As the country was being deceptively propagandized by the Bush administration during 2002 and early 2003, the focus of the propaganda boiled down to Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of dangerous weapons. WMD. The Bush administration pushed the WMD message repeatedly. Chemical and biological weapons……mobile weapons labs….smoking gun mushroom clouds…..nuclear program….it was a constant drumbeat.
But that wasn't the question our governmental leaders should have been asking….and then answering. Saddam's possession of dangerous weapons was not the basis upon which to decide whether or not to attack Iraq, a nation that posed no threat to the U.S., nor had ever attacked the U.S.
The nation should never have been focused on answering the question of whether Saddam possessed weaponry. The focus of the nation should have been targeted on answering the question: Does Iraq pose a threat to the United States? The answer to that question was an unequivocal, no. And that is why that question was never the focus of the Bushies propaganda.
If the question of whether Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. ever came up….the Bush propagandists would resort to their cockamamie pre-emptive war ramblings.
I bring this up because the same thing is now happening again. Bush's ex-officials, working in a coordinated fashion with Republican propagandists and their media stenographers, are attempting to focus the nation's attention on the wrong question.
The question before us is not: Who was briefed, or not briefed, or when they were briefed or not briefed, or what was in the briefing or non-briefing concerning torture? The question before us is: Who ordered the torture?
When the media gets their high on from a knowingly distractive story, they don't stop until the entire 8-ball has been snorted. So it is with their unexplainable obsession with when and what Nancy Pelosi was briefed on concerning Bush torture.
The Nancy Pelosi-was-briefed-about-torture focus has the same distractive quality to it that the Saddam-has-weapons focus had to it. Both were/are attempts to avoid the authentic question that needs exploring, i.e. Does Saddam pose a threat to the U.S.? or, in our present case, Who ordered the torture?
Obama has told us that the time for "old politics" is over. I couldn't disagree more. The old politics are alive and well and still controling the narrative in Washington D.C. Karl Rove proudly explained awhile back how the conservatives "created reality", and how the media stenographers would simply record that new "reality" while they, in turn, would go about "creating" more.
And so it is, mid-May, 2009. Clear and unassailable evidence, much of it by eyewitnesses, has surfaced recently implicating the Bush administration in a pre-meditative conspiracy to obtain knowingly false confessions from tortured prisoners, false confessions tying al-Qaeda and 9-11 with Iraq. False confessions that were then used to deceive Congress and the American people about the need to attack and occupy Iraq.
In light of this evidence, most of the main media Villagers simply refuse to ask the pertinent and obvious question: Who ordered this to be done? Instead, dog-whistled by Republicans, the Villagers have all rushed to the new shiny-object-question-orgy of distraction: Did Nancy Pelosi know about torture?
By asking the questions Bush wanted the media to ask in the fraud-up to Iraq, Congress and the American people were not well served, to put it mildly. That willingness to focus on a distraction led to 4200 dead American soldiers and an ongoing clusterf*ck of a mess 6 years later.
By focusing on what the Bushies want us to focus on now: Did Nancy Pelosi know about torture?…… our nation is being led into an even deeper, darker hellhole….the permanent acceptance of savage torture.
I wonder how many Americans will have to die this time.
Here's a quick video compilation of the Villagers snorting thick lines of mass distraction….
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Rev,
How can the same people who claim that the use of "enhanced techniques" was legal claim that Pelosi is complicit in an illegal act? If one believes that Pelosi was an accessory to the crime of torture on the part of the administration, it only follows that the administration committed a crime.
One nit to pick: It wasn't just a question of whether Saddam was a threat, it was a question of whether Saddam was such an imminent threat that it justified taking troops away from the legitimate hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Pelosi's opponents could care less about the obvious dissonance. It's all about giving the media crap throwers a new target.
You're right, and I should have elaborated further, on the crime of supplanting Bin Laden with Hussein as our biggest threat…..and in the middle of our military's most important advances in Afghanistan.
