Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Dick Cheney Is French

Hesiod does an admirable job of addressing the shame, impotence and anger many of us feel every time one of these faux outrage fests on the right result in a Democrat giving a teary eyed apology for something he didn’t actually do. This has become a political form of ritual humiliation and it is one of the main reasons why we are having so much trouble politically in this macho era.

Indeed, these ritual humiliations actually serve as proxies for a political war in which it is not only required that a Democrat grovel, but that he grovel insincerely — it’s important that he be seen by his own party to be rejecting reality and embracing the Republican (also insincere) alternate version of the truth. It is an exercise of purer power in which the cackling courtiers of the media also hold the Democrat’s metaphorical feet to the fire as a measure of their own fealty to the established order.

The ritual also requires that one Democrat, if not more, join the chorus of condemnation. He or she is publicly acclaimed for “courage” and “integrity” for agreeing that the truth is not the truth. But their real function is to serve as as living examples of disloyalty and weakness to both sides. They are humiliated as well, although they often don’t know it, and many times they continue to serve as universally loathed sycophants to be trotted out as “the good Democrat” whenever the Republicans wish to congratulate themselves on their broadmindedness.

Dick Durbin was reciting from an FBI file, not a story in Pravda. It was a US government document. The contents of that file have not been disputed. They are horrible. His crime was pointing out that if one were to read that file without knowing which country it described, one would assume it from was a repressive regime like Hitler’s Germany. This is indisputably true.

Mayor Daley played the executioner for the right wing humiliation shaman:

“It’s a disgrace and [Durbin] is a good friend of mine. But I think it’s a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military acts like [Nazis] or that a report is like that,” Daley said. “You go and talk to some victims of the Holocaust, and they will tell you horror stories and there are not horror stories like that in Guantanamo Bay.”

It just doesn’t get any worse than that. The report was “like that.” People in the government are acting like that — many of them unwillingly, like the FBI agent who filed that report. Or like Sergeant Joseph Darby who reported the activity at Abu Ghraib (and was treated as a pariah in his home town for doing it.)

I think that it’s time, however, to find a better analogy for what is going on down in Gitmo and Iraq (and the rest of the ghost prison system.) “Gulag” is out. Comparisons to Nazi torture techniques are out. Dick Durbin died for our sins. But I think I have the answer.

We can’t point out the ways in which we are acting like the Nazis or the Russians so perhaps we should just point out all the ways in which we are acting like the … gasp … French. (And I suspect the French would be the first to agree.) From now on, when we or any of our elected representative draw parallels to repressive regimes and their interrogation and torture methods, I think we should specifically cite the French in Algeria.

I don’t know if you remember, but the Pentagon held screenings of “The Battle of Algiers” In August of 2003 (just as we were beginning to realize that the cakewalk had been left out in the rain) for officers and others to discuss the challenge of putting down an “insurgency” in an occupied Muslim country. The interesting thing is that the point of the screening was to show that the French failed strategically because of their tactics. Here’s the Pentagon flier about the movie:

How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. … Children shoot soldiers at point blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film.

(This wouldn’t be the first time that Bush administration officials used TV and movies to guide their tactical military decisions:

Following one White House meeting at which he’d asked for more time and more troops, Stormin’ Norman reports, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell called to warn the Desert Storm commander that he was being loudly compared, by a top administration official, to George McClellan. “My God,” the official supposedly complained. “He’s got all the force he needs. Why won’t he just attack?” Schwarzkopf notes that the unnamed official who’d made the comment “was a civilian who knew next to nothing about military affairs, but he’d been watching the Civil War documentary on public television and was now an expert.”

And then, twenty pages later, Schwarzkopf casually drops the information that he got an inspirational gift from Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney right before the air war finally got under way. Cheney was presenting a gift to a military man, and he chose something with an appropriate theme: “(A) complete set of videotapes of Ken Burns’s PBS series, The Civil War.”

)

The Slate article to which I link above, discusses why “The Battle of Algiers” as a movie is not particularly illustrative of why the French ultimately lost. There were larger issues at play. But even this skeptical view of the film admits that the one thing it gets right is the fact that the French tortured insurgents in Algeria.

What does any of this have to do with Baghdad?

Terror. The Mideast learned the efficacy of insurgent terror from Algeria. The PLO, Hamas, and other groups are indebted to the Algerian strategy of so-called “people’s war.” Its lessons are now apparent in Iraq, too. Yet the film treats the Algiers terror campaign as a failure: Its later bombings and shootings are made to appear increasingly desperate and strategically pointless. “Wars aren’t won with terrorism,” says one key revolutionary. “Neither wars nor revolutions.” But that depends at least in part on how the other side reacts to terror, whether the other side is France in Algeria or the United States in Iraq. Wars may not be won with terror, but they can be lost by reacting ineffectively to it.

This is where The Battle of Algiers is potentially most valuable and most dangerous as a point of comparison for the U.S. military. While The Battle of Algiers has next to nothing to say about overall French strategy in Algeria, its most obvious military lesson—that torture is an efficient countermeasure to terror—is a dangerous one in this particular instance. Aside from its moral horror, torture may not even elicit accurate information, though the film seems to suggest it is foolproof.

The French military view of torture is articulated by Col. Mathieu in the course of a series of exchanges with French journalists. As reports of torture spread, the issue becomes a scandal in France. Mathieu, however, is unwavering in defense of the practice: To him it is a military necessity. Informed that Jean-Paul Sartre is condemning French tactics, for example, Mathieu responds with a question that would warm Ann Coulter’s heart: “Why are the liberals always on the other side?”

