posted on August 21, 2003 04:41:10 AM new
No Integrity At The White House
by The Daily Brew
Last night, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh denounced the Bush administration's approach to Iraq last night while accepting the Goldsmith Career Award for Excellence in Journalism at the Kennedy School of Government. Mr. Hersh began his acceptance speech by discussing the difficulties today's reporters face, especially in Washington. "I have never seen my peers as frightened as they are now" commented Mr. Hersh, who was recently described as a "terrorist" by Senior White House advisor Richard Perle. Mr. Hersh also spoke of his own frustration with the Bush administration. "There is no real standard of integrity because the White House doesn't have any," he said.
While Mr. Hersh's observation that the White House is deliberately intimidating the Washington press may be correct, it is disingenuous at best to blame President Bush for the White House's success in this effort. The catastrophic failure of our national press corps began well before Mr. Bush assumed office, at a time when American journalists were free to critique Mr. Bush with little fear of retribution.
During the Presidential campaign of 2000, journalists had the ability to compare Bush's mendacious campaign sloganeering with his record as the governor of Texas with little to fear from the White House. They did not, and Mr. Bush was able to convince a large segment of the American public that he was somehow qualified to be the President. The press was then free to point out the breathtaking and criminal tactics Mr. Bush's campaign used to steal the Presidential election in Florida. They did not, and the American public was sufficiently lethargic to embolden the Supreme Court to sweep these tactics under the rug and install Mr. Bush into office. Early in Mr. Bush's term, the press was again free to point out the easily predictable disaster that would result were Mr. Bush's tax proposals written into law. Again, the press took a pass, and since that time millions of Americans have lost their jobs and slipped into poverty. Perhaps most catastrophically, the press was free to point out that Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks of September 11, and that White House assertions to the contrary where a most odious form of political sleight of hand. The press again failed to make the public aware of these basic facts, and as a result, our democracy stands poised to embark on a war of aggression in violation of both international law and the wishes of virtually the entire world community.
The significance of these failures cannot be overstated. Opinion polls conclusively demonstrate that the American public is fundamentally misinformed about key facts that have driven the Iraq debate. It is these misconceptions that are allowing the Bush administration to pursue a foreign policy that is decidedly not in our national security interests. One can only wonder if support for the war would fall to levels seen in our NATO allies (levels that would make the attack political suicide) were Americans made aware of the same stories that have received widespread attention in the foreign press. Would the American public support the war if they were aware that, contrary to Mr. Bush's assertions, Iraq and al Qaeda are essentially enemies? Would the American public support the war if they were aware that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were originally provided by the American military? Would the American public support the war if they were aware that the Bush administration had grossly overstating Iraq's military capabilities and the threat posed by Iraq to American interests? Would the American public support the war if they were aware that the White House was spying on UN counsel members in an attempt to influence their votes? Would the American public support the war if they were aware that Dick Cheney's former employer Halliburton, which still pays him a million dollars a year pension, is all but certain to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in the conflict and its aftermath?
We will never know the answer to these questions, because the press has never informed the American public of these and other key facts. The British press, on the other hand, has informed its public, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair is perilously close to losing his job as a result. One can only wonder if Mr. Bush would suffer a similar fate were Mr. Hersh and his colleagues to finally stand up to the intimidation emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. One thing is certain. Whatever retribution the press might receive pales in comparison to the price that will be paid by American servicemen, Iraqi citizens, and America's stature in the world for their failures. It is long past time for a little courage, men and women of the press. --(c) 03.13.03
posted on August 21, 2003 04:52:42 AM new
I think people who use award cermonies to inflict their political opinions are cheap and low. Its taking advantage of a situation and I have no respect for the people who do it---- no matter which political party they may ascribe.
I feel informed about Iraq quite well. I don 't need an "award winning journalist" to tell me anything. Awards are subective and are skewed by beleifs the people awarding them. Awards mean nothing.
