The lies are coming fast and furious here, and why people aren't up in arms about it isn't clear. But perhaps more disturbing is that this administration isn't even bothering to lie anymore, or even pretend to stand by the integrity (or lack of it) of its previous statements.
Take, for instance, the transcript of an interview with Bush last September 17:
Q Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th. Yet, on Meet the Press, Sunday, the Vice President said Iraq was a geographic base for the terrorists and he also said, I don't know, or we don't know, when asked if there was any involvement. Your critics say that this is some effort -- deliberate effort to blur the line and confuse people. How would you answer that?Well, how would one answer that? Is it going to be about semantics now?THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.
Dick Cheney denies it. Condoleeza Rice denies it. Donald Rumsfeld recently denied it too:
...Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.(Well, we knew Rumsfeld had "no sense:" "...no one with any sense would want to go to war, war is a last resort, not a first resort," he told Jim Lehrer in September 2002.)"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said.
He added: "We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children," referring to suicide bombers targeting Israelis. "And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge."
When Bush says: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on" (this in his infamous USS Abraham Lincoln speech), are we not supposed to make that connection?
When Bush says, in his state of the nation address last January, that "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained," are we not supposed to make that connection?
When Bush says, in a press conference last March:
If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.Are we not supposed to make that connection either?
And later on, during the interviews:
Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American people. It used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.Are we not supposed to make that connection?
And earlier, in excerpts from a speech in Cincinnati in October 2002:
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.And we're not supposed to make that connection between Hussein and September 11 either?The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror...
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm.......we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
...Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th.
...The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.
Cheney did say -- ah, those poor, stupid American chumps -- that "it's not surprising that people make that connection." I wonder why. But Hussein is, of course, the real wily fox here, as Rumsfeld once said:
The truth is that Saddam Hussein has been about four times as clever as the United States, the U.N., and the Western world in managing public opinion. They're just masters at manipulating the press, and putting out disinformation.How many more fucking lies is the public going to take? On the economy? (Bush: "Our first goal is clear: We must have an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job.") On the weapons of mass destruction? (Rumsfeld: "We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn't any debate about it.")
The former general (and new Presidential contender) Wesley Clark was interviewed by NBC'S Meet The Press back in June, and says what many of us (or maybe too few) already know:
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."I love the way almost all of the speech transcripts end, so I'll end it in a blockquote too:RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
May God bless America. (Applause.)Posted by the wily filipino at September 20, 2003 12:03 PM