That sure sounds familiar. Colonel Mathieu in the movie is based upon a real French General named General Massu:

In 1971, General Massu wrote a book challenging”The Battle of Algiers,” and the film was banned in France for many years. In his book General Massu, who had been considered by soldiers the personification of military tradition, defended torture as “a cruel necessity.” He wrote: “I am not afraid of the word torture, but I think in the majority of cases, the French military men obliged to use it to vanquish terrorism were, fortunately, choir boys compared to the use to which it was put by the rebels. The latter’s extreme savagery led us to some ferocity, it is certain, but we remained within the law of eye for eye, tooth for tooth.”

In 2000, his former second in command, Gen. Paul Aussaresses, acknowledged, showing neither doubts nor remorse, that thousands of Algerians “were made to disappear,” that suicides were faked and that he had taken part himself in the execution of 25 men. General Aussaresses said “everybody” knew that such things had been authorized in Paris and he added that his only real regret was that some of those tortured died before they revealed anything useful.

As for General Massu, in 2001 he told interviewers from Le Monde, “Torture is not indispensable in time of war, we could have gotten along without it very well.” Asked whether he thought France should officially admit its policies of torture in Algeria and condemn them, he replied: “I think that would be a good thing. Morally torture is something ugly.”

It seems to me that the Pentagon planners who held that screening of “The Battle of Algiers” were, perhaps, trying to get that message across, at least if one were to take the movie at face value. Its central premise is that it was French tactics (like torture) that fueled the FLN rather than defeated it in the long run. But, as the Slate article points out, it also shows (incorrectly) that torture works in the short run — and that may have been the lesson that was taken to heart.

But regardless of whether the Pentagon actually studied and approved of French tactics in Algeria, or if anyone took those screenings seriously, it’s pretty clear that we’re on the same path. (And don’t be too sure they didn’t. Apparently, half of Washington was devouring “The Arab Mind” a completely discredited piece of sociological crap, so it wouldn’t be surprising. These Republican Intellecutals, after all, tend to believe what they want to believe.)

And, since Nazis, Soviets and Commies of all stripes are off limits when describing our failing and immoral tactics, I think we should just fall back on every Republican’s favorite whipping boy — the cheese eating surrender monkeys.

I can’t wait to hear Orrin Hatch stand up in the Senate, bursting with wounded national pride as he reflexively clutches his antique pearl choker, and dolefully expresses his outrage that the Democrats would ever say that Americans are like the French. I have no doubt that the high priests of right wing radio would start speaking in tongues and the FOX News analysts would go into full-on head spinning, green vomit, Linda Blair mode.

And maybe, just maybe, the absurdity of it all will finally hit home with the Democratic establishment, the press and the American people. After all, in the “who’s the traitor” game, the Democrats are supposed to love the French, who hate America just like they do only…now they hate the French? Whose side are we on again?

And if that doesn’t work, there’s always Canada.

Update: My ironic style is much too inscrutable this week — perhaps I shouldn’t have given up coffee.

Having the Dems denounce the US as being like France is a rhetorical device — more than half tongue in cheek. We could just as easily be tarred for comparing America to Heaven — or even itself (which is better than heaven, apparently.) Imagine if we said that our tactics were like the tactics used on slave plantations. The outcry would be the same. It’s not about the substance of the charge, it’s about, as one of my commenters says, speaking heresy. Which is what speaking the truth has become. Heresy.

I do not sincerely suggest that we take to the Senate floor and denounce America as being like the French. They could do it, and there are ample historical parallels, but it won’t do any good. We are not allowed to make any historical parallels with America today because we are the greatest country in the history of the world and we are incapable of doing the kinds of things that others have done. Period.

The only way we will ever stop this is to stop apologising for telling the truth and just tell it. It’s that simple.

.

Phenomenon Of Anger

Via Jack O’Toole I see that Governor Schwarzenegger’s toppling poll numbers have led him to take a new tack, finally proving that he is a real Republican. (Nice work Maria. Uncle Jack would be so proud.)

The governor unveiled the strategy Tuesday before the earnest faces of elderly homeowners seated in folding chairs in the backyard of a well-worn ranch home outside San Diego. He derided what he called an insidious Democratic effort to overhaul the landmark Proposition 13 property tax limit.

“They want to back us into a corner so eventually they can force us to raise taxes,” he added. “From now to election day, I want to talk about all the specific taxes (they) want to change.”

[…]

Clearly, Schwarzenegger is appealing to the Republican base with this talk on taxes,” said Tony Quinn, a GOP political analyst. “No one really knows much about the upcoming election, so he has to find something to get his supporters motivated.”

That strategy was outlined by the governor’s media expert, Don Sipple, in campaign calls this month to wealthy contributors. Sipple said that “based on a lot of polling,” the governor’s special election campaign will aim to create a “phenomenon of anger” among voters, particularly toward public employee unions, which the governor has charged are behind much of the Democrats’ push for more spending and higher taxes, according to a recent Los Angeles Times report.

A separate initiative, one largely financed by the Republican Party and people close to Schwarzenegger, to limit the ability of public employee unions to contribute to political campaigns also has qualified for the ballot.

Going after the public employee unions has worked awfully well for him so far. I suppose he can pull off making it impossible for them to contribute to campaigns. But he can’t force them off TV. And they are killing him. People like nurses and firefighters and teachers. They depend on them in times of crisis. They trust their children to their care. They don’t see them as members of the Soprano family. In fact, when you put them up against Schwarzenegger, you are reminded that he made his name playing an evil cyborg.