I don't even care if Sadam did not have "weapons of mass destruction". He was a terrorist because he invaded Kuwait. He did not play fair and had no respect for the laws of civilization. He had to go and I'm glad he is gone.
posted on August 21, 2003 06:06:36 AM new
I was for getting rid of Saddam to. I just dont agree with how it was done. There was no reason to RUSH to war. Now we are paying the consequences for the lack of post war planning and us neglecting to put together the international coalition.
We are seen as an empire. This adminisatrtion
didnt take the steps it needed to take to do what it could to avoid war. They were bent on going to war no matter what.
Before you take a country to war you need to exaust all the steps of deplomacy.
This administartion cant look into a soldiers parents eyes and tell them we did everything we could to avoid going to war.
They made this war about PRE EMPTION not PRE VENTION. Iraq was a test case for an already planned future of a continuing war on other countries for the purpose of global military and economic dominance
posted on August 21, 2003 09:55:43 AM new
Bigcity, they seemed to negotiate as much as possible. I never saw a war take so long.
How can you be diplomatic with a facist dictator who sends children to prison? Diplomacy only works if you are dealing with a culture that embraces diplomacy. Saddam just did not seem like a dipolmatic kind of guy. I mean afterall he invaded an innocent neighbor and lobbed bombs at them.
With France and Germany kissin up to Sadam so they could get their hands on the oil, the diplomatic efforts could have gone on forever.
If other nations see us as an empire then thats their problem. Its not like China does not have the capablity to blow the world to bits or even India, land of the holy cow can blow up their neighbors.
This US world super power stuff is just a bunch of hooey.
posted on August 21, 2003 10:40:51 AM new
Youve been watching to much Fox news. The UN asked for 30 days so the inspectors could do their job but they had to go to war.
You forget that this war was planned since the 90s by the neo cons. Its all part of THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY.
posted on August 21, 2003 10:47:59 AM new
The PNAC and how it ties into the recent US attacks.
by sa • Saturday March 15, 2003 at 10:18 AM
Who is really pulling the strings behind US foreign policy and who are their next targets?
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
Turns out this really has nothing to do with terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, though they have made a very good pretext for an already premeditated act. Our current situation is really the cooked up scheme of a tightly knit ultra right-wing group of extremists known as the Project for the New American Century. The group envisions a new American Empire known as Pax Americana. Naturally, the group has recently toned down the context of their rhetoric, mainly due to the current high political profile of many of it's key members, however early policy and literature from the organization was ripe with fascism and fundamentalism that would make even Hitler look like an alter boy. However, the group fancies themselves as more of a modern day Caesar than another Hitler. According to the organization " As America sits as a colossus astride the world it must seize the opportunity (placed at it's feet) to build an American Empire" through outrageous military spending and multiple key military campaigns to establish global dominance. They claim the military can not operate efficiently within the bounds of the constitution, United Nations, International Law, or Human Rights and the US must take an extensive unilateral approach to build it`s empire. The US must lash out at anyone who stands in the way of American corporate or government interests, even if it comes at great social expense and blood of what is called (common) Americans and even if it means anti-american sentiment and loss of allies "Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we",says the group.
The problem with the PNAC plan is they have hit a major iceberg, they didn't expect the major dissent of millions around the world never seen before and especially before military action has even occurred. Nor did they expect the dissent of many key allies this early in the game, who happen to be a lot more tuned in to what this is really all about, than the American people themselves who are constantly brainwashed and programmed by right wing and military owned corporate media outlets. There is no doubt how so many Americans have been so easily duped into actually believing the rhetoric and propaganda of terror and WoMD coming out of the White House argues many, considering most of the top brass comes right out of the CIA`s Mind Control school. However, there are growing movements in the US that can see through all this, thus we have seen the stripping of the constitution, loss of civil rights and invasion of privacy in the forms of the Homeland Security, Patriot, proposed Patriot II, and others which really have nothing to do with terror but are really about corporate and government security in a time of discontent, plus let"s not forget the recent Bush baby, No Child Left Behind (military recruitment tool in sheeps clothing) which requires schools and colleges to turn over names, contact info, even grades in some cases of all students to the military or lose federal funding. This is so military recruiters can scope, scan and seek out potential targets for recruitment in the extremely expanded military needed to maintain the new empire.
