|
Culture of Deception
For all of its self serving, [Scott McClellan’s] book does serve one good purpose: It is a reminder that we still do not know precisely how far Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and the others were willing to wade into that “culture of deception” to sell Americans on the disastrous Iraq war.
I Knew It All Along, NYT Editorial, May 29, 2008
We do not know? We still do not know how far others were willing to wade into that “culture of deception”?
Hmm, really? Let’s see:
The answer is the destruction of Iraq’s unconventional weapons and the dismantling of its program to develop nuclear arms. That should be the lodestar of American and United Nations policy.
A Road Map for Iraq, NYT Editorial, Sep 18, 2002
—
The cost of letting that happen has been diminished authority for the United Nations and a growing danger that Iraq’s unconventional weapons will be used in war or passed on to terrorists.
A Unified Message to Iraq, NYT Editorial, Nov 9, 2002
—
Iraq has to get rid of its biological and chemical arms and missiles and the means to make them, and abandon its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
Decisive Days for Iraq, NYT Editorial, Dec 6, 2002
—
There is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve
gas and anthrax and has the capacity to produce a lot more. It has
concealed these materials, lied about them, and more recently failed to
account for them to the current inspectors.
Disarming Iraq, NYT Editorial, Feb 15, 2003
—
[Mr. Hussein] would also have to turn over all mobile biological and chemical weapons facilities, surrender anthrax stockpiles or demonstrate that they had been destroyed, finish eliminating illegal missiles and account for all unmanned aerial drones.
Diplomacy’s Last Chance, NYT Editorial, Mar 23, 2003
Scott and so many others…this is a staple of US politics… anything goes, nobody objects, and when it doesn’t quite turn out hunky-dory or peachy-peachy, you get some mea-culpa, some guff about misjudgment, a few trivial details about behind the scenes discussions (haven’t read the book), a revision of mind with hindsight! Meanwhile, at the time things are actually going on and influencing events, all the good soldiers are on board. Such reviews of the past serve no purpose for the future.
OK, this is part of the American ethic, you can fail, make mistakes, start anew, and at each failure you gain understanding… on an individual level, a violent marriage, being bankrupt, an abysmal credit rating, crime and jail time, are, fairly, an “aw shucks” events that can be recovered from (provided one belongs to the proper strata, or has skills, luck, etc.) But for statecraft? Only when one holds all the cards, has supreme power.
Yes the mainstream media are beholden to interests, yes they shape public opinion, yes there may exist manipulations the like of which we cannot know, yes they fabricate and distort, yes no (or little, see the internet and other) room is left for alternative discourse, opinion, initiative. But the MSM also just sell a product, provide what people want or are interested in, or hook them in with gossip that they love, sagas ongoing, etc. and are (particularly in the US) dependent on Gvmt. stats, spokesmen, statesmen, financiers, opinion makers, so called.
The MSM are operating in the ‘free market’…and run a pernicious version of village gossip, the nitty-gritty right in your living room, as there is no more village square, and part of social life and all of political life is run through the TV. See the Obama-Hill contest, so desperately vicious…However, that they are completely beholden to Gvmt. or other powerful bodies (corps, lobbies, other) is quite clear. Just as people are in real life…An ugly mirror.
The mirror feeds back in..
Posted by: Tangerine | May 29 2008 16:25 utc | 5
Robert Wexler On McClullen, Rove, Subpoenas, Conyers, & A Mention of Siegelman
Congressman Robert Wexler on Randi’s show Thursday 5/29/08
Randi: I was reading what you wrote yesterday, immediately upon scanning McClellan’s book, that you want to compel him to come and testify in front of the judiciary committee. And we know that you subpoenaed Karl Rove to come. When is Karl Rove due to appear?
Wexler: We don’t have a date yet. We did, in fact, John Conyers–the chairman of the committee, and the committee subpoenaed Karl Rove. There are discussions, as I understand it, but–to date–we have no commitment from Karl Rove which is consistent with the kind of stonewalling that the Bush administration has done with so many other witnesses. And from my perspective we should find these people in contempt and then negotiate again if necessary. But the house of representatives should be prepared to use our inherent contempt power which would allow the house of representatives to send out the sergeant of arms to physically make certain that people appear before the house judiciary committee to testify.
This is the first administration in the history of the United States of America that has refused to appear to testify before congress on not one, but now several occasions. And to compound that problem, the new attorney general, Mr. Mukasey has said he will order the district attorneys–in the various districts–NOT to enforce a congressional contempt citation. So, effectively, the administration has tied congresses hands. That’s why I think we should be prepared to use our inherent power of contempt.
