kara
Sorry...the post was just a quick knock-off, pointing to the inherent silliness of 'government is bad/evil' cliches (not to mention the disparity between such a notion and what Lincoln said at Gettysburg).
I don't think the word 'evil' is an intellectually useful term at all actually. Some folks, of course, consider that evil is an actual presence in the world, but I hold that any such person is a complete idiot. Outside of that, the term really can only refer to that with which we find great displeasure.
Headline in today's (British) Mail on Sunday
GERMANS AMBUSH BLAIR ON 'LIES'
....Mr Fischer told journalists 'I made it very clear that if there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction then he, Tony Blair, should admit he has misused intelligence reports and has misled world opinion'.
Well St Petersberg won't be the first party to end with a punch up.
a
A look back, or a look forward?
March 22, 2003
Baghdad Burns While Dubya Does Lunch
Who Dares Critique the Smirking Commander?
By LINDA HEARD
America's great commander George W Bush has surely to be admired for his amazing sangfroid. If he had any worries about the impending 'Shock and Awe' campaign, he didn't show them as he played with his pooch on the White House lawn on the day the war kicked off. After an intimate dinner with the missus, the wondrous leader took time out to give the order to attack Baghdad before delivering his mushy message to the nation.
But unfortunately for him Aunty Beeb, also known as the BBC, erroneously broadcast Dubya preparing for his Churchillian moment in history. There he was practicing his speech totally unaware that the cameras were rolling. As his mouth moved soundlessly evoking a guppy in an aquarium a middle-aged ma'am primped his locks, spraying every offending hair in to place.
Worse, the small man deliberately contorted his facial features in an effort to convey passivity, emotion and greatness as though he were looking into a mirror, which he probably was. The result was an orchestrated pre-written blurb absent of sincerity or sympathy. Lee Strasburg must be turning over in his grave.
By the time it was over and my tears of mirth (and sorrow) had dried it was well past Dubya's bedtime and determined not to lose any beauty sleep over a silly thing like a war, he went off to bed. That's the true mark of leadership. After all, why should he worry when he's got Eritrea in his Coalition of the Callous?
No doubt, the chilling Rummy Rumsfeld didn't have to practice to face his audience. He did what he does best - gleefully warning of the carnage to come. He told the world that Baghdad was facing an attack of the scope and scale the world had never seen before, but of course the US has nothing at all against the Iraqi people, he tells us.
Indeed, why would the Iraqi people grumble when cruise missiles are devastating the heart of their capital? Why should they mind when a neo-imperialist occupying force invades their sovereign integrity? How churlish! Isn't this being done to free them from that dastardly Saddam who as we have heard hundreds of times has 'gassed his own people'?
As I write, the Kurds are dreading the arrival of their old foes the Turks and the bloodbath, which could ensue. They have been sold to the Turks for US rights to fly over Turkish territory. This is far from being the first time that the luckless Kurds have been betrayed by opportunist US administrations.
The conscripted Shias in southern Iraq around Basra are being bombarded and urged to come out with their hands up by hundreds of thousands of propaganda leaflets dropped with the bombs. The Shia population has long hoped to have a say in the way its country is run but they haven't a hope in hell. Their close relations with the Iranian ayatollahs will rule out their dreams as long as the US is pulling the strings.
The people of Baghdad are hiding in their bunkers hoping they will still have a home, nay a city, when it's over. Terrified refugees have fled their homes and are gathering around the Jordanian border, and Bush has lunch with Cheney. 'Have another breadstick Dick!'
As the plumes of smoke rise over the ancient Mesopotamian metropolis, Britain's Tony Blair and France's Jacques Chirac face one another over the dinner table. Chirac has said that Blair is the rudest person he has ever met; Blair has been spouting disingenuously that if it wasn't for France menacing its veto, peace could have been achieved. In earlier times it could have been pistols at dawn. Today, it may mean the demise of the entente cordiale and the possible fragmentation of the European Community.
In purely humanitarian terms, surely the French proposal of containment would have made far more sense. War should always be a last resort, especially one with so much potential for destabilizing other countries, wrecking economies and widening political divisions worldwide. Did I say 'humanitarian'? How passe! Humanitarian isn't part of the 'New American Century'.
Instead war has been reduced to a flippant exercise as a British newspaper recently did with its 'Let's Roll' on the front page, a disingenuous attempt to link Iraq with 9-11.
Included in A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, our leaders will not shirk from lies if these serve as a pretext for war. Britain's Blair used his honest face to good purpose when trying to pass off a plagiarized paper as intelligence and forged correspondence concerning Iraq's alleged attempts to purchase uranium. Sadly for him the plagiarisers and the forgers were less professional in their efforts.
The jingoistic Fox News anchors are already sporting their flag pins, and the almost 50 per cent of Americans who believe that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11 are flying the Star Spangled banner from their balconies. The patriots are pouring bottles of the finest Bordeaux and Beaujolais down the drain, while Russian vodka and Chinese beer stays on the shelves.