More on the evil plans and mindset of some of the PNAC can be found here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_010603_pnac.html and
http://www.sierratimes.com/gaddy.htm and
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
add your comments
Paralegal
by Lawrence Pierce • Sunday August 03, 2003 at 05:21 PM
[email protected]
The PNAC and their evil plan to control the world, was
placed into motion, September of 2000, with this final note; " this plan will take a while for it to develop, barring a catastrophe event." The PNAC got a window
of either an aided or staged event, that brought forth their plan of action. When one reads this blueprint, it seems like an agenda or a road map, remember who was the first order of business, Irag, before they could get to Iraq, they had to create the means to get there, terrorist action in the United States . The whole 911 events was to staged or aided for terrorist to carry out by themselves, the numbering system, the failure to respond to action by NORAD, the President who flew
to Nebraska , apparently met with wealthy business owners, who just happen to have a meeting in an Air Force base, the demolition of the Towers and several other buildings around the area, and of course, the staged act that centers around the Pentagon crash, we must remember, the Pentagon was in progress of
rebuilding project, that lasted for some 11 years, is where the object crashed, also, remember the project
was a budget overrun, that intially started with some
1.4 Billion, the Pentagon was part of the scheme.
The PNAC was the blueprint that started the events of
911. The more this group get's exposed, the better off this country will be.
add your comments
PNAC exposed
by Lawrence Pierce • Sunday August 03, 2003 at 05:22 PM
[email protected]
The PNAC and their evil plan to control the world, was
placed into motion, September of 2000, with this final note; " this plan will take a while for it to develop, barring a catastrophe event." The PNAC got a window
of either an aided or staged event, that brought forth their plan of action. When one reads this blueprint, it seems like an agenda or a road map, remember who was the first order of business, Irag, before they could get to Iraq, they had to create the means to get there, terrorist action in the United States . The whole 911 events was to staged or aided for terrorist to carry out by themselves, the numbering system, the failure to respond to action by NORAD, the President who flew
to Nebraska , apparently met with wealthy business owners, who just happen to have a meeting in an Air Force base, the demolition of the Towers and several other buildings around the area, and of course, the staged act that centers around the Pentagon crash, we must remember, the Pentagon was in progress of
rebuilding project, that lasted for some 11 years, is where the object crashed, also, remember the project
was a budget overrun, that intially started with some
1.4 Billion, the Pentagon was part of the scheme.
The PNAC was the blueprint that started the events of
911. The more this group get's exposed, the better off this country will be
posted on August 21, 2003 10:55:35 AM new
Big city, I do not watch FOX NEWS! as a matter of fact I can't watch the news at all because I don't have cable where I live and I have been waiting a month for sat. tv. to be hooked up.
I do watch Fox but I also watch CNN to see the point of view of both sides.
I have no proof that this war has been planned since the 90's.
Pardon my ignorance but what is a NEO CON?
Also, 30 days is plenty of time for Saddam to show his cards. Chemical weapons could be hidden in a shoe box, how can you possibly find somthing that someone wants to hide in his own country?
Anyway, what he did to his own people with chemical weapons was a crime against humanity. They should have declared war on him the day he did it.
The fact the whole world looked the other way when this happened sickens me. I am sure if there were no oil in Iraw he might still be in power. But there is oil there and he was a sorry no good murderer so the show is over. I'm glad he's gone.
If Saddam Huessin had been a decent leader and not started a war and gassed his own people and let thugs and criminals run his society and abuse his own people there would have been no foothold at all for the United States to have taken his country, none.
If he were a decent human being I would cry foul myself. But he is and was worst than a friggin AX MURDERER! He would not have complied if it had been 2 years of diplomacy. He would have laughed and called us all suckers.
I don't know bigcity, it seems to be Saddam is to blame. He set himself up, he should have played the game a little better.
posted on August 21, 2003 11:05:36 AM new
CNN is hardly a liberal news channel.
