Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 25, 2005
Rubbed Out Of Existence

With a few keystrokes, an official U.S. brochure eliminated some historic arms-control deals,  ..

U.S. Brochure Drops Arms-Control Deals

All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.
1984


The brochure, slickly produced by the State Department and distributed to hundreds of delegates, lists milestones in arms control since the 1980s, while touting reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. But the timeline omits a pivotal agreement, the 1996 treaty to ban nuclear tests, a pact negotiated by the Clinton administration and ratified by 121 nations but now rejected under President Bush.

Further along, the brochure skips over the year 2000 entirely, a snub of the treaty review conference that year, when the United States and other nuclear-weapons states committed to "13 practical steps" to achieve nuclear disarmament including activating the test-ban treaty, negotiating a pact to ban production of bomb material, and "unequivocally undertaking" to totally eliminate their arsenals.
U.S. Brochure Drops Arms-Control Deals

[The] process of continuous alteration was applied .. to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.
1984

Bush administration officials now suggest the 2000 commitments are outdated. Other delegations reject that, however, demanding a reaffirmation of the goals in a final document at the current conference.

Few expect that, and they cite the blank spots in the brochure as another piece of evidence.

"Official disdain for these agreements seems to have turned into denial that they existed," said Joseph Cirincione, an arms-control specialist with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who accused the State Department of rewriting history.
U.S. Brochure Drops Arms-Control Deals

Beyond, above, below, were other swarms of workers engaged in an unimaginable multitude of jobs. There were the huge printing-shops with their sub-editors, their typography experts, and their elaborately equipped studios for the faking of photographs. There was the tele-programmes section with its engineers, its producers, and its teams of actors specially chosen for their skill in imitating voices. There were the armies of reference clerks whose job was simply to draw up lists of books and periodicals which were due for recall. There were the vast repositories where the corrected documents were stored, and the hidden furnaces where the original copies were destroyed. And somewhere or other, quite anonymous, there were the directing brains who co-ordinated the whole effort and laid down the lines of policy which made it necessary that this fragment of the past should be preserved, that one falsified, and the other rubbed out of existence.
1984

Comments

Just what I’ve come to expect from the finest the American system under Bu$hCo can offer.

Posted by: kelley b. | May 25 2005 15:59 utc | 1

Simply more evidence that 1984 is the most comprehensive guide to the current U.S. situation.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Big Brother is watching you

Posted by: Aigin | May 25 2005 16:09 utc | 2

If you hadn’t signed it Bernhard, I would have thought Billmon was posting again.
I mean this as a sincere compliment to you b, and as a confirmation that we miss the barkeep when his life distracts him from serving his old barflies.
Just goes to show. No one is indispensable if the adherents just pick up the load.
Thanks b, Jérôme à Paris, et al.
I believe our species is going to recover it’s humanity.

Posted by: Juannie | May 25 2005 19:19 utc | 3

I’d feel more human if I could reproducibly write a cogent sentence.

Posted by: kelley b. | May 25 2005 21:23 utc | 4

I bet no one can find the thread that B recently rubbed out of existence.

Posted by: FlashHarry | May 25 2005 21:31 utc | 5

Thanks Juannie – a big and undeserved compliment
FlashHarry – on a second thought I was wrong to post the FBI/quran/Aclu piece as a seperate thread. So I took it away (it had no comments yet) and put it into a comment on the recent open thread.

Posted by: b | May 25 2005 21:39 utc | 6

Reminds me of the removal of certain statements by certain US Representatives from the Congressional record because they criticized the Republican administration too much. Poof! Never happened. Now I hear they are removing British MP testimony in committee hearings from the offical transcript record too.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 26 2005 0:18 utc | 7

no surprises…..the US rarely lives up to their trade agreements. why any different with other agreements?

Posted by: lenin’s ghost | May 26 2005 0:31 utc | 8

Removing? They never posted a .pdf of it in the first place.
Fortunately you can still see the complete video and get a complete transcript here if you haven’t already.
Please do: there need to be as many copies as possible of this information before it completely disappears down the memory hole.

Posted by: kelley b. | May 26 2005 2:07 utc | 9

President Bush, Tom DeLay and their ilk are fashioning whole new zones of hypocrisy for Americans to inhabit.

Herbert OpEd: With the Gloves Off

“We’re in this Orwellian situation,” said Leonard Rubenstein, the executive director of Physicians for Human Rights, “where the statements by the administration, by the president, are unequivocal: that the United States does not participate in, or condone, torture. And yet it has engaged in legal interpretations and interrogation policies that undermine that absolutist stance.”

Posted by: b | May 26 2005 5:41 utc | 10

As a historian, I know long term what a nightmare this will produce for the future. Oh, our dependence upon documents! Snagged again. The truth is reduced to anecdotal evidence.

Posted by: Diogenes | May 26 2005 12:54 utc | 11

I’ve often wondered if the Cold War did permanent damage to the United States. I mean we can see how messed up Russia is today having poured so much into that struggle. Were there costs to America that are not as immediately evident? My gut tells me that the Cold War and the War on Communism politically mutilated America. Not that it had to be this way, but the way the United States chose to fight the Cold War intellectually and politically has weakend its democracy. In essense the American Right decided that it had to become like the ennemy – totalitarian and ruthless – in order to make sure America won. But once on that path, the path of ideological certainties over truthful debate and persuation, the final destination is tyrrany. Self imposed right wing tyranny. So many fields in American society that used to be democratic in values and outlook have become tainted with totalitarian values. Politics and Religion are the most visibly infected fields. But one could say that business, acadamie and the arts are falling as well. It’s as if to win this War the United States corrupted its very heart, its core democratic values in order to secure victory and now no one knows how to stop the gangreen.
Compare this to England where after world war two the right fought off the facist intellectuals and sympathesiers and the left fought off the Communist intellectuals and sympathesiers. In every other first world democracy this was true. Fighting Communist Totalitarianism was not a left right issue but a democracy/ tyrrany issue.
Only in American did the Right succeed in using the Cold War as a domestic wedge to futher its policy goals. In the process they have become like the very tyrrany they opposed and damaged the very essense of America. A tyranny with democratic rituals.

Posted by: Scott McArthur | May 26 2005 14:06 utc | 12

@Scott McArthur
Excellent food for thought, for some reason your theory reminds me of a Sir Karl Popper quote in that “I personally call the type of government which can be removed without violence ‘democracy,’ and the other, ‘tyranny’,”. I guess we will see what the future holds.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 26 2005 14:43 utc | 13

So, the 2000 commitments are “outdated”, like the Geneva Conventions are “quaint”. The lone superpower is at least consistent in its bad faith. What is the point of making a deal with another party that will not be bound for itself?
Hugo Chavez is the man to watch. Venezuella and the US have a formal extradition treaty, and Chavez has invoked it against Posadiles(?), the Cuban bomber who happens to be a CIA contemporary of GHWB.
The treaty gives the US 60 days to respond. If Bush reneges on the treaty Chavez is perfectly within his rights to shut down the US diplomatic mission (pardon the oxymoron). Whilst the Engliah speaking corporate media will react with their customary jingoism, the rest of the planet will empathise with Chavez. And watch very closely.
So how does Bush respond? Is there anything he can do that has not been tried already? And is Bush prepared to pay the price?

Posted by: John | May 27 2005 13:28 utc | 14

geeez, and I was just getting used to paying just a little more at Citgo.

Posted by: beq | May 27 2005 13:49 utc | 15

“Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”
— Mark Twain
The Mysterious Stranger

Posted by: Andy | May 28 2005 17:09 utc | 16