Although the circumstances surrounding the bogus claim of uranium purchases must be fully investigated, the problem we should be focusing on is much bigger. Specifically, our government made a policy decision of enormous import for which a deliberate public relations campaign was crafted in order to sell it.
While in some cases there were indisputable misstatements, and in others there may have been outright lies, the more pernicious effects derive from selective emphasis, from colored interpretation, from shading the truth, from body English, and from a wide range of classic organizational behavior whereby the collective body stays on message.
Anyone who believes that the output of this process in the form of speeches by President Bush and pronouncements of Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others, fairly and objectively represent the input is naive.
The risk of focusing on Niger is that whether the administation mounts an adequate defense, pleads mea culpa, or engages in protracted finger pointing until the issue goes away, their sole objective is to make it go away.
Meanwhile, the body still has cancer, and cauterizing the wound and putting a bandage on it will not cure the disease. Cancer must be rooted out so that neither Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Bay of Pigs, nor any other perversions of public policy ever happen again.
posted on August 1, 2003 01:24:32 PM new
It's amazing how one man can ruin a country's integrity in less than 3 years. He sure doesn't represent any Americans I know.
In this article, Walter Williams, professor emeritus at the University of Washington's Evans School of Public Affairs, examines the pattern of Bush deception. He begins with the introduction of the first tax cut proposal, Feb.27, 2001. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman observed, ""I can't think of any precedent in the history of American economic policy [when an administration was] quite this shameless about misrepresenting the actual content of its own economic plan."
He points out the use of the Big Lie technique used by bush to distort the truth.
Tax-savings calculations under the Bush proposal made at the time indicated that a young childless couple earning $20,000 would have its taxes reduced by 41 percent. A middle-aged couple with $1 million in earnings would receive a 15 percent reduction. Just as Bush said, the lower-income couple had its taxes cut by a much larger percentage than the wealthy couple.
But Bush's Big Lie covered up that the young couple would save $410 in taxes, or about $34 a month; the older couple would benefit by $47,114, or about $3,900 a month. The wealthier couple's tax savings would amount to over twice as much as the other couple's total annual income. Suggesting that lower-income families fared better than the wealthiest ones surely qualifies as world-class deception.
And of course selling the war to the American people was deception of monumental proportions.
The Bush MO used to justify the Iraq invasion finally created a veritable firestorm of criticism directed at the president. Things became so bad that CIA Director George J. Tenet took full responsibility for not warning Bush about the shakiness of the British assertion: "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."
Tenet's statement accepting responsibility, however, also noted that in the fall of 2002, months before the president's 16 words on the British claim, the CIA "expressed reservations" about their validity both to the British and to members of Congress. And the top Bush operatives knew nothing about the uranium story being highly unreliable?
There is much controversy over how the alleged uranium purchase surfaced in the Bush speech. But to me, the strongest candidate is that the 16 words were too tempting to pass up. They fit the president's MO to a T -- unwarranted by the evidence and hence deceptive, yet offering the cover of technical correctness.
Williams concludes..,
A hard truth appears to have escaped the notice of the public and
received scant attention from the media: Bush is the first president
in American history to use deceptive propaganda as his main means
of communications in selling his policies. His pattern of deception
continues unabated and in direct conflict with the notion of the public's
informed consent that is central to American democracy.
posted on August 1, 2003 10:15:37 PM new
COVER-UP — The Planting of “Evidence”
Bush’s pattern of DECEIT and SECRECY continues
by Loren Adams • Fayetteville AR USA • August 1, 2003
No one should be surprised when Bush’s appointed weapons’ inspector, political crony David Kay, digs up evidence of WMD. The only surprise is the delay in planting the “weapons of mass deception.” The Army combed all the hundreds of sites suspected by the CIA which were listed as indisputable “solid” evidence by Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, and Rice to justify war.
• Bush “purges” 8,000 out of 12,000 pages of Iraq’s weapons report in December 2002 — before other UN Security Council members could look at them. Hardly anyone says a word. Where’s the press? ( Sunday Herald ); ( Bush Administration Tore 8,000 Pages Out Of Iraq WMD Report - Global Policy Forum - UN Security Council ); ( 8000 missing pages from the Iraq weapons report - www.ezboard.com ); ( Iraqi Super Weapons )
• Bush “purges” 28 pages from the 9/11 Congressional Investigation Report — while Senator Shelby (R-AL) claims 95% of the information can be released without damaging national security. Bush balks and says he alone can censor congressional reports. The memos and briefs sent August 2001 to Bush at the Crawford Ranch are conveniently “classified” to prevent damage to Bush — nothing to do with national security. Senators (some from Bush's own party) question why the pages are left out. ( 9/11 Report: One Senator Says Censure One Says Not - BBSNews Black and White 2003-07-25 ); ( INDOlink - News - Congressional Report Blames Saudi Arabia For 9/11 )
Bush primarily classifies material potentially embarrassing to himself and/or his business cronies. National security is a residual issue.