Randi: the way that I understand it is that in 1934 you kinda made a deal with the justice department where you held somebody in inherent contempt, and after that whole trial they said it was so long and congress was all tied up with this so we’ll let the justice department enforce our subpoenas from now on and gave that inherent contempt power to the justice department. Of course, now, you’ve got an attorney general Mukasey (way to go Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein–help him out of the torture problem he had) you’ve got Mukasey saying he will NOT enforce congressional subpoenas to appear. So now don’t you have to take a vote in the house to get the power of inherent contempt back into the house?
Wexler: that’s not my understanding. The inherent power of contempt is a power that congress has and everyone involved, including myself, would much prefer to engage in discussion and negotiation with the administration to compel people’s testimony. But that assumes that the administration would be acting in good faith towards the goal of providing testimony. That hasn’t been the case. We have no choice.
Randi: if the legislative branch is going to be a co-equal branch of government it is now time for it to claim its equal partnership in the governance of this country.
We’ve heard all about Bush and his unitary executive theories, we’ve lived through it, we’ve watched it. Harriet Miers thumbed her nose at the judiciary committee, Josh Bolten same story: won’t come. Karl Rove has just been subpoenaed by the house. I don’t know what you’re going to do to compel McClellan to come and I don’t know which McClellan will show up because the one that’s talking now is not known to the white house, so I’m guessing he’s a zombie…he’s been pod-snatched, he’s a Scott/bot apparently. It’s not the real guy. (haha)
Wexler: well, the interesting thing about Scott McClellan–I don’t want to presuppose anything (he may voluntarily come if we subpoenaed him–he may come without issue) but the one thing I think would be fairly certain is there would be no legitimate claim of executive privilege as to these matters because he’s put it all in a book!
Randi: exactly. I’m thinking the same thing, I’m reading the excerpts. I ordered it but I don’t have it yet because I’m not on the preferred list…but from the pieces that have been read out loud that I could read or hear, it is stunning what this man has to say.
However, I’m very concerned with the inherent contempt powers. I want you to be real sure that you have those powers and that you don’t need to go through some process like a vote–you’ve got the votes to get it.
Wexler: yeah, we would have to vote to use our power but I thought you meant that we would somehow have to take back our power.
Randi: you know, I think so. I’m not really sure but a good call I made yesterday and spoke to Jonathan Turley–and I may not be clear and I may not have heard him correctly, twice, say this, but he does indicate that you have to go through a vote to even get inherent contempt back because there’s been a transfer of that power to the justice department. But the bets are off now because Mukasey has said that he will not enforce congressional subpoenas so that arrangement that you guys had–going back to ‘34–has to be undone. And you’ve got to claim back the power.
I don’t want to talk process, but what is it that you’re interesting in hearing from Scott McClellan.
Wexler: well, some of the issues that were presented by Scott McClellan himself were whether or not Karl Rove and Scooter Libby conspired together to obstruct justice by not telling the truth regarding their role in the Valerie Plame Wilson matter. People may remember there were investigations as to who outed the covert CIA. agent, Ms. Plame…
Randi: (sarcastic) oh, you mean that glorified secretary?
Wexler: Um, no.
Randi: the nerve of people in the media was endless on this.
Wexler: yes. This is a serious issue, and Scott McClellan seemed to suggest that there may have been some conspiracy between Karl Rove and Scooter Libby on this issue. And this is a felony beyond a lying issue. This is about exposing a covert CIA agent. If this, in fact, was happening in the white house–if two people were conspiring in this regard (and I don’t want to prejudge the facts–that‘s why Scott McMullen needs to come and tell the truth; I don‘t have independent information in that regard).
Also, in respect to in what manner intelligence was purposefully provided in a misleading way regarding the Iraq war. These are issues that need to be put on the record and apparently Scott McMullen has information that is quite relevant. All of these things the American people deserve to hear.
I’ve heard some people say today “this will be the job for historians.” NO! This is the job for the house of representatives. We are empowered by the American constitution to do it.
Randi: what is your leadership saying? Is she saying anything?
Wexler: I think chairman Conyers believes that this is a very important and appropriate role that the house judiciary committee can play. And when congress comes back in session next week I think he is going to lead an aggressive effort in this regard.
Randi: well, Turley said (and I found this interesting because Jonathan Turley is a constitutional law professor, …) John Conyers is not the guy you want to mess with. He thinks that this has reached critical mass and everybody is done with it, that the patriotic fever has subsided now and we’re ready to hear the truth as a country. And not only are ready, but demanding it and it falls upon you.
Last night I heard Debbie Wassermann-Schultz on Dan Abrams and Dan Abrams asked her the question because she’s a judiciary member too. And he asked her what are you prepared to do and she said that she was prepared to have Karl Rove arrested if necessary. And that shocked me because she’s been on the other side of things from where I am lately. But I was kind of encouraged by that.