Did you know we were the ones that gave Saddam WOMDS in the 80s when they were at war with Iran? Did you know those mass graves were filled becouse Bush Sr convinced the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and then we left them to be killed by the WMD that we gave him?
Your so quick to want to send our troops to wr so they can die.
You half to understand that our troops joined the military to protect and die for America and our constitution.
They didnt join the military to die for Iraqis. Thats not in the job description.
[ edited by bigcitycollectables on Aug 21, 2003 11:06 AM ]
posted on August 21, 2003 11:11:02 AM new
Q: What is a Neo-con? A: Neoconservatism is a political agenda that concentrates on militarily inforcing an aggressive US foreign policy of world dominance militarily and economically- "neoconservative" is the word used by it's adherents to describe their agenda.
Although "neo-con" sounds nasty in itself, is not a term of derision (although many deride their agenda) - it's just short for "neoconservative", a term the movement is comfortable with. Here are a few books by neoconservatives that use "neoconservative" in the title:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1568331002/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN//0844738980/
The word is also used quite comfortably at the American Enterprise Institute's website. The neoconservative writer Max Boot wrote "What the Heck Is a Neocon?" in late December 2002 - an article that interestingly starts off by saying "the term the term has clearly come unmoored from its original meaning" yet ends the article claiming that the White House's national security strategy sounds like it may have come straight from "the neocon bible." So according to some neoconservatives, "neocon" is quite meaningless yet is a group cohesive enough to have a publication that states their position close enough to be considered it's "bible".
OK, So What Exactly is the Neoconservative Agenda?
The thrust of neoconservatism aims at US military and economic domination the world. Ooop! If you all of a sudden imagine this author wearing a tinfoil hat and being ever watchful for black helicopters, please withhold judgement until you've read to the end of this page and check enough of the cited links to be convinced this is not a page of fiction.
A short and unintimidating summary of the neoconservative agenda can be found in an excerpt from the website of the American Interprise Institute, a Washington think-tank that advises the Pentagon (Vice President Dick Cheney's wife, Lynn Cheney currently sits on AEI's Board of Directors):
"Influential neoconservatives, including Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle, have been arguing for years in favor of an assertive U.S. strategy in the post-Cold War world. In 1997, they and other like-minded intellectuals organized the Project for the New American Century, which urged then-President Clinton to confront Iraq. "America was being too timid, too weak, and too unassertive in the post-Cold War world," Kristol argues. "American leadership was key to, not only world stability, but any hope for spreading democracy and freedom around the world."
Hartcher says, "This [war] is about the neoconservative view, the idealistic view, the Wilsonian view, that the world would be a better place if only America can make it that way." The neoconservatives advocate a paradigm shift in which the United States spreads American values by asserting American power-by force, if necessary."
SOURCE: http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.16723/news_detail.asp
The name the movement gives this US empire, "Pax Americana" is taken from the name for the British Empire ("Pax Britannia" - which was taken from "Pax Romana", the name for the Roman Empire. They used to refer to their invisioned future as a "beneficent hegemony". These are nice soft sounding phrases, but after examining their policy papers, editorials and letters, one sees that it's just a dressed up way of saying "American World Empire". Actually, they include space too, as they want to "pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control." (Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 12.)
Where and When Did the Neocons Get Their Start?
After the dissolution of the USSR, the United States found itself in the unique position of the only military superpower. The seed for the overall plan is perhaps contained iun a 1992 Pentagon document called "Defense Planning Guidance" and written by Paul Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of Defense in the G H W Bush administration. The classified paper was leaked to The Washington Post and New York Times in March 1992. Basically it outlined the "need" for world domination through military force:
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
Excerpts can be found at:
http://www.princeton.edu/~ppn/docfiles/pentagon_1992.html and
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html
The current version of the National Security Strategy more succinctly says, "our military must ... dissuade future military competition."
Neoconservatives see the US's position as the only military superpower as an opportunity to implement a permanent world empire - they call this opportunity a "uni-polar moment":
China looms as the barrier along the road from the current 'unipolar moment' to an extended pax Americana."
- Gary Schmitt & Thomas Donnelly, April 23, 2000
Who Excatly are the Neocons?
