How Lucky is the United States?

[georgephillip]

On October 7, 2002 George W. Bush delivered a speech to the nation claiming Saddam Hussein was a great danger to the most powerful Failed State in history either by directly attacking the US with weapons of mass destruction or by supplying some terrorist group with said (fictional) weapons.

Bush, who ducked his fight in Vietnam, went one step further by claiming the attack could happen on any given day, in other words--the attack was imminent.

A big problem Chicken George would face if he ever faced prosecution for the murder of over 4000 US service members is that six days earlier the CIA had supplied him with its National Intelligence Estimate for 2002.

"Page 8 clearly and unequivocally says that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. In fact the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him.

"We know that Bush was telling millions upon millions of unsuspecting Americans exactly the opposite of what his own CIA was telling him...We know that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie..."

So says Vincent Bugliosi, former LA prosecutor and author of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

Vincent makes for a wonderful Monday Morning Quarterback.

His quote from "Page 8" clearly shows that the CIA's 2002 NIE thought Iraq had WMD:
"the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him."

Now, let's suppose, that shortly after 9/11, which the CIA did not prevent, and the Invasion of Kuwait, which took the CIA by surprise, and the gassing of Kurdish Iraqis, Bush came on TV and said:

RELAX! The CIA says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him."



Given the context, the CIA's opinion of whatever Hussrin would do with WMD isn't terribly credible.

In October 2007 the suspicions were rampant in the left that President Bush intended invading Iran. These lines appear in an October 2007 article in Esquire Magazine titled - The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know

“In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm -- not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say.”

Going along with those rampant accusations against the Bush Administration, in an obvious attempt to undermine any useful policy vis-à-vis Iran, and just in the right moment in November of 2007 a classified CIA NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) was released to the public press, which in part stated that “Iran [in 2003 had] halted its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and had not since restarted them.” That finding was based solely on the Intelligence Community’s judgment that Iran had stopped working on “weaponization,” i.e., designing bombs and acquiring and making their components. A FOOTNOTE clarified that this finding did not cover “Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.”

Immediately the left seized on this NIE to support their claim that Bush was planning another “Iraq type invasion” and here was solid information from his own CIA that UNDERMINED his justification, specifically that Iran had even sought nuclear weapon capacity since 2003.

Since the same technology used to make reactor fuel can easily produce fissile material usable for a weapon, and since producing such material is by far the hardest part of making a nuclear weapon, the FOOTNOTE essentially cut the guts out of the main text’s finding.

Later in 2008, testifying before Congress Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell , the NIE's putative author, said “The only thing that they’ve halted was nuclear weapons design, which is probably the least significant part of the program. So if I’d had until now to think about it, I probably would have changed a thing or two.”

The timing of the release of that NIE and the way it undermined the credibility of the Bush administration, was an epilogue to add credibility in the hysteria that “Bush Lied, people died', that, because he was so insanely bellicose, a cowboy, he would do anything to to start another war in the Middle East.

There are rogue employees in the CIA who clearly would put their partisan agenda ahead of the security of their country. Because of its own agenda, or to position themselves agtainst a Republican President, the CIA has been proven not to be worthy of our trust.

What is that partisan agenda? Undermine, and delegitimize the very duty that president’s are elected for: leadership, and national security, and promulgation of policies that advance that aim.

What moral basis is there for demonizing Iran's nuclear programs while saying nothing about Israel's 200-plus nuclear weapons?

 

[Madeline]

I appreciate the quote georgephillip. I admire the guy tremendously. It's great that he spends time pondering on us. But really......

Enough with the constant "OMG the World Is About To End" drumbeating okay? (Not you georgephillip...seems like a USMB obsession to me.) I mean really, okay, maybe you are right. Or you. Or you. Or you. Or you.......

But WTF can I do about it? Telling me I'm dying when I ACTUALLY am dying is a bit sadistic, yanno? And telling me I'm dying when I have the hiccups and can be expected to make a full recovery is a little goofy. I get them nearly every day.

