Iraq War

Apr 08

And Clinton lies…again

So, the Bosnia lie was dumb. The hospital story lie was amazing, since it assumed that voters were dumb. But…this new one is nothing short of outstanding.

Obama has been credited with foreseeing a troublesome war in Iraq primarily due to a speech he gave in 2002 while he was a state senator, where he spoke out against the war. Clinton said, “I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did. So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech. But that was not a decision.”

So…um…she’s saying that even though Obama gave a speech before the war started that she was against the war before him. Before it started, but after she voted for it.

And we’re supposed to believe that.

Clinton\’s pro-Iraq War speech pt. 1

<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=””></param><param name=”wmode” value=”transparent”></param><embed src=”” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object>

Clinton\’s pro-Iraq War speech pt. 2

<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=””></param><param name=”wmode” value=”transparent”></param><embed src=”” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object>

Note that I’m not even going to touch the lie-within-a-lie where she said: “So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002″. If that is all she’s getting out of Obama’s campaign then she’s even more close-minded than I thought.

What’s even more amazing that Jake Tapper at ABCNews who has been carrying water for the Clinton’s campaign wrote a piece that not only called her out on this lie, but laid out actual facts:

In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.

But Clinton’s claim was false.

Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, “when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did.”

It’s an odd way to measure opposition to the war — comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama’s opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton’s vote for it.)

And then he proceeds to mention a position paper from Clinton written on Jan. 26, 2005 regarding Rice’s confirmation that the campaign has pushed on reporters to bolster this outrageous lie. Tapper pointed out that Obama wrote a letter directly to Rice exactly the week before.

How did the Clinton’s campaign screw up something like that?

The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.

Because the larger context is more important. And Clinton’s written criticism of the war in a press statement in January 2005 received little attention compared to the press surrounding her trip to Iraq the next month, in February 2005.

You will also do well to remember that as late Spring ’07, Clinton was still supporting the war. It wasn’t until the first few televised debates that she started criticizing the way the war was run, but not the war itself.

Jan 08

Duh! news

You know, these past 7 years would have been a lot easier if the media had done any sort of investigative journalism and if our Democrats in Congress had acted like they represented the people vs. their own interests or campaign donors. It’s pretty clear that the Iraq War was nothing more than an expensive and deadly ATM for many of our elected officials. They have blood on their hands and no amount of apologizing or mind-changing this late in the game is going to alter the landscape. Whoever voted for this war despite loud criticism of the boondoggle that was to become, is just the same as if they gunned down our soldiers themselves.

So, there’s been a study. Keep in mind, that almost 5 years into this illegal war, our media conglomerates (many whose parent companies are making big money from this war–MSNBC I’m looking at you) didn’t find it necessary to do any digging. A study, that was completely unnecesssary– and I’m sure cost a lot of money as these CW studies are wont to do, was done. A study focusing on comments on the runup to the illegal war.

MSNBC ran an AP article on this study. All emphasis is mine:

WASHINGTON – A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Yeah. We knew that. Hell, many of us knew that before the war started. Those of us who called the administration on their lies were called “unpatriotic” by the more unstable among us. Even elected officials called us “unpatriotic” and then would turn around and deny it.

The study, completed by the Center for Public Integrity and Fund for Independence in Journalism is huge.

The information itself isn’t new because the documents all have been published, the researchers said. The database, however, is remarkable for its breadth — transcripts and documents totaling some 380,000 words. (UPI)

From CPIs website:

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration’s case for war.

I remember the first time I heard the Bush Administration reference Iraq. It was November 2001. My ears perked up. I knew that if Bush had become president, that we’d engage in a war. I knew it and I told everyone I knew that I knew it. No one believed me. I was brushed off. Whatever. Then November 2001 came, and I heard “Iraq”. I made a bet with a coworker that we’d have a war with Iraq. He didn’t believe me. I won $500.

I remember laughing my ass off when I heard this adminstration trying to tie Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda. I mean…anyone who can read would know that Hussein joining in with al-Qaeda would be as possible as a neo-Nazi marrying a black person. You don’t even have to know the region. It’s simple math:

Iraq = secular nation

al-Qaeda = Qur’an thumping nutjobs.