.

Nope

Atrios writes:

Believed in WMDs they hyped? Perhaps. Believed in the threat they hyped? Nope.

They didn’t believe in the WMD’s they hyped either and we know this for a fact. Gene Lyons pointed out the obvious at the time:

The administration’s strategy of loudly proclaiming that Iraq poses a dire threat to U.S. security while making a public spectacle of massing troops along its border as if it were scarcely capable of self-defense makes no sense.

Clearly, they didn’t really believe that Saddam had any WMD capability. The governments of the US and Britain would have leveled Iraq before they put over a hundred thousand soldiers out in the open on the Kuwait border if they had. They knew.

.

Old Times There Are Not Forgotten

I haven’t been following the latest Mississippi racist retrial all that closely, but app arently they just returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter rather than murder, an alternate charge that was added at the last minute. I’ll be interested to hear the reasoning. (It may have just been because the defendant is so old.)

Apparently, his lawyers used the “old news” and “looking forward, not backward,” defense. Not that I blame the lawyer. He’s just doing his job. But it is ironic because one of the things I really love about right wingers is how they castigate others for being irresponsible and unaccountable while refusing to ever admit they were wrong. They’re still defending McCarthy fergawdsake. Nixon’s a hero and Deepthroat a traitor. They will never, ever, accept responsibility for anything. When someone catches up with them it’s always a call to “move on” and “stop living in the past.”

I googled Killan, the ex-clansman, and found this interview by Richard Barrett, one of the state’s most famous white supremicists from 2004:

Barrett: What about your background?

Killen: I have pastored churches all through Neshoba County for over fifty years. I am well thought of by most everyone. I have taken part in many political campaigns, especially for Ross Barnett and “Big Jim” Eastland. I have a big picture of Barnett hanging on my wall. I would get up and give speeches for candidates and organize speakings. One told me that he didn’t even need to show up, so long as I was speaking for him. I have been encouraged to run for office, myself.

Barrett: Is there someone you most admire?

Killen: “Big Jim” Eastland. I used to go to see him a lot. The security guards would always let me in. I got stopped for speeding on the way to his house, one time, and the patrolman just waved me through. We would talk a lot and he would say that he would do anything he could for me. He was a powerful man and could bottle up laws that were wrong. He even told me that Bobby Kennedy once asked him to pick someone to succeed J. Edgar Hoover, because his brother was fixing to fire Hoover. When “Big Jim” said that he was supporting Hoover, no matter what, Bobby came back and said that he gave in. Hoover stayed on.

Barrett: You were put on trial, once, over trying to keep Communists out of Mississippi.

Killen: Old John Doar kept staring at me, like he was trying to look right through me. I stared right back at him and sent him a signal that made him mad. He was really mad when he could not convict me. During the trial, I wrote a note for my lawyer, Laurel Weir, to bring up about the plan by Negroes to rape white women that Summer. He did and the judge rebuked him for it, but the point got made.

John Sugg, the reporter who is covering the trial for Truthout, wrote about Barrett, the other day:

Later Wednesday, I ran into Richard Barrett, the paragon of Mississippi white supremacists. He was handing out his booklet, From Southern to American around the courthouse. The screed argues that blacks should be airlifted back to Africa, among other innovative solutions to social ills. Oh, despite his Southern nationalism, he’s a New Yorker by birth, but what the hell.

Barrett, when not championing the virtues of being white – he’s a ubiquitous figure in the state’s fringe politics – is a lawyer. From a distance, he looks the part. Closer, his suit is a little threadbare and needs dry cleaning. His tie is stained. But bright and shiny is a lapel pin – a cross with four sharp points, symbol of his “Nationalist Movement.”

“Killen asked me to represent him,” Barrett says, “but I didn’t think he was competent.”

I can’t resist, and ask: Is that why he wanted you?”

Barrett: “Hah!”

Barrett also says that he would have put on a “political trial,” and he didn’t know if Killen would have allowed that.

I ask Barrett to explain “political trial.”

“Take a choice,” he replies. “It’s either Watts and Detroit” – referring to race riots – “or Highway 515, peaceful farms and churches.”

State Road 515 is where the three civil rights workers – Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and James Chaney – were murdered by the Klan. Barrett elaborated, contending the brief violence resulted in community tranquility. I rolled my eyes and said, “C’mon,” and he retorted, “It’s true.”

“Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney came here saying they wanted to register Negroes to vote,” Barrett says. “What they really wanted was to run white people out of the county. They did that in Jackson, where I live. Last election, there wasn’t anyone I could vote for.”

I ask: No one on the ballot?”

Barrett: “No, I mean there were no white people on the ballot.”

As he walks away, he throws out a quicky: “They were not civil and they weren’t right. They were communists and they were wrong.”

Nice. I’m sure these are pretty much fringe people in today’s Mississippi. But I would bet you money that the pro-lynching faction in the Senate is actually giving cover to Trent Lott, the former majority leader who still has some favors to call in. He’s the reigning political leader of the neo-confederates. These are his people.

Update: Here’s a nice op-ed by Mississippi writer Mitch Cohen on this very subject. Jesus, decent southerners must be getting tired of this crap.

.

Special Election

I saw a “Recall Arnold” bumper sticker yesterday.

This post from Atrios tells me we’re going to be seeing a lot of them:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger suddenly ranks among the most unpopular governors in modern California history, as residents grow increasingly unhappy about the action hero-turned-politician’s budget plans and his call for a special election, according to a new Field Poll.