PNAC'ers, even after they got their "new Pearl Harbor", still had to conspire to defraud Congress and the American people….even using torture to do so. Iraq posed no threat to the U.S., and so they had to create an illusion to the contrary. These people are the worst I've witnessed in my lifetime.
Sadly, though, they were successful in getting what they wanted and, most likely, will get away with it.
You're not paying attention, frank. Actually, she's being called a flaming liar who's trying to stir up a false witch hunt despite the consequences it might have on CIA professionals who dedicate their lives to the country and ultimately to the safety of U.S. citizens. Her prior knowledge simply proves she's playing partisan games with American lives and only complete lemmings like you two are still following her down that path.
Don't care for Pelosi, huh?
Now, larry wants the nation to violate even more laws and obstuct justice for the sake of a few reputations. Big of him.
Were those CIA-hired torture contractors, you know, those two c*cksuckers who left SERE to cash in on government contracts to torture down in Guantanomo….you know, those professionals…..were they dedicating their lives to the safety of U.S. citizens? My derriere.
Ain't no witch hunt, when you know who the witches are.
Waterboarding started in February 2002 in Egypt at the CIA's demand. Zubaida was waterboarded in July, 2002 in Guantanomo….Pelosi was briefed Sept.4, 2002.
I guess you can call that "prior knowledge", I just can't figure out how.
Hey rev.
How about if you perform enhanced interrigation tactics like waterboarding on me. When your done you have to give me a towel so I can dry off. Then, I'll perform enhanced abortion tactics like partial birth abortion on you. I'll throw you a towel when I'm done.
larry d.,
I'm no Pelosi fan. But it seems to me that she is defending herself, not stirring up a witch hunt. In fact, the Democratic leadership want no part of holding Bush accountable. Even you should know by now that the only U.S. citizens being saved by the torture were Bush and Cheney. Obama has gone to great lengths to avoid pissing off the CIA and the military. He knows that he needs their cooperation if he is to accomplish anything.
What's up with the FBI? Why did Mueller keep them from "dedicating their lives ultimately to the safety of U.S. citizens"? And, can you imagine, a politician may have lied? Is there no limits to the evil this she devil will bring?
You fellows have tunnel vision. Enjoy the view.
Christopher…
I, unlike the Bush administration, don't torture.
Your willingness to perform, "enhanced abortion tactics like partial birth abortion", on me…..seems, I don't know,….kind of crazy. You don't need to brutally torture a confession out of me….I'll answer any questions you pose. But, if you're like The Dick, and only want false confessions, then you'll have to tell me ahead of time so I can make up some stuff.
Just sayin'.
WHO PROPAGANDIZED AMERICA ABOUT WMD ?? YOU SAY IT WAS BUSH ???
—
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…"
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
– Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…"
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
The Blog of Mass Deception.
And as George H.W. Bush decided in the first Gulf War….none of those you cite called for the unilateral attack and occupation of Iraq.
Your quotes prove nothing.
All of the exact same things could be said about Israel's numerous violations of U.N resolutions. Would that mean that Israel should be attacked and occupied?
Rev
I don't think I said anything about asking you a question.
Rev
The quotes "prove nothing"? They prove everything.
Nothing else you say can be taken seriously.
Clue me in, then, Einstein…..what is it that they prove?
Mr. King,
I would bet that most of the pre-2000 statements were replies in response to questions about ending the economic sanctions imposed the Gulf War. At the time, what was imported and what was exported was under UN (US) control. Sadaam refused to change Iraq's budget to meet his people's needs which resulted in the deaths and suffering of the populace. There was a movement then that advocated ending the sanctions. The Clinton administration strongly opposed ending them. They needed to convince that Sadaam was still a risk even after destroying his military, even though we knew what came and left the country, even though we maintained flyovers, and even though Iraq was one of the heaviest surveilled places on the planet. Given all these factors, it would have been truly remarkable if Sadaam had been able to have any weapons program, much less one which had developed into an imminent threat. Since we controlled Iraq's airspace, any such targets would have been quickly taken out.
