I'm Stupid. I Vote.
And I'm Votin' for Bush!
Where is Osama? Myths and misconceptions about Iraq It is clear, however, that there is no evidence of a supposed Iraqi connection to the September 11 terrorist attacks . Yet a significant percentage of the American public appears to believe, falsely, that Iraq or Iraqis were involved. In fact, none of the hijackers were Iraqi citizens, and even the most ardent backers of war with Iraq have not presented evidence that Saddam was involved in any way with the attacks or attackers themselves. Polls have also repeatedly found that much of the public thinks Saddam contributed to the September 11 attacks. Forty-two percent of those surveyed in a February New York Times/CBS poll said they believed Saddam was "personally involved" in the September 11 attacks (down from the 51 percent who believed so this September 2002). A January Knight Ridder poll found that roughly one-fourth of the public believe that President Bush has released evidence showing that Iraq helped plan and fund the attacks. Yet no evidence has been presented by any source to suggest that Saddam had any involvement whatsoever with the September 11 hijackers. Many also believe that some of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqis. The January Knight Ridder poll found that just over half of those surveyed answered, incorrectly, that at least one of the hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, none of them were. High Level High-Jinx by Becky Burgwin · Despite warning after warning, our government doesn’t even deem it necessary to inform first responders who could maybe, just possibly be clued in enough to evacuate government buildings after one of the country’s tallest buildings has just been hit by a hijacked jumbo jet…3 thousand plus innocent people dead. · Our commander in chief sits in a schoolroom for a full 7 minutes after the second plane hits and has this to say. “I thought to myself, wow, dude, there’s one terrible pilot.” · The family of the fellow who took credit for this mass murder was flown on private jets out of the country even as people were dying because the organs they were waiting for could not be flown in for transplant. · The investigation into the worst terrorist attack in history is obstructed for years by our fine, upstanding and always-willing-to-move-heaven-and-earth government and then, when it finally becomes a reality; the leaders of the free world refuse to testify in public or under oath. · They made a case for starting a pre-emptive war using forged documents that no one bothered to even investigate. · A CIA operative in charge of keeping WMD’s out of the hands of terrorists was outed as revenge for the questioning of these claims, endangering her life and breaking federal law. · The investigation into this, having been stonewalled by the White House for over a year, has caused our president to seek legal counsel. · We invade a country under false pretenses; kill thousands and thousands of innocent civilians and subject thousands of prisoners with no connection to terrorism at all, to disgusting torture and TAKE PICTURES!!! · We pay an exiled Iraqi over $35,000,000 while he sells the state secrets to Iran and then our president claims he barely knows the guy. · The New York Times issues a mea culpa for falling for the hogwash that got us into this bogus, deadly war. · And still, as of today, Bush is 10 points ahead of Kerry in Ohio, one of the hardest hit states in the country by this man’s indecorous economic debacles. David Brooks now admits that he was gripped with a "childish fantasy" about Iraq. Tucker Carlson is "ashamed" and "enraged" at himself. Tom Friedman, admitting to being "a little slow," is finally off the reservation. Die-hard Republican publicist William Kristol admits of Bush, "He did drive us into a ditch." The neocon fantasist and sometime Republican speechwriter Mark Helprin complains on the Wall Street Journal editorial page... ...of "the inescapable fact that the war has been run incompetently, with an apparently deliberate contempt for history, strategy, and thought, and with too little regard for the American soldier, whose mounting casualties seem to have no effect on the boastfulness of the civilian leadership." "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking
into the abyss." "I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of
us who were telling [Rumsfeld] that it was going to be thus... Anyone
could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not'...I
think that some heads should roll over Iraq. I think the president got
some bad advice." "The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a debacle not because the government
did no planning but because a vast amount of expert planning was willfully
ignored by the people in charge." "I think we got in there with a grossly anemic military force.
We never defeated the elite elements of the Saddam regime. They walked
away with their guns, their money, their leadership intact." "But as the acting secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, acknowledged
to Congress last week, 'we simply were not prepared' for the insurgency
that developed in early summer, prolonging the war and taking the lives
of hundreds of American soldiers." "A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths
and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur...perhaps one in four
of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger
armor around them, the study suggested." "No Iraqi leader has had more to do with the U.S. intervention
in Iraq than Chalabi, from charming Congress into authorizing almost
$100 million to back his fledgling Iraqi National Congress in the late
1990s and convincing Washington about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction
in 2002 to pressing for war last year, say both his supporters and critics." "There are also indications that Chalabi has provided details
of U.S. security operations. According to one U.S. government source,
some of the information Chalabi turned over to Iran could 'get people
killed.'" "This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command
level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability
here is essential - even if that means relieving top leaders from duty
in a time of war." "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot
be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts....Being
steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue.
Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing
facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence,
is a crippling political vice." "On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq—troop strength,
international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification,
handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani—Washington's assumptions and policies
have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have
much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence
has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much
broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw
in the eyes of much of the world." "Rumsfeld has maintained a positive image with much of America
because he controls information fanatically and tolerates no deviation
from the party line. Differing opinions are punished in today's Pentagon
- and every field general who has spoken plainly of the deficiencies
of either the non-plan for the occupation of Iraq, the lack of sufficient
troops (in Iraq or overall) or any aspect of Rumsfeld's 'transformation'
plan has seen his career ended." 1 Biological weapons 2 Chemical weapons 3 Nuclear weapons 4 Unmanned aerial vehicles Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak
Are YOU stupid enough to vote for Bush?
Before the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration made many declarations to build its case for war: There was "no doubt," as the president said, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, making it an imminent threat to America; Saddam Hussein was working closely with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida; and the invasion would minimize civilian casualties. While many intelligence and military experts knew how hollow these claims were, there was one place where the Bush administration was given an open microphone: Fox News. By the time U.S. soldiers were headed across the desert to Baghdad, the "fair and balanced" network... ...looked like a caricature of state-run television, parroting the White House's daily talking points, no matter how unsubstantiated. Esteemed journalist lectures on ethics "All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism," he said. "They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated." In a scathing critique of Fox News and some talk show hosts, such as Bill O'Reilly, Carroll said they were a "different breed of journalists" who misled their audience while claiming to inform them. He said they did not fit into the long legacy of journalists who got their facts right and respected and cared for their audiences. Carroll cited a study released last year that showed Americans had three main misconceptions about Iraq: That weapons of mass destruction had been found, a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been demonstrated and that the world approved of U.S intervention in Iraq. He said 80 percent of people who primarily got their news from Fox believed at least one of the misconceptions. He said the figure was more than 57 percentage points higher than people who get their news from public news broadcasting. "How in the world could Fox have left its listeners so deeply in the dark?" Carroll asked. He added that a difference exists between journalism and propaganda. It's hard to know what is more disturbing. That George W. Bush misled the public by stating in the months before the Iraq war that he was seriously pursuing a diplomatic resolution when he was not. That he didn't bother to ask aides to present the case against going to war. That he may have violated the U.S. Constitution by spending hundreds of millions of dollars secretly to prepare for the invasion of Iraq without notifying Congress. That he was misinformed by the CIA director about one of the most critical issues of the day and demanded no accountability. Or that he doesn't care if he got it wrong on the weapons of mass destruction. |
WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ
| THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAID: | THE REALITY: |
| “A military option is my last choice, the last choice.”
Bush, Oct. 8, 2002; for source, click www.whitehouse.gov.
“Nobody, but nobody, is more reluctant to go to war than President Bush.”
“…the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war”.
|
“F**k Saddam. We’re taking him out.” Bush to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and three senators in March 2002; for source, click Time Magazine, March 24, 2003.
“Judge whether good enough hit S.H." - meaning Saddam Hussein - "at same time. Not only UBL" - the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden. “Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
“The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when."
|
| “He [Saddam] has weapons of mass destruction - the world's
deadliest weapons - which pose a direct threat to the United States, our
citizens and our friends and allies.” Bush, Jan. 21, 2003; for source, click www.whitehouse.gov. "…we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That
is what this war was about and it is about.” |
“…when there happens to be a weapon of mass destruction
suspect site in an area that we occupy, and if people have time, they'll
look at it..” Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, April 11, 2003; for source, click DefenseLink.mil - U.S. Department of Defense web site.
“So what’s the difference?” |
| “Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities
of uranium from Africa.” Bush State of the Union Speech, Jan. 28, 2003; for source, click www.whitehouse.gov. “And we believe he [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” |
“CIA Director George J. Tenet successfully intervened
with White House officials to have a reference to Iraq seeking uranium
from Niger [Africa] removed from a presidential speech last October, three
months before a less specific reference to the same intelligence appeared
in the State of the Union address”. For source, click Washington Post, July 13, 2003 |
| “…Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including
members of al Qaeda”. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003. For source, click www.whitehouse.gov. |
“There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and
the al-Qaeda terrorist operation,” former State Department intelligence
official Greg Thielmann said this week. Intelligence agencies agreed on the “lack of a meaningful connection to al-Qaeda” and said so to the White House and Congress, said Thielmann, who left State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research last September.” For source, click USA Today, July 13, 2003 |
| “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed
up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving
you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” Sec. of State Colin Powell, “Remarks to the United Nations Security Council”, Feb. 5, 2003. For source, click www.state.gov - State Dept. web site. |
“…this was a matter of, as I’ve called it, faith-based
intelligence. Instead of our leadership forming conclusions based on a
careful reading of the intelligence we provided them, they already had
their conclusion to start out with, and they were cherry-picking the information
that we provided to use whatever pieces of it that fit their overall interpretation.” Greg Thielmann, “Frontline” on PBS, Aug. 12, 2003. For source, click Frontline. |
| “That's what the American people expect. They expect
a Commander-in-Chief to support the troops.” Bush, Aug. 22, 2003. For source, click www.whitehouse.gov.