I have "USMB Scare Op Syndrome" I think, georgephillip. Nevermind me. I'll have a frappe' and be fine.

Thankies again for the great Op. Was nice of you to dig it up and share it.

 

[American Horse]

Nuremberg Tribunal.
Supreme International Crime.
War of Aggression.
Bush should hang.

This tells us all we need to know about where you're coming from. In reality people who hold to such beliefs are a very small and strange minority, as are always "true believers" who have uncommon knowledge where no such knowledge can be reasonably claimed to be had.

Ordinary people hold to the belief that in situations like Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," simply because they weren't found, cannot necessarily mean they never could have existed. There is a profound lack of logic in Hussein claiming he had those weapons, his having used them on his own population, and then because they never turned up after the invasion, that they couldn't have existed. And that same majority of people are aware that at one point much of Saddam's air force was moved to Syria, another, fraternal, state exporter of terrorism that shares a common border.

That same majority sees those who claim that Bush should be tried in a Nuremburg Tribunal or in an International Court, for a so called war of aggression and hanged, are total wing-nuts, who find favor only in their own ranks; their agenda is obvious, of which only they are unaware.

This is why every time these claims are made, they must be refuted, otherwise they are disseminated as "common knowledge,” and cease to be only held by useful tools of the left; those who hold the mistaken belief they are the cognoscenti, when in reality the are incapable of positions unshackled from their own dogma.

There is a danger that this fabricated history will become imbedded in lesson plans in our schools, another reason for removing the Department of Education from commandeering our schools. Pay close attention to who it is that runs for the School Board in your school district.

What moral basis is there for demonizing Iran's nuclear programs while saying nothing about Israel's 200-plus nuclear weapons?

More of the same - BTW Israel's nuclear weapons are entirely defensive. Iran has already told the world that Israel must be wiped off the map. How does that logically support your "position" in this case?

 

[Samson]

On October 7, 2002 George W. Bush delivered a speech to the nation claiming Saddam Hussein was a great danger to the most powerful Failed State in history either by directly attacking the US with weapons of mass destruction or by supplying some terrorist group with said (fictional) weapons.

Bush, who ducked his fight in Vietnam, went one step further by claiming the attack could happen on any given day, in other words--the attack was imminent.

A big problem Chicken George would face if he ever faced prosecution for the murder of over 4000 US service members is that six days earlier the CIA had supplied him with its National Intelligence Estimate for 2002.

"Page 8 clearly and unequivocally says that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. In fact the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him.

"We know that Bush was telling millions upon millions of unsuspecting Americans exactly the opposite of what his own CIA was telling him...We know that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie..."

So says Vincent Bugliosi, former LA prosecutor and author of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

Vincent makes for a wonderful Monday Morning Quarterback.

His quote from "Page 8" clearly shows that the CIA's 2002 NIE thought Iraq had WMD:
"the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him."

Now, let's suppose, that shortly after 9/11, which the CIA did not prevent, and the Invasion of Kuwait, which took the CIA by surprise, and the gassing of Kurdish Iraqis, Bush came on TV and said:

RELAX! The CIA says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him."



Given the context, the CIA's opinion of whatever Hussrin would do with WMD isn't terribly credible.

To my mind the CIA's credibility is less relevant here than its honesty..

WTF?

Is this supposed to traslate into: Even if my own source doesn't make sense, I'm going to maintain my dogma that it does.

Ok, Whatever.

 

[georgephillip]

Samson:

If Saddam had possessed the same number of nuclear weapons as Israel, would it have made sense to invade Iraq?

 

[Samson]

What moral basis is there for demonizing Iran's nuclear programs while saying nothing about Israel's 200-plus nuclear weapons?

Um......Has Israel over-run a US Embassy and taken Hostages?

Duh.

 

[georgephillip]

Nuremberg Tribunal.
Supreme International Crime.
War of Aggression.
Bush should hang.

This tells us all we need to know about where you're coming from. In reality people who hold to such beliefs are a very small and strange minority, as are always "true believers" who have uncommon knowledge where no such knowledge can be reasonably claimed to be had.