Less than a third — 31 percent — of the state’s adults approve of the job the governor is doing in Sacramento, down from 54 percent in February. The numbers are only slightly better among registered voters, 37 percent of whom are happy with Schwarzenegger’s performance and 53 percent dissatisfied.

“There’s very little for the governor to cheer about in this poll,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. “There’s a very broad-based view that the governor is off on the wrong track.”

[…]

We’ve seen these type of reversals and downturns before, but almost always because of an external event, like the declining economy for Wilson or the energy crisis for Davis,” DiCamillo said. “But here, almost nothing has changed. It’s almost a self-inflicted thing.”

Well, when you run as a superhero who is going to magically solve all problems by the sheer force of your supernatural powers, people tend to be quickly disappointed when they realize that you are actually a pampered movie star who doesn’t have a clue.

Ronald Reagan gave speeches several times a week for many, many years before he ever ran for Governor. He was a fixture of the Republican establishment of California. Schwarzenneger didn’t do any of the (ahem) heavy lifting that a person needs to do before they are ready to run the 7th largest economy in the world. It shows.

It is pathetic that Californians bought the ype, but then that’s what we do. But like the good little faddists we are, when the fad dies we reject it with a vehemence . Nobody wants to be seen in last year’s fashions. Live by the trend, die by the trend.

We do have a special election coming up — one that will cost more than 70 million dollars and that Schwarzenneger insists we hold even though a regularly scheduled election is next June. Maybe we should make it worth our while. It only takes around 900,000 signatures to get a recall on the ballot. If we were smart, we’d get a right winger to finance it. They hate him too.

.

Breaking the Code

Andrew Sullivan notices the vile language used against gays by many on the right quite strikingly resembles the sick anti-semitism that prevailed for eons. I remember writing something similar about this a couple of years ago when I pondered why all the southern heritage groups were so freaked out about gay rights, which seemed slightly incongruous to me.

Back when Atrios was all over Trent Lott I did a bunch of research on the neo-confederates. Here we have a movement that claims it is all about their “southern heritage” and denies any accusation of racism. Their web-sites don’t use the “n” word and they try (and fail) to contain their hatred of African-Americans by bleating unconvincingly about history and ancestors and birthright, blah,blah,blah.

They hammer about affirmative action and highlight crime statistics and discuss the horror of a breakdown of American values and all the other unsubtle appeals to racism that we see throughout the Southern wing of the mainstream GOP. But, what you don’t see (and I’m not talking about full-on white supremacy neo-Nazi garbage) in the neo-confederate movement is no holds barred racist language. They have learned to use code words because even stone racists realize that it is no longer ok to spew their unadorned hatred in public. So, they go on and on about the illustrious history of the antebellum south and how special it all is.

But, strangely, I found that they also spend a vast amount of time spewing the most vile commentary about gays and lesbians. Who knew this was such a huge part of America’s Southern heritage? These confederate historical associations are so obsessed with the “homosexual rights” agenda that you can only conclude that the “threat” of homosexuality was the most hotly debated issue in the pre-1860 south. Why else would these benign heritage societies spend such an inordinate amount of time and energy detailing the dangers of the “gay lifestyle?”

Unless, of course, discussing gays and lesbians as if they are less than human is a convenient way of signaling your bigot credentials in all things. Then, it makes sense for these historical organizations to take a bizarre stand against gays, while proclaiming their mission is a simple desire to celebrate their heritage.

Here’s how they explain it in polite company:

When I served on the State Textbook Committee, I asked each publisher, “what is your definition of family?” Almost without exception, the publishers, out of deference to the homosexual, lesbian, and feminist movements, define family as two or more people living together who care for one another. By their definition, any two people living together – men, women, married, unmarried – are now defined as a family.

The antebellum South was a society founded on the traditional family of husband, wife, and children. Even today, more than the rest of the US, the South is still more family oriented. Southerners still do not move as often as other people do. More than 75% of the people living in Alabama today were born in Alabama.

Because the South was, and is more family oriented, and because our definition of family is increasingly unacceptable to many Americans, all things Southern, including our concept of family, are attacked.

I think that both Sullivan and I are right. Gays have become the all purpose repository for American bigotry — and we have a whole lot of it that needs a place to go. Without being able to use race or religion to assuage their soulless sense of insecurity, racists have found the only group that they feel they are still allowed to openly treat like animals. Gay bashing is the new code for all our lovely homegrown hatreds — and some European imports like anti-semitism too.

Just so that nobody misunderstands, I do not mean to imply that all southern heritage groups are homophobic or even racist. I’m speaking of certain clearly racist groups that are only slightly less reprehensible than straight up white supremecists. (And the white supremecists are seriously into gay bashing as well.)

.

.

Patriot Act Too

Before Monsignor Tim releases his new book (“Big Russ and Me: The Bedwetting Years”) and makes another appearance on his good friend Rush’s radio show to hawk it, maybe somebody ought to send him a couple of these t-shirts his pal is selling before the dittoheads buy out the inventory.

The t-shirts read, “Your Tropical Retreat from the Stress of Jihad,” “I Got My Free Koran and Prayer Rug at G’itmo,” and “My Mullah went to Club G’itmo and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt.”

This is some funny stuff. Especially when the FBI questions you for wearing t-shirts that proclaim you are a terrorist. Read those babies again. Swarthy males probably ought to think twice — there’re some militia types with itchy trigger fingers out there. And we’ve all been warned more than once to watch what we say.

I see a “Law and Order” episode in my future.

.