As the embedded, or rather entombed, US/UK government selected reporters are issuing their censored reports, we are left to seek for the truth and sift through the lies.
Those reporters who remain in Baghdad have been warned by the US to leave. Veteran war reporter Kate Adie said that those journalists using satellite uplink to file their stories would be fired upon by American pilots.
The American media, which had recently begun to loosen its nationalistic shackles, is regressing into being a propaganda arm for its government once again.
I noticed Lou Dobbs, the host of CNN's Moneyline, successfully intimidating the international philanthropist George Soros in mid-sentence for daring to criticize his beloved leader.
Dobbs had previously invited a dubious duo to warble 'Have you forgotten?' against the emotive background of crumbling twin towers. On Lou's website, Kofi Annan comes under attack for daring to suggest that a war without United Nations approval might be illegal.
British television is little better. Last Saturday's worldwide anti-war demonstrations warranted hardly any coverage, the protesting schoolchildren covered with fake blood and the thousands who have downed tools even less.
They say that the first casualty of war is truth, and it already looks as though that is going to be a rare commodity in the weeks and months ahead. If the White House and Downing Street get their way, we will never know the true effects of their aggression on the Iraqi people.
We will be shielded from the broken limbs, the fearful screams, the blood and the gore. We will see what they want us to see and we will know what they want us to know and if we find out anything that they don't want us to know, then we will be called anti-American, pro-Saddam Hussein or crazed conspiracy theorists.
No. We are destined, instead, to witness Iraqis dancing in the streets, dispensing candy as the good old American cavalry arrive to save them from Saddam. The Bush administration will justify the 'collateral damage' by either finding Iraq's infamous weapons of mass destruction, or planting them and then Iraq will get a Karzai clone who will salivate at the idea of privatizing Iraqi oil.
Even before the war is over, Iraqi diplomats are being kicked out of their embassies and consulates, their real estate seized 'for the next Iraqi (puppet) administration'. Some 1.6 billion dollars of Iraqi funds in the US, which were frozen after the Gulf War is to be grabbed too 'to help pay for Iraq's reconstruction'. Arms manufacturers are already laughing all the way to the bank, while Bush's cronies rub their hands together waiting for their lucrative post-war contracts to be implemented.
The human shields, or those who are still living, will return home to write their memoirs, the peace movements will be stripped back to the leftist stalwarts and another American protectorate is born. The New World Order is here...until it is challenged, as it must surely be.
McGentrix
Blair saw 'evidence not yet available to the public'...well, that's surely credible.
You'll all recall the writer at the NY Times who had been shown (but had to keep sources secret) definitive and certain proof of WOMD in Iraq? Guess who she has just revealed that source was....Chalabi.
Well, I've been not only in England for the London meeting but had had the chance, too, to join a meeting with a minister of her Majesty's Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I really do like him personally, but when this Parliamentary-under-Secretary answered the questions about the weapons with "Be sure that I know more than you, but I can't tell you", I thought this to be a little bit ... helpless.
This happened on March, 21 (!), btw.
C'mon, bernie, you left out the best part:
Quote:On the evening of February 1, two dozen American officials gathered in a spacious conference room at the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va. The time had come to make the public case for war against Iraq. For six hours that Saturday, the men and women of the Bush administration argued about what Secretary of State Colin Powell should--and should not--say at the United Nations Security Council four days later. Not all the secret intelligence about Saddam Hussein's misdeeds, they found, stood up to close scrutiny. At one point during the rehearsal, Powell tossed several pages in the air. "I'm not reading this," he declared. "This is bulls- - -."
On Fox this morning the robo-speakers line is apparently this:
The speed of the advance was so swift as to prevent the Iraqis from using the WMDs.
Apparently it was so swift that they couldn't shoot, but they had plenty of time to completely hide them.
I don't know much about your Fox (being without network TV), but I do know a lot about my foxes. They work in the dark, they are serious rabies threats, they are smart and destructive and slicker than Willie. They're untrustworthy, they're entirely out for number one, and they move fast.
Joe Nation wrote:
Apparently it was so swift that they couldn't shoot, but they had plenty of time to completely hide them.
Yes, there has been plenty of time to hide all these weapons at about 1,400 places. And of course, clever as they were/are, they did it very secretely, no secret service could notice it.
The House of Cards is falling. The question is, when they be held accountable (one of their favorite terms)?
BillW, This administration can't be counted on to live by their own rhetoric. Haven't you learned that yet? c.i.
Kara wrote:c.i., I am so totally at odds with what this administration is doing to civil rights that I cannot even talk about it. The name of Ashcorft shrivels my soul.
What I was pointing out was that I do not believe that these administrators are acting in an "evil" way. I see evil as intentional, and maybe I cannot point to anyone who has ever acted purposely in an evil way. Our leaders think they are doing what is best for this country, and that is so totally frightening.