Ordinary people hold to the belief that in situations like Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," simply because they weren't found, cannot necessarily mean they never could have existed. There is a profound lack of logic in Hussein claiming he had those weapons, his having used them on his own population, and then because they never turned up after the invasion, that they couldn't have existed. And that same majority of people are aware that at one point much of Saddam's air force was moved to Syria, another, fraternal, state exporter of terrorism that shares a common border.

That same majority sees those who claim that Bush should be tried in a Nuremburg Tribunal or in an International Court, for a so called war of aggression and hanged, are total wing-nuts, who find favor only in their own ranks; their agenda is obvious, of which only they are unaware.

This is why every time these claims are made, they must be refuted, otherwise they are disseminated as "common knowledge,” and cease to be only held by useful tools of the left; those who hold the mistaken belief they are the cognoscenti, when in reality the are incapable of positions unshackled from their own dogma.

There is a danger that this fabricated history will become imbedded in lesson plans in our schools, another reason for removing the Department of Education from commandeering our schools. Pay close attention to who it is that runs for the School Board in your school district.

What moral basis is there for demonizing Iran's nuclear programs while saying nothing about Israel's 200-plus nuclear weapons?

More of the same - BTW Israel's nuclear weapons are entirely defensive. Iran has already told the world that Israel must be wiped off the map. How does that logically support your "position" in this case?

I agree the American public isn't going to support dropping Bush and Cheney, along with Clinton and Kissinger, through a trap door at the short end of a rope at this time; however, I'm wondering how that squares with the American majority's views on the Bush doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense?"

According to Professor Chomsky, "... a senior American official, reported to be Condoleezza Rice, who explained that the phrase refers to 'the right of the United States to attack a country that it thinks could attack it first.'

"The formulation is not surprising given her conclusion...that the United States is not subject to 'international law and norms' generally (while)...A large majority of the American public continue to take the position that states are entitled to use force only if there is 'strong evidence that the country is in imminent danger of being attacked."

Your point of Israeli nukes serving a defensive purpose looks similar to what Chomsky has to say about Iran's nuclear programs:

"Washington's charges about an Iranian nuclear weapons program may, for once, be accurate."

Chomsky then quotes Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld's opinion that "the world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all.

"Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons they would be crazy."

See: Failed States pp. 73 & 82.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I still to this day think we got lucky with George W. Bush. Say what you want about the man, disagree with his politics, question his intelligence, but the facts are these. After 9/11 he could have pushed and became President for life without a lot of effort. He could have used funding the War on Terror to completely dismantle every entitlement program on the books. He could have used the ability to declare people foreign combatants to detain people all over the nation.

Post 9/11 he gained a lot of power, but he could have easily taken more. Thankfully he wasn't interested in that.

As for the rest, I think there's a possibility for a idealogue to come from both sides. I think the leaderless nature of the Tea Party makes it ripe for coopting and converting to a power base for a very charismatic leader, but I also think the Left has many groups that could just as easily be manipulated to support a rise to power.

GWB could have done no such thing without a good portion of the active military and state national guards refusing to obey orders of a Commander-in-Chief who wanted to assume dictatorial power. I truly believe he would have been stood against a wall and shot, and then the rest of the country would have descended into further madness.

 

[georgephillip]

I appreciate the quote georgephillip. I admire the guy tremendously. It's great that he spends time pondering on us. But really......

Enough with the constant "OMG the World Is About To End" drumbeating okay? (Not you georgephillip...seems like a USMB obsession to me.) I mean really, okay, maybe you are right. Or you. Or you. Or you. Or you.......

But WTF can I do about it? Telling me I'm dying when I ACTUALLY am dying is a bit sadistic, yanno? And telling me I'm dying when I have the hiccups and can be expected to make a full recovery is a little goofy. I get them nearly every day.

I have "USMB Scare Op Syndrome" I think, georgephillip. Nevermind me. I'll have a frappe' and be fine.

Thankies again for the great Op. Was nice of you to dig it up and share it.

