"Hubris": New Documentary Reexamines the Iraq War "Hoax"

Lakhota

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2011
157,215
71,106
2,330
Native America
bushhubris425x320.gif


By David Corn

An MSNBC film, hosted by Rachel Maddow and based on Michael Isikoff and David Corn's book, finds new evidence that Bush scammed the nation into war.

A decade ago, on March 19, 2003, President George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq that would lead to a nine-year war resulting in 4,486 dead American troops, 32,226 service members wounded, and over 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. The tab for the war topped $3 trillion. Bush did succeed in removing Saddam Hussein, but it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction and no significant operational ties between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda. That is, the two main assertions used by Bush and his crew to justify the war were not true. Three years after the war began, Michael Isikoff, then an investigative reporter for Newsweek (he's since moved to NBC News), and I published Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, a behind-the-scenes account of how Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants deployed false claims, iffy intelligence, and unsupported hyperbole to win popular backing for the invasion.

Our book—hailed by the New York Times as "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations"—was the first cut at an important topic: how a president had swindled the nation into war with a deliberate effort to hype the threat. The book is now the basis for an MSNBC documentary of the same name that marks the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war. Hosted by Rachel Maddow, the film premieres Monday night in her usual time slot (9PM ET/PT). But the documentary goes beyond what Isikoff and I covered in Hubris, presenting new scoops and showing that the complete story of the selling of that war has yet to be told.

One chilling moment in the film comes in an interview with retired General Anthony Zinni, a former commander in chief of US Central Command. In August 2002, the Bush-Cheney administration opened its propaganda campaign for war with a Cheney speech at the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. The veep made a stark declaration: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." No doubt, he proclaimed, Saddam was arming himself with WMD in preparation for attacking the United States.

Zinni was sitting on the stage during the speech, and in the documentary he recalls his reaction:

It was a shock. It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program. And that's when I began to believe they're getting serious about this. They wanna go into Iraq.​

That Zinni quote should almost end the debate on whether the Bush-Cheney administration purposefully guided the nation into war with misinformation and disinformation.

Continued...

"Hubris": New Documentary Reexamines the Iraq War "Hoax" | Mother Jones
 
But there's more. So much more. The film highlights a Pentagon document declassified two years ago. This memo notes that in November 2001—shortly after the 9/11 attacks—Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with General Tommy Franks to review plans for the "decapitation" of the Iraqi government. The two men reviewed how a war against Saddam could be triggered; that list included a "dispute over WMD inspections." It's evidence that the administration was seeking a pretense for war.

The yellowcake uranium supposedly bought by Saddam in Niger, the aluminum tubes supposedly used to process uranium into weapons-grade material, the supposed connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden—the documentary features intelligence analysts and experts who at the time were saying and warning that the intelligence on these topics was wrong or uncertain. Yet administration officials kept using lousy and inconclusive intelligence to push the case for war.

Through the months-long run-up to the invasion, Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, would become the administration's No. 1 pitchman for the war with a high-profile speech at the UN, which contained numerous false statements about Iraq and WMD. But, the documentary notes, he was hiding from the public his deep skepticism. In the film, Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff at the time, recalls the day Congress passed a resolution authorizing Bush to attack Iraq:

Powell walked into my office and without so much as a fare-thee-well, he walked over to the window and he said, "I wonder what'll happen when we put 500,000 troops into Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and find nothing?" And he turned around and walked back in his office. And I—I wrote that down on my calendar—as close for—to verbatim as I could, because I thought that was a profound statement coming from the secretary of state, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.​

Wilkerson also notes that Powell had no idea about the veracity of the intelligence he cited during that UN speech: "Though neither Powell nor anyone else from the State Department team intentionally lied, we did participate in a hoax."

A hoax. That's what it was. Yet Bush and Cheney went on to win reelection, and many of their accomplices in this swindle never were fully held accountable. In the years after the WMD scam became apparent, there certainly was a rise in public skepticism and media scrutiny of government claims. Still, could something like this happen again? Maddow remarks, "If what we went through 10 years ago did not change us as a nation—if we do not understand what happened and adapt to resist it—then history says we are doomed to repeat it."

From the OP link.
 
Don't miss the premiere of 'Hubris: Selling the Iraq War' hosted by Rachel Maddow, Feb. 18 at 9pm E.T./6pm P.T.

I'll be watching...
 
We all kinda knew it already.
yawning.gif

Yeah, this is like, some extremely old news. If they reveal in some startlingly obvious way that the war has been privatized and is still going on? Well, then it would be interesting. I'd sure like to know about the accountability of all the private contractors to the American Public, but sadly, there is none.

Most people think the conflict there is over, but it isn't. It is just at a very low level. Added to that, we have reinserted troops in the Northern Provinces ever since there has been trouble in Syria. The whole damn place is a mess, but it isn't covered in the press. Are deaths in the largest private contract army on earth still considered American deaths? Or are those just private fatalities, "the cost of doing business?"

Over 3,000 US troops have secretly returned to Iraq via Kuwait for missions pertaining to the recent developments in Syria and northern Iraq, Press TV reports.


According to our correspondent, the US troops have secretly entered Iraq in multiple stages and are mostly stationed at Balad military garrison in Salahuddin province and al-Asad air base in al-Anbar province.