No News Is Bad News

Arianna has an interesting post up about blogs expanding the news cycle. But what I found most astonishing were these statistics:

Here are the number of news segments that mention these stories: (from a search of the main news networks’ transcripts from May 1-June 20).

* ABC News: “Downing Street Memo”: 0 segments; “Natalee Holloway”: 42 segments; “Michael Jackson”: 121 segments.
* CBS News: “Downing Street Memo”: 0 segments; “Natalee Holloway”: 70 segments; “Michael Jackson”: 235 segments.
* NBC News: “Downing Street Memo”: 6 segments; “Natalee Holloway”: 62 segments; “Michael Jackson”: 109 segments.
* CNN: “Downing Street Memo”: 30 segments; “Natalee Holloway”: 294 segments; “Michael Jackson”: 633 segments.
* Fox News: “Downing Street Memo”: 10 segments; “Natalee Holloway”: 148 segments; Michael Jackson”: 286 segments.
* MSNBC: “Downing Street Memo”: 10 segments; “Natalee Holloway”: 30 segments; “Michael Jackson”: 106 segments.

Wow. Is anyone in denial that cable news is just an arm of the entertainment industrial complex? Arianna suggests that we tune out all these non-stories the minute they come on. I’m actually giving up altogether. I can’t find anything to watch on cable news anymore. And I’m a news junkie.

.

In Our Faces

In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility … it would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

I suppose it’s a waste of breath to try to convince the media and the rightwingers that Bush is the biggest bald faced liar in history, but still, the internet is such a nice repository of documentary proof of this that it seems a worthy exercise, nonetheless, if only for the history books.

I had the sad experience of accidentally deleting one of my own posts over the week-end, one on which I spent a great deal of time. (I can only assume that my subconscious was trying to tell me something.) However, in the course of researching that post, I happened upon a very nice resource that handily catalogues all the president’s speeches (as well as other politicians’) and I came to realize something quite astounding. During the campaign Bush repeatedly lied about the reasons for the Iraq war, even based upon the irrefutable public record, and as best I can tell the travelling press corp never bothered to comment upon it.

I recall a slight kerfluffle a while back about Bush saying that Saddam refused to allow the inspectors into Iraq, which those of us in the blogosphere noted with stunned surprise, but which was pooh-poohed by the press as being just another Bushism. But he actually continued to say it; he just said it more artfully. It was still an outright lie. And the only people who paid any attention to these words were voters who hadn’t followed the lead up to the war in all its subterfuge and Machiavellian detail — many of whom undoubtedly believed the president.

As I was searching through the archives of Bush’s speeches, I found that these lies were part of his stump speech until just before the election in October of 2004 at which point he suddenly switched gears and started talking about “freedom on the march.” Up until then, however, he had consistently said something virtually every single day on the stump that was a lie.

More than one actually, and they are all doozies:

6/27/03

In Afghanistan and Iraq, we gave ultimatums to terror regimes. Those regimes chose defiance, and those regimes are no more. (Applause.)

8/26/03

We gave a clear ultimatum to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. He chose to defy us, and Saddam Hussein is no more. (Applause.)

09/12/2003

And we have pursued the war on terror in Iraq. Our coalition enforced the demands of the U.N. Security Council, in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history. Because of our military, catastrophic weapons will no longer be in the hands of a reckless dictator. (Applause.)(Applause.)

10/18/2003

But it wasn’t just us who recognized a threat. Free nations recognized the threat. The United Nations passed resolution after resolution after resolution calling upon Mr. Saddam Hussein to disclose his weapons and to disarm. And finally, in Security Council resolution 1441, led by the United States, he was told that he had one, final chance to disarm — disclose what he had and disarm, or there would be serious consequences. The world spoke, he chose defiance, and Saddam Hussein is no more. (Applause.)

10/22/03

Since the liberation of Iraq, we have discovered Saddam’s clandestine network of biological laboratories, the design work on prohibited long-range missiles, his elaborate campaign to hide illegal weapons programs. Saddam Hussein spent years frustrating U.N. inspections, for a simple reason — because he was violating U.N. demands. And in the end, rather than surrender his programs and abandon his lies, he chose defiance, and his own undoing.

1/15/04

Terrorists declared war on the United States of America, and war is what they got. We’ve captured or killed many of the key leaders of the al Qaeda network, and the rest of them know we’re on their trail. In Afghanistan, and in Iraq, we gave ultimatums to terror regimes. Those regimes chose defiance, and those regimes are no more. (Applause.)

2/24/04

September the 11th affected my way of thinking when it came to the security of the country. We saw a danger, and so I gave him an ultimatum-the world really gave him an ultimatum. And he refused. (Applause.)

3/4/04

In 2002, the U.N. Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs. As he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply. (Applause.)

5/3/04

Now, anytime an American President says, disarm, or face serious consequences, the American President better mean it. When the Commander-in-Chief speaks for the country, I believe the person ought to speak clearly and mean what he says. And so I acted on those sentiments, as well. I said, Mr. Saddam Hussein, disarm, or face serious consequences. He chose not to. He defied the world again.

5/13/04

My administration looked at the facts and the history and looked at the intelligence in Iraq, and we saw a threat. Members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence, and they saw a threat. In 2002, the United Nations Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs. They did so because they saw a threat. And as he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply. He deceived the inspectors. He did everything he can to deny access to the truth.

7/14/04

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.

8/29/04

Because the use of force should be the last option of the Commander-in-Chief, the very last option, I went to the United Nations in the hopes that diplomacy would solve the threat. You might remember, the debate went on, and after consideration, the U.N. Security Council voted 15 to nothing to say to Saddam Hussein, disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. So the world spoke.