• Bush and Cheney REFUSE to release any information about the Energy Policy meetings held in secret at the White House (Jan. - Mar. 2001) because they would reveal Enron connections and how the White House planned to use the force of the United States to strong-arm the Taliban to permit a pipeline across Afghanistan for the benefit of UNOCAL and other American oil conglomerates. ( t r u t h o u t - Afghanistan: Bush, Unocal Get Their Pipeline ); ( AlterNet: The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection? ); ( Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US begins secret talks to secure Iraq's oilfields )
• All meetings pertaining to 9/11, Iraq, or energy — whether held in the White House or in the Republican controlled Congress — are “CLOSED-DOOR,” no matter if irrelevant to national security. Why? To cover up Bush’s involvement with Saudi royalty and the BinLaden family 1976-2003. The public is never to know how cozy GW is to the sources that funded 9/11. The 9/11 survivors and victims’ families are never to know. To Bush, it’s more important to protect his consortium of perpetrators than to be open and honest with America. ( CNN.com - Cheney: We're keeping papers secret on principle - January 29, 2002 ); ( ABCNEWS.com : Cheney Refuses Order for Energy Plan Secrets )
Just think: There never would have been an Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein had there not been U.S. funding and the supply of conventional and non-conventional weapons to those same characters. In fact, Saddam was a CIA operative beginning as early as 1959 — as a hired assassin! ( Saddam Hussein hired by CIA as one of six assassins 1959 ); ( [Worldcrisis] Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power, 1963 [fw] )
Osama bin Laden was also on the U.S. payroll to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan ( Osama bin Laden Ally of US against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan ). And who was behind the U.S. funding? You guessed it! Bush Sr., Rumsfeld, Cheney, and a long list of neocon idealogues determined to mold American policy into their imperial scheme. ( Rumsfeld Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein 1983 in Arms Trade - Press Release )
Is there any question why Bush prefers Saddam DEAD as opposed to ALIVE? Ditto, Osama? Words coming from the witness stand would prove quite embarrassing to the emperor with no clothes.
Unless America rids itself of a president with a pattern of deceit, it will never rid itself of the level of terrorism experienced since 2001 with ensuing multi-wars extended into the distant future. The source is not necessarily a foreign power or terrorist network. Rather, it is centered on a cluster of ideologues headed up by Bush who are exploiting America’s power and resources for personal unprincipled profit and power. An imbalanced foreign policy increases the threat of terrorism; balance and fairness decreases it. With Bush, the world will only see more conflict and chaos.
posted on August 2, 2003 06:18:08 AM new
Thanks everyone for the very informative articles. Each and everyone of them gets emailed to my boyfriend and I think he has seen the light. No longer is he voting for Bush in 2004.
Now, how to open the eyes of my 19 year old son? He cares not what the president has done to deceive the American people. He doesn't care about any of the lies. The only thing he sees is that we "kicked butt". This is another reason I am against those under the age of 21 voting. How, at 18 or even 19, can most teenagers make an informed voting decision? They can't even decide what they're going to do on Saturday night. When the news comes on and more reports come out about the deception, he and his friends walk away from the TV. However, if guns are blaring and bombs are falling, they remained glued to their seats. I told him I hope that he forgets to register to vote. Since the day he was born he has seen me pay close attention to candidates and the issues. He's seen me do research so that I can make an informed decision. Oh, where did I go wrong? I feel teenagers are too easily influenced by their friends and the media.
Cheryl
Power to the people. Power to the people, right on. - John Lennon
posted on August 2, 2003 07:34:09 AM new
I noticed a morbid fascination spread over the land in the Vietnam era. Media markets war like another reality show competing for ratings in the fall sweeps. It's no surprise that a generation which has grown up on the plots and subplots of the WWE embraces this abomination as a force of good. Send him to his room without dinner. Smash your television.
posted on August 2, 2003 07:56:09 AM new Smash your television. I'll vote for that!
"While in some cases there were indisputable misstatements, and in others there may have been outright lies, the more pernicious effects derive from selective emphasis, from colored interpretation, from shading the truth, from body English, and from a wide range of classic organizational behavior whereby the collective body stays on message."
The foundation of their organizational behavior is unconditional support for loyal members. Bush doesn't seem to care about the truth or character. Just loyalty. Not a single one of the "fall guys" for the Niger claim has been reprimanded or fired. The bush group stays on message with eyes on the prize delivering their deceptive sales pitch to the media who in turn, feeds it to the gullible.
I feel teenagers are too easily influenced by their friends and the media.