They like totally cancel out each other. Oil and water is what we have here.

Now of course, the newest term from the administration has been “al-Qaeda in Iraq” to, you know, differentiate their lies.

Of course, our stenographers media couldn’t be bothered with printing facts. They were busy doing he said/she said journalism because they felt so bad going after Clinton. WTF?

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, “independent” validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.

It would be my dream to not only see everyone in the Bush Administration tried for war crimes, but also these propoganda mouthpieces that urged these lies at the expense of the deaths and injuries to our troops. People like Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh who, even after Bush said that there were no WMD back in 2004 still bleated the party line.

“Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq,” it said.

You should read the study. There’s a page dedicated to the key false statements leading up to the war. These were the statements that left me practically crazed. I’d read/watch/hear these things and was left incredulous. Surely, there’s a reporter who would ask the obvious questions, bringing up facts or…something. Right? Nope. They’d ask their questions and take at face value, the even more ridiculous explanations. Instead of researching responses, they decided to appear “fair” and clearly unbalanced by giving us he said/she said bullshit, with very little facts, always giving a clearer edge to the warmongers.

Beyond the terrible death toll and ridiculous amounts of money missing and spent, one of the saddest things of this whole thing is listening to Republicans, those true-believing Kool-Aid drinkers who still insist that WMD were found in Iraq. Who decide that listening to unhinged nitwits like Sean (ins)Hannity is all they need to learn about the Middle East and they know how Saddam Hussein operated. They know the mind of bin Laden. They know that in order to “free” a people, you must bomb them to the Stone Age.

Bush and Cheney’s friends have made a shitload of money off the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. That was the purpose of our War President. He doesn’t give a shit about Democracy or the American people. The fact that even when caught in these lies, they’re shrugged off…”And?”

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration’s position that the world community viewed Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

“The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world,” Stanzel said.

It’s pathological. Even when caught in a lie, they keep on lying.

Sep 07

Petraeus channels Janet Jackson


Or maybe…The Clash

What’s so incredibly stupid about this is that we all knew the surge wasn’t going to work or help. We all knew that September as benchmark was bullshit. We all knew that Bush was going to push more months. We all knew this. Yet, what did Congress do? They again approved funds for an undeclared war. stating, “Well, we’ll wait for the September report”. They sat eagerly waiting for September like it was Christmas, not getting the fact that, once again, they’ll get a lump of coal in their stocking. Apparently, ignoring the large numbers of lives lost in this farce. What makes this even more galling is that we all know that Congress will rollover again for Mr. 25% and his deadly money-laundering scheme.

Aug 07

I bet this would get Bush thinking about bin Laden

We all know about Bush saying how he doesn’t think about bin Laden (despite trying to push terror down our throats):

Q But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT (I really try not laugh): Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

Well, I think we just found a reason for the Drunkard-in-Chief to care about bin Laden: Alcohol!

The “Osama bin Laden” shot is a brutal, throat-scorching blend of Pernod liquor and Tabasco sauce that kicks like red peppers sucked through a licorice stick.

Really…there’s a drink named after bin Laden and they wasted good alcohol for it. So apparently, there’s loads of drinks being created regarding George Bush’s clusterfuck in the desert.

The origins of war-themed drinks vary from cathartic expressions of outrage to mere jokes, like the WMD, delivered by bartender Mike Grubb at Schiller’s Liquor Bar in New York’s Lower East Side. It arrives as an empty shot glass, mocking America’s pre-war intelligence that Saddam Hussein was hiding “weapons of mass destruction.” Price? “Thirty billion dollars,” says Grubb, putting a (low) figure on the cost of war.