Your second group of quotes featured people who were briefed with information that went through Cheney's office. In other words, they were fed a line of s**t. That was also a time when neither the nation or Democrats wanted the president restricted in any way from pursuing AlQaeda. And politically, Democrats have learned to innoculate themselves against charges of being soft on whatever ism we find ourselves opposed to.
It should be apparent that when politicians speak, they do so for a purpose. The truth is secondary. Finding an honest statesman among our politicians is akin to finding a hooker with a heart of gold.
But arguments over Pelosi's virtue notwithstanding, there are three possible scenarios:
1. "Enhanced" interrogation practices are legal. Pelosi briefed, did nothing.
2. They are not legal. Pelosi given misleading briefing, therefore did nothing.
3. They are not legal. Pelosi given accurate briefing and gives active or passive consent by doing nothing.
In the worst of the three, Pelosi's fault is in not preventing a crime. If that crime exists shouldn't we be going after the perpetrators of the crime first?
You won't get an answer to that question, frank.
You forgot the last clause in each possibility, frank–seven years later Pelosi calls for a witch hunt, lying about what she knew and damaging American security efforts for purely partisan purposes.
You two don't care about torture at all. It's just an excuse for your strange hate.
Strange hate, I suppose, is in the eye of the hater.
Personally, what I hate is the fact that torturing prisoners to coerce false confessions in order to stage a fraud-upped war…..resulted in more American soldiers being killed, needlessly.
Those getting their hate on over Pelosi, it seems, hate, like vampires, the threat of embarassing and humiliating sunlight of truth and accountability shining on the faces of their torture heros.
larry d.,
First of all, I believe that Pelosi should be impeached. She swore to uphold the Constitution and by declaring "impeachment off the table" she violated her oath. Also, since the Constitution uses the phrase "will" instead of the word "may", it indicates a duty to actively pursue impeachment under the circumstances, and that she could not assume the power or position to thwart such efforts. But I still don't know what witch hunts you think she's calling for. I think she and the entire administration are treating the issue as something that they don't want to deal with at all.
Once again, these "enhanced techniques" weren't used as a last resort, they weren't used for their efficacy, and the way to get it to stop was to invent a story linking Al Qaeda and Iraq. This wasn't done in the name of national security, a significant number of people were tortured, killing some, to obtain statements for use as justification for the invasion of Iraq.
I really don't know why you accuse me of hate. I've been following politics since Goldwater's run, and quite frankly, I began to find the Dems vs. Reps arguments bogging down things on these two sites. But torture is something that should transcend the constant twists in logic needed to support ones side.
Good stuff frank.
Pelosi took impeachment off the table because she didn't have the votes. That, naturally, is not an acceptable reason. It was her obligation, not option, to begin proceedings, because of the overwhelming nature of the evidence against Bush/Cheney. So I agree with what you say.
At the same time….if she would have begun proceedings, and then fell short in the Senate, not only would Bush/Cheney be vindicated for their crime spree….but American voters would have concluded that the Democrats were feckless because they couldn't get the job done. And there was no way the votes were in the Senate.
Just as outing a covert CIA agent and then conspiring to cover in up quickly became a "political" difference of opinion….so too, now, torture.
We just keep sliding further and further into madness.
Rev, without quoting a conspiracy website or Madcow and Olberdork, tell me about this overwhelming criminal evidence against Cheney and Bush on anything. If you look into it and the history of it all, everything points toward the far left.
Plame, Iraq fraud, U.S Attorney firings, Destroying evidence, Torture, not briefing Congress. For starters. There's enough criminality there to convict several times over.
But it won't happen, because there weren't any blowjobs involved.
The Village just hates blowjobs….very threatening to national security….but torture? Yawn.