Kara - I think your fears are unfounded, but I have the utmost respect for your ability to recognize that whatever these people are doing, they believe is right. I feared much of what Clinton did and wanted to do, but I don't think for a second that Clinton wanted anything but good for our country. I just believe his vision of what that is was and remains horribly wrong. This is what I understand you to be saying about the current administration, and I respect that opinion. It is one based more on reason than on reaction.
I may be wrong (it has been known) but I think a major constitutional crisis is developing in Britain. The people are coming to the conclusion that they have been misled over this war. It may not be such a big issue in the US but in Britain we were told "Iraq must disarm voluntarily or will be disarmed by force". The causus belli was WMD. Now we are told they either never had any or hid them so well it takes time to discover them (but no extra time for Blix was allowed) or we have to be patient while the 'evidence' is collated. Blair exaggerated. Parliament was deceived. THOUSANDS DIED. The more Blair says "be patient, the evidence will be found", the more people will be right to hold him to that promise and analyse the results. (And this from a 'Blairite' member of the Labour Party)
A commenatry from the BBC on this topic
Quote:All at stake in weapons row
By Nick Assinder
BBC News Online political correspondent
The charges currently being levelled against Tony Blair over the war on Iraq could not be more serious.
And they boil down to a single question - did the government deliberately spin Britain into the conflict?
Was all the pre-war talk about the imminent threat from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction an exercise in "sexing up" the evidence in an attempt to win what was otherwise a shaky case for war?
If there is any proof that was the case then the prime minister, along with several of his ministers, has committed the greatest of all parliamentary sins - that of misleading the House of Commons.
There are huge dangers for both sides here.
Parliament's legitimacy derives for the fact that "honourable members" are precisely that - honourable and truthful. Without that trust, the entire bedrock of parliamentary democracy crumbles.
For that reason, anyone found to have deliberately misled parliament has only one option - resignation.
And that is precisely what the prime minister is now being accused of by the likes of Clare Short.
Evidence faith
Before the war, even the prime minister's harshest critics probably had to accept that he believed wholeheartedly in what he was doing.
Similarly many - if by no means all - believed that Saddam really did have the sort of weapon's capability Mr Blair and President Bush kept insisting he had.
If it is ever shown that Mr Blair deliberately massaged the facts then his premiership will almost certainly be over.
For many of the critics, their opposition stemmed far more from the doubts over the legitimacy of the war without UN backing.
The prime minister calculated, however, that he would win the vast majority of the sceptics around once war - legitimate or otherwise - was under way.
That proved to be the case, but the entire affair left a legacy of anger and dismay amongst his severest critics, led by Ms Short and Robin Cook, both of who now claim to have been vindicated.
They have been quick to seize on all the latest claims about spin to suggest the prime minister has misled Parliament.
But there are huge dangers for both sides here.
Credibility risks
Clearly, if it is ever shown that Mr Blair deliberately massaged the facts to either win the crunch Commons vote sanctioning the war or hype up the pre-war atmosphere, then his premiership will almost certainly be over.
It is unthinkable that he could remain in office if that was proved to be the case.
But the rebels also face the danger of having their own credibility destroyed if the promised dossier on Saddam's weapons programme backs the prime minister's case.
The risk for them is that they may have spoken too soon. It is certainly the case that the prime minister appears as confident as ever that he will be vindicated.
If he is, then the critics' will have been neutered and they will find it near impossible to win an audience for their wider claims about the legitimacy of the war.
This is seriously high stakes for all involved and the affair clearly has a long way to run yet.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/2953830.stm
I only wish the people in the US were as outraged for being mislead into this war with Iraq. But, nay, GWBush still enjoys a very high approval rating. Tis a mystery I'll never understand. c.i.
PDiddie - "not to love Der Furher is a big disgrace, so we heil.........."
What do you think the reaction would be if WMD were to suddenly turn up? At this point, how much credibility is there? When the UN inspectors couldn't produce anything, the US and GB said they had evidence and intelligence, but did not share that with the inspectors. Then the US and GB went into Iraq, and have been looking for quite a while, and with thousands of their own inspectors, and have still not come up with anything. Now some of our own member have started expressing serious doubts. What are the odds of true belief if there is a find?
I think at this point most people will think the find site was salted. That there has come a point when anything found will be doubted (except, of course, by the true blue believers). So, is this a rock and a hard place, or will the spin geniuses in the WH be able to wiggle out?
I would say that they've been trying to lay the groundwork for sidestepping the entire WMD issue, and the Alj-Quaeda connection issue, since the dust began to settle in Baghdad. They've been buffing up the liberator image, or at least attempting to do so, and this looks like the card they intend to bluff with, if anyone ever attempts to call their hand, a strong likelihood in the up-coming Presidential campaign. Given the marginal nature of their performance to date in this entire fiasco, those who do not wish this adminstration well could only hope that they would attempt to "salt" a WMD site, because the probable outcome, based on past performance, is that they'd blow it, and it would be obvious enough to torpedo the effort.
mama
please let that poor man out