Madeline:

I can truly feel your pain. Particularly late in the day it sometimes feels like all hope is lost. At one time Chomsky took a lot of heat for being too pessimistic for most of his readers. Lately he's become aware of that, and he strives to point out how authentic change is possible.

Speaking for myself, the one recent Chomsky quote I return to most often is this one:

"The war against working people should be understood to be a real war...Specifically in the US,...which happens to have a highly class-conscious business class...And they have long seen themselves as fighting a bitter class war, except they don't want anybody else to know about it."

I don't think this current class war is like the earlier version of labor v management.

This one pits labor and industry, including every small business owner in the country, against the Finance, Insurance, and Real estate (FIRE) sector.
Wall Street v Main Street, so to speak.

And I don't think Wall Street can stop stealing other people's money for exactly the same reason a shark can't stop swimming.

They will die.
And they know it.

The big question in my mind is will they take this country (specie?) with them?

 

[georgephillip]

What moral basis is there for demonizing Iran's nuclear programs while saying nothing about Israel's 200-plus nuclear weapons?

Um......Has Israel over-run a US Embassy and taken Hostages?

Duh.

Mohammad Mosaddegh?

 

[georgephillip]

I still to this day think we got lucky with George W. Bush. Say what you want about the man, disagree with his politics, question his intelligence, but the facts are these. After 9/11 he could have pushed and became President for life without a lot of effort. He could have used funding the War on Terror to completely dismantle every entitlement program on the books. He could have used the ability to declare people foreign combatants to detain people all over the nation.

Post 9/11 he gained a lot of power, but he could have easily taken more. Thankfully he wasn't interested in that.

As for the rest, I think there's a possibility for a idealogue to come from both sides. I think the leaderless nature of the Tea Party makes it ripe for coopting and converting to a power base for a very charismatic leader, but I also think the Left has many groups that could just as easily be manipulated to support a rise to power.

GWB could have done no such thing without a good portion of the active military and state national guards refusing to obey orders of a Commander-in-Chief who wanted to assume dictatorial power. I truly believe he would have been stood against a wall and shot, and then the rest of the country would have descended into further madness.

And the Second American Civil War would bring the "Long War" home to roost?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Possibly so. Give him credit to realize he could not take power that way.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you see his older brother Jeb making a run for the White House?

 

[Immanuel]

Do you see his older brother Jeb making a run for the White House?

As a resident of the State of Florida, I think Jeb would have made a hell of a lot better President than his brother did. It is unfair to blame the little brother for the "sins" of the older brother (geez, I hope my little brothers don't read that because from our younger years that would sound very hypocritical!) but, I don't think Jeb would have a chance of winning if he did. Quite frankly, if I were him, I would not want to subject myself to the campaign he'd have to run if he did. All it would be is defending himself of his brother's actions.

Immie

 

[editec]

You know...it AMAZES me hoqw much the clueless rigtht hates Chomsky.

There is no more effective detractor of the so called LEFT in America than Noam.

He nails the HYPOCRCY of the so called left in this nation far better than most right wing ideologues ever will.

Of course, he is hated for also pointing out the flaws of the so-called RIGHT in this nation, too, isn't he?

And for that he can never be forgiven.

Not by the left (read Dems) and not by the right (read Reps), either.

Truth tellers do not do well in a land run on INSIDER propaganda, folks.

 

[Samson]

You know...it AMAZES me hoqw much the clueless rigtht hates Chomsky.

There is no more effective detractor of the so called LEFT in America than Noam.

He nails the HYPOCRCY of the so called left in this nation far better than most right wing ideologues ever will.

Of course, he is hated for also pointing out the flaws of the so-called RIGHT in this nation, too, isn't he?

And for that he can never be forgiven.

Not by the left (read Dems) and not by the right (read Reps), either.

Truth tellers do not do well in a land run on INSIDER propaganda, folks.

I admitted not being very familiar with Chomsky, and reading a few quotes he seemed like the typical '60's era pandering hack attacking, for the past 50 years the, "establishment," defined as McCarthy and Nixon Era Republicans.