Wexler: I think congresswoman Wassermann-Schultz is dead on correct in this regard. I think her sentiment, which I agree with and I have talked to chairman Conyers about it, is a sentiment that is growing in terms of people not being patient any longer with the stonewalling that the Bush administration has continually provided to the house judiciary committee. And people are saying “you know what? We have negotiated, we on the house side have acted in good faith, we’re asking for legitimate information that the American people deserve to know and we’re not going to wait until after you leave office, Mr. President, to do the investigation. The time is now.” and this is being done all pursuant to the appropriate role of congress.
Randi: I heard Scott McClellan say something so shocking on the today show–it’s hard for me to even breathe anymore. Because for awhile you’re thinking: maybe I’m getting it wrong, maybe I am wrong, maybe there was a reason, (riffing) etc. but McMullen said that the intelligence that ran counter to the selling of this war was ignored and the threat was hyped and that Andrew Card was telling the truth when he said you don’t bring out new products in august and it was a product to be sold. And the thing that kills me is that Colin Powell has never been talked to. He’s never gonna write a book.
I’m not saying McMullen is a hero–believe me, he’s not. If he were he would have been saying things while he was in a position to influence events, not after the fact. And he says the reason he wrote this book is exactly the Plame matter. Because he went and asked the people he was loyal to, the people who were telling him to lie–it was fine for him to lie about Katrina and it was fine for him to lie about the Iraq war, it was fine for him to lie about Valerie Plame. But when he went to Rove and Scooter and Cheney, Elliot Abrams–he said he asked these men personally: did you do this? And they said no. that’s when he got upset. ‘cause they lied to him. It was okay for him to lie to us but it wasn’t okay for them to lie to him.
Now this is what he’s saying: he’s saying the intelligence was cherry picked. What’s amazing to me was 23 senators and 133 house members and me — all knew. We knew.
Wexler: yes.
Randi: What’s also fascinating is that Brian Williams, this morning, said he was in Kuwait in the build up to war and he was getting personal phone calls on his cell phone from the pentagon every time he would report something they didn’t like.
Katie Couric is now alleging there was corporate pressure, Jessica Yellin was fired from ABC because they were pressuring her to report stories that would play into the patriotic fever and the president’s high approval ratings.
The whole country has been absolutely propagandized. Is that a crime? Is that a crime?
Wexler: I know that congress bears a great deal of the responsibility in terms of failing to provide the oversight we should have provided. And I’m a part of that failure and it’s something that I regret deeply. But I also believe that maybe the most important thing Scott McClellan has presented is the very notion that you’re talking about–that the media and it’s proper role also failed the American people.
And I hope it’s a wake-up call for members of the media who, according to Scott McClellan, didn’t ask the right questions. You, of course, Randi, are the exception. But the media in Washington who didn’t ask the tough questions, did, in fact just buy all the propaganda that the Bush administration put forth.
And again, I’m not saying this to minimize congresses responsibility because ours is separate and apart from that of the media. And we failed. But the media also failed.
Randi: the media failed miserably. And they fired people. They fired Phil Donohue. They fired Jessica Yellin, they fired Ashley Banfield. They fired Dan Rather. These people lost their jobs.
I don’t understand how congress sits by and allows corporations to own more and more of the media and expect a different result. (riffing)
..McClellan…have you reached out to him yet?
Wexler: I have not, because I think we need to do this through the judiciary committee. I also think we need to talk to Karl Rove, not only about these matters but also about what happened to governor Don Siegelman in Alabama. There’s a whole host of allegations in that regard that are quite troubling.
I’m not a big rhodes fan, but since she was fired from AAR she’s been a bit more biting and less gate keeper-ish.
Also see, News Anchors: Did We Ask The Right Questions On Iraq?
Did We Ask The Right Questions On Iraq?, Did We Ask The Right Questions On Iraq?…
hahahaha …
Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 30 2008 11:42 utc | 20
When I first read b’ post #14 where he is quoting Dennis Perin, who is then quoting McClellan book, in which McClellan is then quoting disgusting statements from Bush and his staffers, I thought these “excerpts” actually came from McClennan’s book. I do not have access to and haven’t read McClennan’s book so I used b’s link to Perin’s site to see if I could learn what was going on. It seems that this is a sick joke, although I am still not 100% positive. This is similar to jokes I hear when listening to Rush Limbaugh where those on the “left” (wherever or whatever that is) are mocked in a humorous way but there is just a slight smidgeon of truth to allow the listener (via the art of connotation) to have an entirely untrue identity of the person being ridiculed. Although Perin’s “excerpts” are to the extreme in crudeness if untrue, it is the same technique. And with the Bush administration, probably nothing one could imagine or make-up is worse than the truth. It is not funny to be dishonest about this, although slightly ironic to find this on a MOA thread on a post about deception. Then again, if these quotes are accurate, I apologize in advance. Another poster a few days ago said he was not the brightest bulb among us, and r’giap quickly corrected him before I had the chance. Without a doubt he and most posters on MOA are very bright. I am slow sometimes in catching on. And admittedly, I often and purposely ruffle feathers here, but it is always in some attempt to illustrate a point and not just to cause trouble. So please pardon what I write here in the spirit of understanding or any other positive spirit you will allow.
