I agree Keith, They are all being almost beyond naive but devious. I don't even watch Russert and the others that I used to watch religiously. Their questions are obvious and the shape that they put to them constitutes spin. There is not longer and explorations but a bi-polar spin to everything. Its absolutely parliamentary. Something that is definitely an immigrant to this soil. We used to be about negotiation and compromise. Today we are about class. Sound familiar?
Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 9:30 AM Subject: [Futurework] Denial and Deception > The blurb on the NYT e-mail says, of Paul Krugman's latest Op-ed: > <<<< > There is no longer any doubt that we were deceived into war. The key > question now is why so many influential people are unwilling to admit the > obvious. > <<<< > > Surely the answer is obvious. Is not the NYT and Krugman being a > teeny-weeny bit naive? The idea of an occupation of Iraq as a fallback > secondary source of oil in the case of instability within Saudi Arabia had > long been on the books -- not in the State Department itself, maybe, but > certainly in the Bush Senior, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle group. Then, when it > became clear that it was a group of predominantly Saudi Arabian fanatics > that caused September 11, this was final confirmation that SA was a far > more unstable country than even the Bush-Cheney group realised. The > uncertain situation in the Middle East could no longer be left in the air. > > Of course, no one is willing to admit the obvious! To say publicly that the > Americans were guaranteeing their oil supplies by invading Iraq would be > almost a declaration of war against the whole of the Moslem world because > the implication is that they might be prepared to invade Saudi Arabia or > Iran next. If Osama bin Laden and a bunch of amateurs could take out the > World Trade Centre, what could the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria > and Pakistan do between them? Placing a suitcase nuclear bomb somewhere > near the White House would be a relatively easy operation by terrorist > group given a nod and wink by these governments. Unlikely, maybe, but quite > feasible. > > Instead, by invading a country whose President was demonstrably a monster > (even though an ex-ally), the Americans have been able, so far, to > establish their determination to guarantee their oil supplies by proxy > without actually making a frontal attack on Islam itself. So far, the > Americans have skirted disaster by a razor's edge. > > The influential people Krugman alludes to know what it's all about, but > they are certainly not silly enough to talk about it publicly. Nor is Tony > Blair or Jack Straw, our foreign secretary, or Geiff Hoon, our defence > minister. The whole of the Middle East, and Israel in particular, could be > a disaster area if America were too honest about what they're really about. > > Keith Hudson > > > <<<< > DENIAL AND DECEPTION > > Paul Krugman > > Politics is full of ironies. On the White House Web site, George W. Bush's > speech from Oct. 7, 2002 -- in which he made the case for war with Iraq -- > bears the headline "Denial and Deception." Indeed. > > There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration officials > deceived us into war. The key question now is why so many influential > people are in denial, unwilling to admit the obvious. > > About the deception: Leaks from professional intelligence analysts, who are > furious over the way their work was abused, have given us a far more > complete picture of how America went to war. Thanks to reporting by my > colleague Nicholas Kristof, other reports in The New York Times and The > Washington Post, and a magisterial article by John Judis and Spencer > Ackerman in The New Republic, we now know that top officials, including Mr. > Bush, sought to convey an impression about the Iraqi threat that was not > supported by actual intelligence reports. > > In particular, there was never any evidence linking Saddam Hussein to Al > Qaeda; yet administration officials repeatedly suggested the existence of a > link. Supposed evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear program was thoroughly > debunked by the administration's own experts; yet administration officials > continued to cite that evidence and warn of Iraq's nuclear threat. > > And yet the political and media establishment is in denial, finding excuses > for the administration's efforts to mislead both Congress and the public. > > For example, some commentators have suggested that Mr. Bush should be let > off the hook as long as there is some interpretation of his prewar > statements that is technically true. Really? We're not talking about a > business dispute that hinges on the fine print of the contract; we're > talking about the most solemn decision a nation can make. If Mr. Bush's > speeches gave the nation a misleading impression about the case for war, > close textual analysis showing that he didn't literally say what he seemed > to be saying is no excuse. On the contrary, it suggests that he knew that > his case couldn't stand close scrutiny. > > Consider, for example, what Mr. Bush said in his "denial and deception" > speech about the supposed Saddam-Osama link: that there were "high-level > contacts that go back a decade." In fact, intelligence agencies knew of > tentative contacts between Saddam and an infant Al Qaeda in the early > 1990's, but found no good evidence of a continuing relationship. So Mr. > Bush made what sounded like an assertion of an ongoing relationship between > Iraq and Al Qaeda, but phrased it cagily -- suggesting that he or his > speechwriter knew full well that his case was shaky. > > Other commentators suggest that Mr. Bush may have sincerely believed, > despite the lack of evidence, that Saddam was working with Osama and > developing nuclear weapons. Actually, that's unlikely: why did he use such > evasive wording if he didn't know that he was improving on the truth? In > any case, however, somebody was at fault. If top administration officials > somehow failed to apprise Mr. Bush of intelligence reports refuting key > pieces of his case against Iraq, they weren't doing their jobs. And Mr. > Bush should be the first person to demand their resignations. > > So why are so many people making excuses for Mr. Bush and his officials? > > Part of the answer, of course, is raw partisanship. One important > difference between our current scandal and the Watergate affair is that > it's almost impossible now to imagine a Republican senator asking, "What > did the president know, and when did he know it?" > > But even people who aren't partisan Republicans shy away from confronting > the administration's dishonest case for war, because they don't want to > face the implications. > > After all, suppose that a politician -- or a journalist admits to himself > that Mr. Bush bamboozled the nation into war. Well, launching a war on > false pretenses is, to say the least, a breach of trust. So if you admit to > yourself that such a thing happened, you have a moral obligation to demand > accountability -- and to do so in the face not only of a powerful, ruthless > political machine but in the face of a country not yet ready to believe > that its leaders have exploited 9/11 for political gain. It's a scary prospect. > > Yet if we can't find people willing to take the risk -- to face the truth > and act on it -- what will happen to our democracy? > >>>> > June 24 2003 > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