As he had for over a decade, he defied the demands of the free world. This wasn’t the only U.N. resolution he ignored. We then sent inspectors in-or the world sent inspectors in, and he systematically deceived the inspectors.(Applause.)

9/27/04

Before the Commander-in-Chief commits troops into harm’s way, he must try everything possible to prevent war. And so I went to the United Nations hoping that diplomacy would finally work with Saddam Hussein. That’s why I went there. I have a duty to the moms and dads and husbands and wives of those who wear the uniform to try everything to protect our country without the use of the military. And so I stood in front of the United Nations and made the case. They looked at the same intelligence I did, they remembered the same history, and they voted 15 to nothing to say to Saddam Hussein: disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. I believe when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says. (Applause.)

Saddam Hussein didn’t believe it. He didn’t believe it. Last year — after all, for 16 years, he had ignored the United Nations — excuse me, 10 years, 16 resolutions. That’s resolution, after resolution, after resolution. As a matter of fact, when they sent inspectors into his country, he systematically deceived them. Diplomacy wasn’t going to work. He wasn’t about to listen to our demands. So we gave him a last chance; he ignored the last chance. And then I had a choice to make: take the word of a madman, forget the lessons of September the 11th, or do what’s necessary to defend this country. Given that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause.)

At about this time in the last month of the campaign, his stump speech changed:

October 6, 2004

I understand some Americans have strong concerns about our role in Iraq. I respect the fact that they take this issue seriously. It’s a serious matter. I assure them we’re in Iraq because I deeply believe it is necessary and right and critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and critical for long-term peace for our children and grandchildren. (Applause.)

If another terror regime were allowed to emerge in Iraq, the terrorists would find a home and a source of funding and a source of support, and they would correctly conclude that free nations do not have the will to defend themselves. If Iraq becomes a free society at the heart of the Middle East, an ally in the war on terror, a model for hopeful reform in that region, the terrorists will suffer a crushing defeat. (Applause.) And that is why Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman calls Iraq “a crucial battle in the global war on terrorism.” And that is why Prime Minister Tony Blair has called the struggle in Iraq “the crucible in which the future of global terrorism will be determined.” That is why the terrorists are fighting with desperate cruelty — they know their future is at stake. Iraq is no diversion. It’s a place where civilization is taking a decisive stand against chaos and terror, and we must not waver. (Applause.)

(That is particularly interesting in light of the recently revived and ever popular “flypaper” excuse. Bush just said on Saturday that it’s a good thing that terrorists are flocking to Iraq so that we could fight them over there — presumably so that useless wogs will be killed instead of innocent Americans.)

Bush slipped up again, however, as he got closer to the election and gave this speech on 10/12/04:

Before I ever commit troops into harm’s way, or any President, we must try all means to deal with the threat. No President ever wants to send our young into harm’s way. No President ever wants to have to do that. So I went to the United Nations, in hopes that diplomacy would work. That was my hope. I hoped that the free world would come together and make its voice clear, which it did. The Security Council voted 15-to- nothing, and said to Saddam Hussein, disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. Now, I believe that when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says. (Applause.) And that goes for the President, as well. (Applause.)

Saddam Hussein had no intention of listening to the demands of the free world. He ignored the resolution. He deceived the inspectors that were trying to get into — that were in his country.[I think he really came to believe that Saddam wouldn’t let inspectors into the country. ed] Why should he change? This is resolution number 17. Resolution after resolution after resolution had been passed, and nothing happened. He wasn’t about to listen. As a matter of fact, when we gave him the final chance, he continued to deceive and evade. So I have a choice to make at this point in our history: Do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend this country? Given that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause.)

We did not find — we did not find the stockpiles that we all thought were there. But I want to remind you what the Duelfer report said. It said that Saddam Hussein retained the intent, the knowledge, and therefore, the capability to rebuild his weapons programs. Now, think about that.

The sheer chutzpah of that entire statement is actually quite dazzling. He was very sneaky all along saying that the security council voted unanimously for Saddam to disarm or face “serious consequence,” while leaving the impression that the security council also agreed that this was all that was required for the US to invade. As we know, they didn’t agree at all. With the exception of the US and Britain, the security council believed the inspections were working and that 1441 did not give any automatic authorization to invade. The security council did not authorize the US and Britain to go to war under 1441, yet Bush repeatedly implied that they did all through the campaign and nobody called him on it.

But that was slick spin that the press was too lazy to unwind. What is stunning is that all through the campaign, almost until election eve, Bush continued to say that Saddam refused to disarm, defying the world and the UN. The truth was that even at the time the consensus was that Saddam was giving the inspectors unprecedented cooperation. And more importantly,by the fall of 2004, for at least a year we had known definitively that Saddam had no arms. Therefore, Bush’s reasonsing, quite artfully put together I admit, is nonetheless adsurd — so much so, I suspect, that people couldn’t quite figure out a way to approach it. It truly is the best example I’ve seen of “The Big Lie.” It’s almost as if Bush was daring people to refute him, knowing full well that it was such an illogical claim that it would make people uncomfortable to call him on it. (Indeed, he had ample reason to think so — nobody had called him on his earlier assertion that Saddam refused to let the inspectors in at all, which is simply delusional.)