With that said, I put forth further thoughts on Deb’s post #10 above about honesty and the law. I appreciate all of Deb’s posts in that he usually takes the reader to a second level in detail (although I sometimes disagree or feel even more detail/information is required for a true picture). In short, I disagree with Deb that lying should be against the law. Surprisingly, this statement has come from myself, a moral fundamentalist. And sometimes I think it is dishonesty, not money, (especially dishonesty to oneself) that is “the root of all evil”. When I was younger, I thought lying was against the law, and when I found out it wasn’t, I thought it should be against the law. But true freedom of speech and openness in media and governments should become the real deterrent to dishonesty. Most of us would reasonably assume that bringing a nation to war without cause and under false pretense is a high crime and I believe that also. Politicians have an oath of office that they are obligated to uphold. Unfortunately, even the simplest wording and obligations of the U.S. Constitution are ignored by U.S. officials.
But also significant enough to mention again, at least in my opinion, is a sublime prejudice in Deb’s post, where generally ‘East and South are good, West and North are bad.’ In such a frame of mind, only in a far western region of this planet, specifically in “Amerika”, do “peeps” commonly lie, cheat and steal (or at least commonly go unpunished for it).
We often read here on MOA concerns regarding strategic tactics of divisiveness used in the Middle East and in various special ops by the U.S. government. Most of us realize that various leaders – both local and global – often identify political wars as religious wars using deceptive means to further political goals. For some reason, this tactic of division reminds me of the many criticisms of Americans here in our little MOA whiskey bar. I worry that a theme of contempt for Americans is bad for many reasons. It serves no positive purpose that I can understand, it is deceptive in nature, and in some ways it encourages divisiveness although on a different realm. Of course, there is no doubt that the U.S. and its people deserve criticism. I have criticized my country even to the point that I now say that the founding concepts of America no longer exist. I have criticized the materialistic culture that has evolved in these United States, a culture that appears to be spreading throughout the modern world. I remember not too long ago when a line of tobacco executives each testified to the U.S. Congress, in succession, stating that smoking (nicotine) was not addictive. These corporate executives knew they were lying, the members of Congress knew they were lying, the American people knew they were lying and the rest of the world knew they were lying. Debs is correct as to this example– the U.S. Justice Dept should have prosecuted these executives. I could go on and on with more examples. And if I did, such criticism of mine would still be reserved in comparison to what could be said. But typically, my criticisms are towards widely known individual(s) about a specific action or statement, and it is never generalized in stone whereby all individuals in a society (in this case ‘Amerika’) are assumed to think as a monolith. It appears that only Americans, as a group, are criticized in this fashion, or at least 98% of the time. I recently attended a function at the penthouse of a current Board member of the NYT. With so many ties to corporate heads throughout the U.S. (and the rest of the world), one would maybe assume that this person was born and educated in the U.S. This assumption would be wrong. The world is a big place and there are influential people everywhere. It is a global economy and everyone should realize by now that the business of government is business. This is true the world over. And if one has read my posts over the years, I also have a constant theme – a fight against what I refer to as “global corporatism”. I define corporatism not as that found typically in a dictionary, but as a fascist type collusion of governments and private corporations. Americans are indentured and burdened to this corporatism without their consent just like so many others in this world. And contradictory as it may seem, Americans are not the only ones that seem so willing to accept this burden.
As an aside, I offer for comment a simple far off-topic regarding culture and deception. There is an astounding increasing rate of plastic surgeries in some non-western cultures. Visual deceptions (Is it fair to call it deception?) of a personal nature are surgically performed on countless numbers of people and desired by perhaps billions more people, and for what purpose? Is it to look more “western” or “American”? I recently viewed a documentary where such a western look is now deemed almost a necessity for a woman’s (or man’s) career in the new modern China. If true, I am sorry to see such a trend. And this “westernization” body molding is happening not just in China. Isn’t this cosmetic surgery a type of “culture of deception” even though exhibited at a personal level? But without a doubt, in cases of accident or deformity, cosmetic surgery is truly a positive procedure.
Before wandering off this thread topic any further, I wish to thank Uncle’s and Lizard’s posts/video links concerning McClellan’s deception. And yes, Alabama is correct that we must consider everyone thoughts. I learn from everyone here. It is disgusting that after all this death and destruction, McClellan is now speaking up – and in a half-ass manner at that. And just in time with his book release. I rarely use the F’er-word, but in this case, such a word as a derogatory description of him is too mild. McClellan portrays self-righteousness and deception in the extreme.
Posted by: Rick | May 30 2008 23:57 utc | 25
|