Reports say the troops include US Army officers and almost 17,000 more are set to secretly return to Iraq via the same route.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/09/277127/3000-us-troops-secretly-return-to-iraq/

No, the U.S. is not leaving Iraq

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/no_the_u_s_is_not_leaving_iraq/
AP071014013677-460x307.jpg

A private military contractor gestures to colleagues flying overhead in a helicopter as they secure the scene of a roadside bomb attack in Baghdad.(Credit: AP)
In a speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., Wednesday, President Obama declared that the war in Iraq is over.

“I’ve come to speak to you about the end of the war in Iraq,” he told gathered troops. “Over the last few months, the final work of leaving Iraq has been done. Dozens of bases with American names that housed thousands of American troops have been closed down or turned over to the Iraqis. Thousands of tons of equipment have been packed up and shipped out. Tomorrow, the colors of United States Forces-Iraq — the colors you fought under — will be formally cased in a ceremony in Baghdad.”

All the specifics were true. But what about Obama’s claim that the war has come to a end?

The truth is more complicated. It turns out the Obama administration is leaving behind a huge contingent from the State Department along with thousands of armed private contractors. The possibility for violence between Americans and Iraqis is very real.

To dig into the details, I spoke to Spencer Ackerman, who has been covering the issue closely for Wired’s Danger Room.

So in your estimation, is the war actually over?

It’s going to shift into a more sotto voce form. It’s going to be a lot subtler. But it most certainly is continuing. Just because we don’t have a U.S. troop presence anymore or a formal U.S. chain of command anymore, does not mean that the war is over.

Sooooo, the question remains. If the whole thing is a hoax, why does the current administration continue on with this belligerent policy?!?! Why do we force our national interests and crush the Iraqi people under the boot-heel of suppression of neo- imperialism? Oh yeah, that's right, b/c there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties when they get down to discussing policy at the Pratt House in New York.

Morality and Human Rights don't mean shit. Only global conquest and plunder matter.
 
One must remember that Saddam and Iran hated each other - but thanks to Bush's clusterfuck - Iraq and Iran are now buddies. In that respect, I understand Obama's continued concern...
 
One must remember that Saddam and Iran hated each other - but thanks to Bush's clusterfuck - Iraq and Iran are now buddies. In that respect, I understand Obama's continued concern...
I don't, please explain it to me if you will. What do you a think would happen if we pulled everything out?

We have no business being there.

Here, let as listen to the sage and wise consul of our dear leader George Washington, shall we?

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it. It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

Excerpted from George Washington's Farewell Address
17 September 1796
"Beware of Foreign Entanglements"
http://www.100megspop3.com/bark/Beware.html
 
George Washington would be lost in today's world.
At least he knows how to read. I think you are the one who is lost. Apparently all you know how to do is watch TV and listen to the radio, eh mate?

Ever even take a class in political science or political philosophy? I am thinking probably not. That is why you would think that a man who has read Locke, Berkly, Hume, Smith and all of the Great Social Political philosophers that our nation was founded on, you so blithely brush aside.

The only excuse for your ignorance is sloth. Your cavalier attitude toward your ignorance is disheartening. I see we have no more to discuss. A pre-conditioned mind incapable of independent thought is not worth my time. If all you have in response to reasoned research and qualified arguments are snarky nonsensical quips, your positions don't hold any water.

It's time to come to terms with the fact that the only reason you like your brand of soft drink is the advertising, not the flavor.

coca%20pepsi.jpg
 
Truly yesterdays news? The documentary doesn't air until tomorrow night.

The subject is truly old news just politically motivated clap trap by Maddow and MSDNC put out in a vain attempt to somehow distract people from the still near 8% unemployment, rapidly rising gas prices, and the sequester and budget battles coming in the next couple of weeks sorry.
th
 
Truly yesterdays news? The documentary doesn't air until tomorrow night.

The subject is truly old news just politically motivated clap trap by Maddow and MSDNC put out in a vain attempt to somehow distract people from the still near 8% unemployment, rapidly rising gas prices, and the sequester and budget battles coming in the next couple of weeks sorry.
Don't forget about those phantom WMDs.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMx3hEykxJQ]Dick Cheney "George Bush Selling the Iraq War" - YouTube[/ame]

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqX3DRtZtU]60 Minutes: George W. Bush Sought to -Find A Way- to Invade Iraq - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-D1jCZ31Uw]EXPOSED: Bush Planned on Invading Iraq Before 9/11-Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]​
 
Truly yesterdays news? The documentary doesn't air until tomorrow night.

The subject is truly old news just politically motivated clap trap by Maddow and MSDNC put out in a vain attempt to somehow distract people from the still near 8% unemployment, rapidly rising gas prices, and the sequester and budget battles coming in the next couple of weeks sorry.
Don't forget about those phantom WMDs.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMx3hEykxJQ]Dick Cheney "George Bush Selling the Iraq War" - YouTube[/ame]

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqX3DRtZtU]60 Minutes: George W. Bush Sought to -Find A Way- to Invade Iraq - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-D1jCZ31Uw]EXPOSED: Bush Planned on Invading Iraq Before 9/11-Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]​

B.D.S declared a epidemic among the looney left by C.D.C lol.:lol:
 
Iraq had no WMD's and Afghanistan now has 80% of the global Heroin Trade.

Hint: That's why we're there.

Wave that Flag! Thank a Soldier for his "service". :salute:
 

Forum List

Back
Top