Today the media are yawning and telling us that Bush making an irrevocable decision to go to war almost immediately after 9/11 is old news. “Everybody already knew that,” they say. And yet the president of the United States, time after time after time, lied directly to Americans in his campaign speeches, in addresses to fundraisers and, by extension, on the local news throughout the country by saying that the United Nations backed his decision to invade on the basis of the fact that Saddam refused to disarm. Everything about that statement is false. And yet even though he said it hundreds of times, and the press also now says they knew that Bush had decided tyo go to war as early as 2001, nobody said a word.

I didn’t either. I’ll be honest. I didn’t because I couldn’t bear to listen to Bush’s stump speech so I didn’t realize that he said this every day. However, the campaign press corpse, if they could hear the speech over the cacophany of piped in applause and the sound of their own drooling over all that delicious campaign food, never bothered to report this glaring lie. Neither, for some reason, did the Democrats. It’s almost as if everybody just accepted the fact that the Big Lie was unstoppable and assumed that there was nothing they could do about it.

But there is really no excuse for the press to let this lie go unaddressed. He was saying this constantly all over the country and it was being picked up by local news and newspapers and repeated verbatim. I know it’s hard to believe, but not everybody reads the NY Times and the Washington Post. A hell of a lot of Americans heard, without refutation, that Bush had the backing of the UN for the invasion and that he invaded as a last resort because a defiant Saddam refused to disarm. Again, that entire premise is false.

This is another reason why the Downing Street Memos mean something. It’s not just that Bush and his cadre decided to go to war long before they admitted it — they also lied repeatedly after the fact about their reasons and legal basis for doing it. It may be the most baldfaced lie a president has ever made to the American public — even eclipsing “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” which Clinton only said on television once (and was repeated as evidence of his lying, thousands of times by the news media.)

As Juan Cole points out here(noticing as well that he’s lying about the UN) Bush said it again just the other day:

“And so we worked hard to see if we could figure out how to do this peacefully, take a — put a united front up to Saddam Hussein, and say, the world speaks, and he ignored the world. Remember, 1441 passed the Security Council unanimously. He made the decision. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.”

It is shocking journalistic malpractice not to point out every single time he says this that the security council does not agree that 1441 authorized the president to go to war, and in fact Britain tried mightily to get authorization and couldn’t do it. It is also malpractice to continue to allow Bush to say that Saddam “defied,” “ignored” or otherwise thwarted the inspections leaving us no choice. HE WAS COMPLYING. WE PULLED THE INSPECTORS OUT OF THERE. AND THERE WERE NO WMD.

In this very interesting TOM Dispatch, Mark Danner, who wrote the first real expose of the DMSs in The NYRB, of all places, responds to critics who say that this is old news. (Read the whole thing, but this passage in particular is relevant to my point:

The memo, moreover, is not an anonymous statement to reporters but a record of what Britain’s highest security officials actually said. It tells us much about how the decision was made, and shows decisively that, as I wrote in my article, “the idea of UN inspectors was introduced not as a means to avoid war, as President Bush repeatedly assured Americans, but as a means to make war possible.”

And as I have illustrated above, even after the facts on the ground were well known, Bush continued to use Saddam’s non-existent defiance of UN weapons inspections as his cassus belli throughout the presidential campaign — and the press allowed him to do it.

For the record,
this was the situation on March 7, two weeks before the invasion:

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said what he heard from the chief inspectors’ reports Friday morning was a “catalogue still of noncooperation” and that what cooperation Iraq gave came grudgingly and “primarily under the threat of force.” He also said that he expected a vote next week because “I don’t think this can just continue on and on and on.”

Blix, executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, told the council that inspectors have been given prompt access to Iraqi sites and have faced “relatively few difficulties.” He said Iraq’s cooperation could be a result of strong outside pressure.

ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the council that inspectors have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program.

[…]

Blix said Iraq has not resolved all of the remaining issues regarding its weapons programs. He said that verifying Baghdad’s disarmament would take time and that inspectors would need to remain once it was completed.

Blix also said that he hoped Iraq would be more forthcoming with documents and other evidence. And he said Iraq has given inspectors names of people who helped destroy biological and chemical weapons in 1991. The availability of names indicates that Iraq should have records, he said.

Blix said inspectors have not found any evidence of mobile or underground weapons facilities. He said Iraq is making a serious effort to quantify biological and chemical weapons destroyed in 1991, unearthing several complete bombs from a re-excavated site.

Blix added that Baghdad also must account for how much of the weapons were produced.

ElBaradei said inspectors have found no evidence that high-strength aluminum tubes and powerful magnets Iraq has purchased were intended to produce nuclear weapons.

ElBaradei also said accusations that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger are “unfounded.”

He said Iraqi scientists have agreed to be interviewed without escorts or recording devices, and that inspectors were still seeking to have those interviews conducted outside the country.

Here was the state of play a week later, just five days before the invasion:

President Bush will meet the leaders of Britain and Spain in the Azores Islands on Sunday for a “final pursuit” of a U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq, the White House announced this morning.

“In an effort to pursue every last bit of diplomacy the president will depart Sunday morning for the Azores to Meet Prime Minister [Tony] Blair and Prime Minister [Jose] Aznar to discuss prospects for resolving the situation peacefully with diplomacy in final pursuit of a United Nations resolution,” White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. The Azores, part of Portugal, are in the Atlantic Ocean about 900 miles west of Lisbon.

The three countries are sponsors of a proposed resolution that would open the door to military action against Iraq if President Saddam Hussein failed to meet specific disarmament requirements within a very short time frame, probably less than a week. The resolution has been blocked by strong opposition from France, Russia, China and Germany. All four are members of the Security Council; France, Russia and China are permanent members with power to veto any resolution.

