I dislike George Bush as much as the next guy but this editorial in yesterday's Times, called the Deluder in chief, that attacks George Bush over the war in Iraq is so much comfort food for privileged blue staters. The White House is identified as the sole real efficient cause of the disastrous war, along with its politicized Pentagon. Rumsfeld, Cheney.
The true and inevitable post-mortem of the Iraq war will do what the Times did for the Vietnam war, and identify all the necessary elements of this huge mistake, including principally the neocons, who supplied the ideas and of course go unmentioned here, and the Times itself, which supplied the Establishment consensus for the war, by publishing Ken Pollack's delusions in chief 2 or 3 times in the months leading up to the invasion, and where "liberal hawks" like Keller and Friedman pushed the misadventure. Let alone Judy Miller and Michael Gordon… Iraq is reminiscent of the Dreyfus affair, when it was not enough for the false accusation to be retracted, but the whole establishment that fell for it had to recant and reform…
A rudimentary glance into the subject shows the neoconservative movement as the key counterweight to moving Powell out and implementing their decade long plan for regime change in Iraq. To omit them from any discussion on decisions to overthrow Hussein is wholly careless.
"Iraq is reminiscent of the Dreyfus affair, when it was not enough for the false accusation to be retracted, but the whole establishment that fell for it had to recant and reform"
Can you elaborate on what parallels you see between these two incidents? I see no obvious analogy.
I think what Phil means is that it is like the Dreyfus Affair in the sense that a mere formal apology from the directly responsible office is insufficient – 'the whole system' needs to be indicted.
From the NYT editorial: 'After everything the American public and the world have learned about how Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney manipulated Congress, public opinion and anyone else they could bully or lie to, Mr. Bush is still acting as though he decided to invade Iraq after suddenly being handed life and death information on Saddam Hussein’s arsenal. The truth is that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001.'
—-
What it should have said (if it wasn't controlled by Jewish Zionists attempting to preserve their credibility to incite a US war against Iran):
After everything the American public and the world have learned about how Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, the Israel lobby and a multitude of Jewish Zionists in media (including this newspaper), academia, government and elected office manipulated Congress, public opinion and anyone else they could bully or lie to, Mr. Bush is still acting as though he decided to invade Iraq after suddenly being handed life and death information on Saddam Hussein’s arsenal. Perhaps Mr. Bush is attempting to scapegoat Jewish Zionists in the Pentagon such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who did indeed hand him such false intelligence, but which evidence suggests was produced by Israeli operatives in partnership with the White House and Neoconservatives in government.
The whole truth is that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Israel lobby and Jewish Zionists ideologues across the political spectrum had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001 — had in fact been chafing to attack Iraq and remove Saddam since he sent Scud missiles into Israel proper during Gulf War I. And they all finally succeed, but had to jointly lie America into a war to do it, and now each is coyly attempting to deflect responsibility onto the other through inuendo. President Bush won’t succeed at this (his power is waning), but the Israel lobby and the Jewish Zionist network already have (their power is organic and evolves as each succeeding generation of indoctrinated Zionist Youth is promoted into the halls of power with the shrewd and stealth assistance of their network predecessors). We write the narrative, we decide what is "truth," we now dicatate right and wrong, and we will continue to lie America into wars as long as we see fit.
Goes to show ya: govts can make colossal mistakes, mistakes that can't be walked back from. Like pederasts who murder their victims.
Israel is such a mistake. Beyond redemption. Now the planet is stuck with it.
You hear the yarmulk'ed ones calling for atonement; they don't know the half of it.
Doppler, the parallel is "faked evidence".
Why is he using it? He is probably mad that the party or the ideology he fights is shielded by a taboo. Admittedly a bit of a forced analogy but with the connotations it works.
The problem is, how many would need to excuse? How many were willing supporters? Among others almost the whole Congress. Why were they nodding Bush into the action?
And what about war being good for the economy?
*****************************************
Under attack: Slavoj Žižek
the deluder in chief was/is deluded and the nyt has always been one of "our" leading liars. cant even tell some portion of truth without surrounding the truth with lies making the truth a supporter of lies.
We have a video of Cheney from around 1992 in which he argues strongly against regime change in Iraq on the basis of the chaos and civil strife that would ensue. What changed Cheney? I submit that a major factor was the asbestos problem at the Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, and the possibility of saving that company and its parent through no-bid nation rebuilding contracts — just sign on to the American Century manifesto of 1998 and get a war going in Iraq. But the culpability of the NYT for the war is readily apparent also, as per Thomas Friedman's op-ed in 1999, arguing that the US needs to give war a chance and not be bothered by the "war is a scourge" declaration in the UN charter.
–
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
An investigation on net (not MSM) reveals Chaney's switch in POV came as soon as he saw the political opportunity (after 9/11). He was always really for
invading Iraq due to the coincidence of his black and white view of the world and being Mister Oil CEO.
Anybody have a transcript of his meeting with Oil Executives? Of course not. He used the Jews, the Jews used him. All of America gets to pay the price. I wish he was dead.
Weiss: "Iraq is reminiscent of the Dreyfus affair, when it was not enough for the false accusation to be retracted, but the whole establishment that fell for it had to recant and reform…"
Jewish treachery should indeed by taken on a case by case basis, but recanting the general suspicion of organized Jewry was a huge mistake for Western civilization, given organized Jewry’s long track record of operating as a nation within a nation in pursuit of its own self-interests at the expense of everyone else. If Western civilization had retained its incredulity about organized Jewry, America never could have been lied into the Iraq war, and our economy never could have been turned into a casino where the "house" (Zionism, corrupt government and those with connections to each) always wins and everyone else goes home bankrupt.
If Hitler’s murderous extremism totally discredited anti-Semitism and right-wing racism, then why didn’t Stalinism/Jewish Bolsheivism’s murderous extremism totally discredit socialism and left-liberalism’s left-wing anti-Christianism and anti-Westernism, and organized Jewry’s political pursuits? Where was their “recantation and reform”? And why hasn’t Zionist murder and extremism totally discredited organized Jewry’s political pursuits? Apparently in the relative short term, historical “lessons” aren’t a matter of truth and objective analyses, but rather who’s writing the narrative. But spin and fantastical narratives can only sustain a corrupt and morally bankrupt enterprise for so long, as history also shows.
The liberal Establishment and organized Jewry's moral outrage over "anti-Semitism" and the supposed intolerance of Christianity and Western civilization should be regarded as a mere political tactic, mere posturing, and an elaborate trick used to gain power until they both reform and recant their anti-Westernism, their anti-Christianism, and their anti-Islamicism. Until they do that, it's no-holds-barred. Those are the terrorist rules they play by, those are the rules that everyone else has to play by in order to save themselves from extermination at their hands.
You are good Ed.
Ho hum.
If we had a dime for every press rag, neo and zionist and congress crapola that yowls in outrage about how
"it'is all Bush and Cheney's fault we could pay off then national debt.
"They" have been doing this since the Iraq wur went sideways. First it was 'he' didn't'handle the wur right,then it was…who us?..no,no,no, it was Bush.
It's all Bush's fault…yea that's right ALL Bush, not us.
Kind of reinvigorates the old phrase "The Best And The Brightest."
Ed – because Stalin's, and Hitler's genocidal activities had nothing at all to do with socialism.
I like you Ed – but you really must do something about your inane campaign against "left-liberalism", it has nothing to do with the war in Iraq, Zionism and the looting of America….
@stevieb: "left-liberalism", it has nothing to do with the war in Iraq, Zionism and the looting of America….'
Repeat it often enough and you might actually beleive it. It takes studied denial, though.