Presidential Incoherence

George Bush gave another speech yesterday on the "Global War on Terror." If one actually sits down and reads these speeches, it really is staggering how much deceit and propaganda gets packed into each one of them. What they have him say is not just factually false, but directly contrary to claims he made in the past or which other Administration officials are making now. Sometimes, the most compelling argument against the White House's propaganda is simply to place it side-by-side with prior Administration statements and/or undisputed political facts...

Presidential Incoherence

George Bush gave another speech yesterday on the "Global War on Terror." If one actually sits down and reads these speeches, it really is staggering how much deceit and propaganda gets packed into each one of them. What they have him say is not just factually false, but directly contrary to claims he made in the past or which other Administration officials are making now. Sometimes, the most compelling argument against the White House's propaganda is simply to place it side-by-side with prior Administration statements and/or undisputed political facts:

_______________________

BUSH YESTERDAY:

I knew we're at war when they attacked us. As a matter of fact, I was down here in Florida. It didn't take long to figure out what was going on. And I vowed that day that I would not rest, so long as I was the President, in protecting the people. So a lot of my decision-making is based upon the attack.

And I know we're at war, see -- I knew it then, and the enemy has, unfortunately, proved me right because they continue to attack. In order to win the war against the enemy you got to understand the nature of the enemy.

And we've got a coalition of countries. I spent a lot of time reminding people about the nature of the war. Listen, the tendency for folks is to say, well, this really isn't a war.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES, testifying on February 6 before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.I only want to clarify that, because there are implications.

Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

_____________

BUSH YESTERDAY:

So I want to share some of the strategy in winning this war on terror. Make no mistake about it, we're going to win the war on terror.

Bush during the 2004 Campaign:

President Bush ignited a Democratic inferno of criticism on Monday by suggesting the war on terrorism could not be won, forcing his aides to scramble to defend his remarks just as he had hoped to bask in convention accolades.

On the campaign trail in New Hampshire, Mr. Bush sought to emphasize the economy, but his comments on terrorism dominated national attention. In an interview on NBC-TV's "Today" show, Mr. Bush vowed to stay the course in the war on terror, saying perseverance in the battle would make the world safer for future generations. But he suggested an all-out victory against terrorism might not be possible.

Asked "Can we win?" Mr. Mr. Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the ? those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

________________

BUSH YESTERDAY:

And we have a plan to achieve victory [in Iraq]. Victory is a state -- a democracy that can sustain itself and defend itself and join America in fighting the war on terror. That's the goal of victory. That's the definition of victory.

REPORTS ON THE IRAQI ELECTION:

BAGHDAD, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Sick of bloodshed that has hit their economy and inflamed sectarian wounds, Iraqis held little hope on Monday that Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari could cure in his second term the ills he failed to heal in his first.

As prime minister, Jaafari angered the Sunni Arab minority by visiting Shi'ite Iran and describing ties between the old foes as "very friendly and strong and expanding".

Patrick Cockburn, Middle East Correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent:

Iraq is disintegrating. The first results from the parliamentary election last week show the country is dividing between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions. Religious fundamentalists now have the upper hand. The secular and nationalist candidate backed by the US and Britain was humiliatingly defeated. . . .

Islamic fundamentalist movements are ever more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities. Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, said: "In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq." . . .

Iran will be pleased that the Shia religious parties which it has supported, have become the strongest political force. . . .

__________________

BUSH YESTERDAY:

Generally, people in a democracy don't campaign and say, vote for me, I promise you war. They say, vote for you -- vote for me, I work for the peace. I want your children to grow up in a peaceful world. That's what people say to get elected.

HOW THE GOP WON THE 2002 MID-TERM ELECTIONS:

To summarize: within the Bush administration, even before their first days in power, there had always been both the motive and the rationale to invade Iraq. The events of 9/11 worked to add a sense of urgency to this predisposition by offering both a window of opportunity and a stronger motive to make this confrontation seemingly inevitable. Yet there was a more compelling reason to talk about invading Iraq in the summer of 2002 than can be explained by these predilections alone. And sadly this had more to do with political strategy than it did with national security. . . .

Karl Rove's strategy to campaign on military issues, leaked reports about a possible invasion of Iraq from military sources, Bush's State of the Union speech citing an "axis of evil" and Bush's initial tough stand on Iraq before relenting and asking for Congressional consent on the brink of the midterm elections; are all dots that can be connected to show how impressive the forethought and planning of the Republican party's midterm campaign strategy actually was.

Going into the 2002 election cycle, no one would have thought that a war with Iraq would come to dominate the political dialogue. And yet the efforts of the Bush administration combined with media coverage worked to push this issue to the forefront.

____________________

So, to recap:

We're at war - we're not at war.

We will win the war on terror - the war on terror can't be won.

We're in Iraq in order to bring democracy there because the Government will help us fight the war on terror and that's how we'll have "victory" -- a Shiite theocratic party with close ties to Iran now controls the country.

Democracies never wage war because politicians can't promise war and win elections - Americans should vote for Republicans because they will start a war in Iraq and never stop waging that war.

----posted by Glenn Greenwald

---posted by Glenn Greenwald