“Bring them on.” |
So far, as of April 29, 2004, 737 U.S. troops have been
killed in the Iraq war, and 3,864 have been injured. Pentagon figures on cnn.com. For source and latest casualty figures, click Lost Lives. |
| I think it's time to recognize the following things. Administration officials now concede that the principal claim they have been making about [Jose] Padilla ever since his detention—that he was dispatched to the United States for the specific purpose of setting off a radiological “dirty bomb”—has turned out to be wrong... 5) If they can do it to Padilla, they can do it to you. Pulp fictions triumph over truth These misperceptions are pillars of Bush's support, according to a study by the University of Maryland: 57 % of those surveyed "believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaida", and 45% "believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida has been found". Moreover, 65% believe that "experts" have confirmed that Iraq had WMD. Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had WMD, 72% said they would vote for Bush and 23% for Kerry. Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had supported al-Qaida, 62% said they would vote for Bush and 36% for Kerry. The reason given by respondents for their views was that they had heard these claims from the Bush administration. These political pulp fictions are believed out of faith and fear. This is a classic case study in "the will to believe", as the American philosopher William James called it. The greater insecurity would be not to believe Bush. It would mean the president had lied on issues of national security. And how could the Iraq war be seen as a pure, moral choice once good had been shown to be false? The idea of proof has shifted from fact to fervour. The question I am most frequently asked about Bushisms is, "Do you really think the president of the United States is dumb?" The short answer is yes. The long answer is yes and no. Quotations collected over the years in Slate may leave the impression that George W. Bush is a dimwit. Let's face it: A man who cannot talk about education without making a humiliating grammatical mistake ("The illiteracy level of our children are appalling"); who cannot keep straight the three branches of government ("It's the executive branch's job to interpret law"); who coins ridiculous words ("Hispanos," "arbolist," "subliminable," "resignate," "transformationed"); who habitually says the opposite of what he intends ("the death tax is good for people from all walks of life!") sounds like a grade-A imbecile. And if you don't care to pursue the matter any further, that view will suffice. George W. Bush has governed, for the most part, the way any airhead might, undermining the fiscal condition of the nation, squandering the goodwill of the world after Sept. 11, and allowing huge problems (global warming, entitlement spending, AIDS) to metastasize toward catastrophe through a combination of ideology, incomprehension, and indifference. If Bush isn't exactly the moron he sounds, his synaptic misfirings offer a plausible proxy for the idiocy of his presidency.... Bush's ignorance is so transparent that many of his intimates do not bother to dispute it even in public. Consider the testimony of several who know him well. Richard Perle, foreign policy adviser: "The first time I met Bush 43 … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much." David Frum, former speechwriter: "Bush had a poor memory for facts and figures. … Fire a question at him about the specifics of his administration's policies, and he often appeared uncertain. Nobody would ever enroll him in a quiz show." Laura Bush, spouse: "George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to overthink. He likes action." Paul O'Neill, former treasury secretary: "The only way I can describe it is that, well, the President is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection." A second, more damning aspect of Bush's mind-set is that he doesn't want to know anything in detail, however important... Closely related to this aggressive ignorance is a third feature of Bush's mentality: laziness. Again, this is a lifelong trait... A fourth and final quality of Bush's mind is that it does not think. The president can't tolerate debate about issues... Through all this incompetent emulation runs an undercurrent of hostility... As the president says, we misunderestimate him. He was not born stupid. He chose stupidity. Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool. Terrorism INCREASES under Bush The State Department is scrambling to revise its annual report on global terrorism to acknowledge that it understated the number of deadly attacks in 2003, amid charges that the document is inaccurate and was politically manipulated by the Bush administration. When the most recent "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report was issued April 29, senior Bush administration officials immediately hailed it as objective proof that they were winning the war on terrorism. The report is considered the authoritative yardstick of the prevalence of terrorist activity around the world. "Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight" against global terrorism, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said during a celebratory rollout of the report. But on Tuesday, State Department officials said they underreported the number of terrorist attacks in the tally for 2003, and added that they expected to release an updated version soon. Several U.S. officials and terrorism experts familiar with that revision effort said the new report will show that the number of significant terrorist incidents increased last year, perhaps to its highest level in 20 years. U.S. Wrongly Reported Drop in World Terrorism in 2003 Published: June 11, 2004 WASHINGTON, June 10 - The State Department acknowledged Thursday that it was wrong in reporting that terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding the Bush administration had pointed to as evidence of its success in countering terror. Instead, the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply...
Stupid is as Stupid does...
|