, how many wars have been started by Christians. How many Massacres have been committed by Christians? how many Christians have flown planes into buildings? how many Christians have blown up coffee shops? How many Christians have bombed US war ships,? How many Christians have filled in mass graves with fresh bodies? How many Christians went around the DC area on a shooting spree? Now, how many Muslims have built homes for the poor? How many Muslims have sent thousands of dollars to orphans around the world? Next you say that Iraqi's could be more oppressed under Christianity? Driving by the local Christian churches around here I see women who can vote, and dress the way the choose, take the carreers they choose, marry whom they choose. So I don't understand that argument.

Bill Coughlan · Tue, Jan 6th 2004, at 6:40PM

I said Christianity could end up more oppressed. As bad as it was, Saddam’s regime was secular. In terms of putting together an Iraqi constitution, just about everyone involved (with the exception of the Americans) is demanding that the constitution acknowledge the supremacy of Islam. Period.

As for atrocities not being committed by Christians? Are we on the same planet? No, most may not have been in the name of Christianity, but I’d wager more crimes — from local to international — are committed by “Christians” than Muslims.

Let me be clear — I’ve got nothing against Christianity, and I don’t mean to denigrate that religion, by any means. But neither will I sit by while someone claims superiority on the basis of adhering to that belief system.

And you would appear to be completely ignorant of the numerous Muslim charity organizations (legitimate organizations — they’re not all terrorism fronts) both in this nation and around the world. Or perhaps you just choose to ignore their accomplishments. Why is that?

Jeff Stark · Tue, Jan 6th 2004, at 11:00PM

Yeah, the same Muslim charity organizations and religous leaders that will not denounce the acts of the Wahabist nut jobs that kill thousands every year, in the name of Allah!

I know, you don't want me here, I leave now with one last word.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home