There isn't a political Neoconservative Party, so a neoconservative is just someone with neoconservative ideas. The prime movers of the neoconservative movement have all at one time shared the same roof under the Project For a New American Century (PNAC). PNAC is a think tank that advises on military and diplomatic affairs, has it's offices in the American Enterprise Institute building. It consists of polititions, defense experts, and editorialists. Signers of PNACs original 1987 mission statement who currently serve in government include:
Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense)
Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
Peter W. Rodman (Assistant Secretary of Defense)
Dick Cheney (Vice President)
Elliott Abrams (National Security Council)
Steve Forbes (Forbes Magazine)
Zalmay Khalilzad (special envoy for Afghanistan)
Jeb Bush (Governor of Florida and brother of President George W. Bush)
SOURCE: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Many neoconservatives have served in both Bush administrations, you might have noticed.
Many others are prominent writers and editorialists. Robert Kagan and William Kristol frequently contribute editorials to The Washington post and others to The New York Times; several PNAC members contribute to the magazine The Weekly Standard - in fact, PNAC is chaired by William Kristol who is also The Weekly Standard's Editor.
Another original signer of the PNAC Statement of Principles was Norman Podhoretz, a journalist for conservative Jewish publications. He's said, "At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority".
Where Do They Want to Go from Here?
Neoconservatives have always push for more and expanded military action ... examples:
In PNAC's letter to bush regarding 9/11, they urged Bush to attack Iraq "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack."
At an AEI round table discussion on March 21, 2003, Michael Ladeen stated, "Iraq is not the war. And the war is a regional war, and we cannot be successful in Iraq if we only do Iraq alone. And I think that the terror countries bordering Iraq, namely, Iran and Syria, know that."
In Ladeen's 2002 book, "The War Against The Terror Masters", he states America must "reconcile our democratic values with the necessity of imposing our will".
Where Can I Find Out More About Neoconservatism?
The best way to find out exactly what a neoconservative is to let them tell you themselves. The Project for the New American Century's website has a wealth of information.
Several websites are entirely dedicated to analyzing and watching neoconservativism and neoconservatives. Original Dissent is a good one from a conservative perspective, and PNAC.info is a good one from a liberal perspective.
posted on August 21, 2003 11:13:39 AM new
Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and
withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should
not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
posted on August 21, 2003 11:14:45 AM new
I agree that what George Bush Sr. did was a pathetic atrocity. Encouraging these people that the US would help and then ditch them is inexcusable.
But at least there is some justice extracted by Sadam's final removal from power. It would only be a matter of time before Sadam would have taken his shot at the US. A mad man like him cannot be stopped. I truly believe his theifdom was a potential threat to the safety of all people, everywhere. He had to go.
But in the end it is Sadam's fault for being a greedy ruthless person. If he had left kuwait alone and tended to his own country he would still be in power today. Sadam did not want to share his toys with the world and he wanted everyone elses. Its his fault in the end, he could have played the game and came out a winner not only for himself, but also for his people. He could have been a hero and leader with influence. He took the low road and it cost him.
[ edited by orleansgallery on Aug 21, 2003 11:17 AM ]
posted on August 21, 2003 11:21:15 AM new
Saddam would of never attacked us. He loved his palaces and money too much. He was not ideologically driven. He was secular and he had way too much to lose.
I mean, look what happened to him and he didnt even do anything? lol
They couldnt even defend themselves.
By the way. there is no WMD. They would of used them on our troops by now.
posted on August 21, 2003 11:23:32 AM new
. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and
withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
This is true of the people I know in my community who are republicans. Its an ugly disgusting fact. You can read my republican woman thread.
I don't know about the rest of it, its starting to sound a bit off the while with secret handshakes and stuff like that.
- which was taken from "Pax Romana", the name for the Roman Empire. They used to refer to their invisioned future as a "beneficent hegemony". These are nice soft sounding phrases, but after examining their policy papers, editorials and letters, one sees that it's just a dressed up way of saying "American World Empire". Actually, they include space too, as they want to "pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control." (Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 12.)