Nothing changed. The UN refused to back to use of force. Three days later Bush gave this amazing speech [Read it. I’d forgotten what he said. ed] to the nation telling Saddam Hussein to leave within 48 hours. Ari Fleisher verified the very next day that we were invading whether Saddam left or not:

Q So the bottom line is, Americans are going to occupy Iraq, no matter what, at this point?

MR. FLEISCHER: The bottom line is, a coalition of the willing will disarm Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, no matter what.

Even if they haven’t any arms to dis.

While the press may find all this as hilarious as George W. Bush does, the DSMs show that Bush knew a year before the war that Saddam didn’t present a threat — and the public record shows that he knew for sure a month before the war that the inspectors hadn’t found any evidence of WMD and that Saddam had been cooperating. Indeed, one could easily conclude that he rushed to war to prevent the inspectors from making that conclusive.

And then he continued to lie with impunity for the next two years, up to this very minute, when he says he went to war as a last resort, with the support of the UN, because Saddam refused to disarm — despite the fact that we know definitively he didn’t have any arms. The press is evidently so insular and so cynical that they simply accepted that Bush was lying day in and day out to the American public in the presidential campaign. And now all we hear from the them is caterwalling about “old news.” That really is astonishing.

If you want to see Bush clumsily spinning like a top about Iraq, treat yourself to a re-reading of this debate transcript. Perhaps if the press had done its job during the campaign, or devoted even a fraction of the energy they devoted to Gore’s mother’s dog prescriptions, or Hillary donning a Yankee cap, this utter gibberish coming from the leader of the world would have been the death knell of his presidency as it should have been. Instead, it was just a “bad performance.” What a tragedy.

.

Father Tim and The Flyboy

I don’t know how many of you bothered to sit through the Padre’s eyelash batting McCainiac flirtathon on Press The Meat this morning, but Arianna did and she homes in on one of Russert’s most annoying traits — indeed, it’s one of the most annoying traits I see across the TV wasteland. I don’t know if it’s that these people are getting so much direction in their ear pieces that they can’t hear what their subject is saying or if it’s that they are too self-absorbed to listen to anything but the sound of their own voices, but whatever the reason, they simply don’t seem to hear the answers to their questions. If they did, their shows wouldn’t become a sort of bizarre kabuki when things like this happen. From Arianna:

# McCAIN: Too often…the American people have been told that we’re at a turning point, whether it be the capture of Saddam Hussein, or Uday and Qusay, or the elections…

# McCAIN: It’s a hard slog, Tim. And we’ve made serious mistakes. And we’re paying a price for those mistakes.

# McCAIN: What I think we should do, Tim, is wait until we achieve the successes, then celebrate them, rather than predict them. Because too often that prediction has not proven to be true.

# McCAIN: The biggest mistake I think we made after September 11 was not calling on Americans to serve. We shouldn’t have just told them to go shopping or take a trip.

# McCAIN: The weight of evidence [in Guantanamo] has got to be that we’ve got to adjudicate these people’s cases, and…if it means releasing some of them, you’ll have to release them. Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial.

So after McCain ran down this laundry list of failures (and is there a more serious area for a president to fail than in war?), one would assume Russert would have asked him a question that would draw a conclusion of accountability for these mistakes. After all, these “mistakes” didn’t just happen. Shouldn’t Russert have pointed out, with all due respect to the senator, that “we” didn’t make these mistakes. That they were made, with not a small amount of hubris and incompetence, by specific people. And shouldn’t he have asked the “Straight Talk” senator to name these people?

And after that shouldn’t he have asked him if he agreed with his good friend and colleague Chuck Hagel, who is quoted in tomorrow’s US News and World Report saying: “the reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.”

But no, instead, he allowed him to say without a challenge:

McCAIN: On the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I’ve been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. … And I’m particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline…

I heard the same thing and I shook my head in wonder. Monsignor Tim gave a delicious little shudder when he heard that, I swear he did. But he didn’t seem to find it curious in the least.

Oh, and one other thing. After Dick Durbin does what JJ orders him to do and prostrates himself before the US Senate begging forgiveness for even thinking that we are treating prisoners in ways that might be compared to repressive totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, I expect JJ to apologize for implying that we are treating the prisoners in Guanatanano worse that we treated the Nazis. After all, he said: “Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial.”

Of course, what Mccain said is true. Just as what Dick Durbin said was true. We did treat captured Nazis better than we are treating captured cab drivers and assorted losers in Guantanamo. But then, I guess the Nazis weren’t the “transcendent” threat that “terror” is. The GWOT is unprecedented in its horror and requires that we forswear all trappings of civilization that might get in the way at any given moment. Good thing we citizens of today have a lot of TV and shopping malls to distract us, or we’d really be freaked out.

Still and all, if McCain runs, lets hope that Grover and the boys succeed in skuttling his candidacy. He’s a phony who doesn’t come across as one and that’s a very valuable trait. The beltway boys choir still loves the guy and they’ll help him any way they can. His problem is that he’s unacceptable to the theocrats and ideologues. But he’s just as unacceptable to us. He might not openly condone torture, but he said today that he’s open to confronting Syria. And he said a lot of other nonsense too. The guy is just as myopic about modern global threats as the rest of them.

Father Tim and his marching band love him because he’s the man they see looking back at them in the mirror when they blow dry what’s left of their hair. And maverick JJ loves the adulation just a little bit more than any authentic Real American should. But he hides it well, I’ll give him that. He’s the best actor they’ve got.

.