Do you have any evidence that, "He nails the HYPOCRCY of the so called left in this nation?"

 

[georgephillip]

Do you see his older brother Jeb making a run for the White House?

As a resident of the State of Florida, I think Jeb would have made a hell of a lot better President than his brother did. It is unfair to blame the little brother for the "sins" of the older brother (geez, I hope my little brothers don't read that because from our younger years that would sound very hypocritical!) but, I don't think Jeb would have a chance of winning if he did. Quite frankly, if I were him, I would not want to subject myself to the campaign he'd have to run if he did. All it would be is defending himself of his brother's actions.

Immie

Thanks also for correcting my misunderstanding of which Bush brother came first.

Given Jeb's physical presence and intelligence I could easily see how he could win the White House even if his father hadn't gotten there first.

I don't get the same feeling with Dubya..If HW hadn't done much of the heavy lifting, I don't think GWB makes it to the national stage.

And I think I read once that both HW and Barbara thought Neil would be the most likely brother to reach the presidency but that was before Silverado and the S&L crimes.

 

[georgephillip]

You know...it AMAZES me hoqw much the clueless rigtht hates Chomsky.

There is no more effective detractor of the so called LEFT in America than Noam.

He nails the HYPOCRCY of the so called left in this nation far better than most right wing ideologues ever will.

Of course, he is hated for also pointing out the flaws of the so-called RIGHT in this nation, too, isn't he?

And for that he can never be forgiven.

Not by the left (read Dems) and not by the right (read Reps), either.

Truth tellers do not do well in a land run on INSIDER propaganda, folks.

Chomsky applies the principle of Universality to all sides of the social equation. If you don't want someone killing your children for money, don't support those who profit from and enable the killing of other people's children.

Certainly many on the left who support Noam's views on the US Military's handiwork in Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Iraq and Afghanistan fall away when he questions Israel's war crimes.

When Chomsky first began marching in protest of the American invasion of South Vietnam, the police had to protect Noam and the other marchers from the wrath of their fellow citizens.

If there's one public intellectual today who could SHOW Americans how Democrats and Republicans are failing democracy, it would have to be Chomsky.

Maybe that's why we get Glenn Beck and Oprah?

 

[georgephillip]

You know...it AMAZES me hoqw much the clueless rigtht hates Chomsky.

There is no more effective detractor of the so called LEFT in America than Noam.

He nails the HYPOCRCY of the so called left in this nation far better than most right wing ideologues ever will.

Of course, he is hated for also pointing out the flaws of the so-called RIGHT in this nation, too, isn't he?

And for that he can never be forgiven.

Not by the left (read Dems) and not by the right (read Reps), either.

Truth tellers do not do well in a land run on INSIDER propaganda, folks.

I admitted not being very familiar with Chomsky, and reading a few quotes he seemed like the typical '60's era pandering hack attacking, for the past 50 years the, "establishment," defined as McCarthy and Nixon Era Republicans.

Do you have any evidence that, "He nails the HYPOCRCY of the so called left in this nation?"

Trying to make sense of politics today without reading Chomsky is nearly as difficult as trying to understand Relativity in the 30s without consulting Einstein.

Noam's thoughts (quotations) find their way into the academic journals of the Arts and Humanities about as frequently as those of Plato and Freud. It's my understanding no other living human being even comes close.

JFK and Israel are two BIG problems liberals have with Chomsky.

Noam has his own insights into Camelot, and they don't always shine favorably on Jack Kennedy. Whatever second thoughts he might have been entertaining about south Vietnam, Kennedy's South American policy of "Internal Defense" paved the way for military dictatorships, death squads, and the "disappeared" from Argentina to Brazil and beyond.

But it's Israel where liberal hypocrisy takes its biggest hit from Noam, I believe.

Whether its the number of UN Security Council resolutions that Israel is in violation of (about twice Saddam's total) or Israel's "don't ask;don't tell" nuclear policy, Chomsky holds the Jewish state to the same moral standards as India or Pakistan, or North Korea or the US.