And at Bar R15 in downtown Sacramento, Calif., customers have two options for drinking their dissent: Blood and Oil, a special black vodka and cranberry juice drink that underscores the notion that America is warring to defend energy interests,


But if you’re like me and think this whole naming drinks after war conflicts is lame, don’t worry, MSNBC assures us that’s it’s “historical”:

The idea of war-inspired watering may sound crass, but historically nothing whets America’s whistle quite like conflict. Artillery Punch and other hard punches emerged from the ashes of the Civil War. World War I inspired the French 75, a gin and champagne concoction used to toast fallen pilots, while World War II saw the emergence of the kamikaze shot, a hairy blend of vodka and triple sec mocking Japan’s so-named suicidal flyers. Even the Korean and Vietnam Wars left their liquor legacies in the form of the Korean sling and napalm shot. “War and drinking have always been complimentary forces,” says Dale DeGroff, president of the Museum of the American Cocktail in New Orleans.

Sweet…another lame American tradition that must be continued?

Aug 07

Freedom’s Watch…or is that Freedoms Watch?

They certainly don’t seem to know what to do with their apostrophe, but I just thought I toss this out there to the few uninformed people who may stumble across my sad little blog.

First off, I will not link to the site. You can look it up yourself. I have no desire to add traffic to a propaganda site. I know I’m lagging on this, but I can’t just let this pass.

Freedom(‘)s Watch is spending $15M on TV advertising in GOP strongholds to convince the sheeple Republicans that all is really, really hunky-dory in Iraq. This group is being fronted by former White House spokesmutant Ari Fleisher. I guess he really missed being the US Disinformation Minister. Or something. As I said, it’s just propaganda arm of the White House. Only the ignorant and gullible would believe this shit.

But my goodness, how low they will go on this. From their “about us” page:

Freedom’s Watch is organized as a nonprofit corporation and operated in a manner consistent with section 501 (c) (4) of the federal income tax laws. Freedom’s Watch is dedicated to educating individuals about and advancing public policies that protect America’s interests at home and abroad, foster economic prosperity, and strengthen families. (ed note: do people fall for this shit?) Through outreach and education, communications to key members of Congress, and bold public awareness initiatives, Freedom’s Watch is fighting for the ideals and policies that keep America strong and prosperous. We welcome all those who share our values to join our efforts.

I’m curious…, no make that bi-curious about “communications to key members of Congress”. Which “key members of Congress” are the Freedom(‘)s Watch people talking to? I think we all have a right to know if our Congressional representatives are participating in this propaganda. I’d love for everyone to contact their Congress(wo)man and Senators and have them go on record if they’re working with this propaganda group.

More bullshit from this group:

Has America forgotten that there are terrorists around the world who wish to bring harm to our nation and its citizens? Have some forgotten the scars left on our nation by the events that took place 6 years ago? Have some forgotten the reason our troops are abroad, fighting to preserve the freedoms we enjoy? It would appear that they have. Even now, some are trying to put a stop to the war on terror, when the threat to our nation is still very real. (ed note: GASP! People are trying to stop a war! The horrors!)

Our military and their families have made great sacrifices, and they’ve made significant military progress. We must complete our mission and successfully stabilize Iraq so the Iraqis can safely run their own affairs. We must not quit now and hand a victory to those who seek to strike the American homeland. This cannot be allowed to happen. (GOP to normal people translation: SSDDCut and run, “We must stand up so the Iraqis can stand down”, bin LadenAl-Qaeda, Iraq=Vietnam…oh wait, no it isn’t…yeah it is!)

Okay, this is easy. So easy, even a Republican can follow it. I completely understand that Republicans are scared and love to live their lives in fear. I get that. What I don’t get is how “scars left on our nation by the events that took place 6 years ago” are logically tied to “the reason our troops are abroad”. That’s just not true. I laughed at the entire sentence actually, ” Have some forgotten the reason our troops are abroad, fighting to preserve the freedoms we enjoy?” You mean the freedom to have our phones taps by our goverment without a court order? The freedom to protest miles away from the president? The freedom to be arrested over a T-shirt? The freedom to get beaten to death if you’re gay, perceived gay, or not Christian? Those freedoms?

But the kicker in all this is the phone number. I saw the number and thought, “Now why is there a toll-free number for Congress? That’s weird. Turns out that number, the phone number on all the TV ads and on their website does not go to Congress. How’s that for typical GOP honesty? Funny thing is that your typical Republican is so sheeplike that s/he’d never even check to see if the number was legit.