My Zen Arcade

Is there any part of this government we’ve brought upon ourselves that ISN’T lying to the public?

The VA claimed there were 790 attempted suicides in 2007, when, in actuality there are 1000 suicide attempts a month???  Oh, yes, we must hide this.

From: Katz, Ira R.
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:27 AM
To: Chasen, Ev
Subject: FW: Not for the CBS News Interview Request

Shh!

Our suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1000 suicide attempts per month among the veterans we see at our medical facilities. Is this something we should (carefully) address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles on it?

From: Chasen, Ev
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:40 AM
To: Katz, Ira R.

I think this is something we should discuss among ourselves, before issuing a release. Is the fact that we’re stooping them good news, or is the sheer number bad news? […]

So, in case you missed it, yes, we know, we were lied to, and have continually been lied to, about the Iraq war.
Here’s a couple snippets from the NYT article.

Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

–
John C. Garrett is a retired Marine colonel and unpaid analyst for Fox News TV and radio. He is also a lobbyist at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq

At the same time, in e-mail messages to the Pentagon, Mr. Garrett displayed an eagerness to be supportive with his television and radio commentary. “Please let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay,” he wrote in January 2007, before President Bush went on TV to describe the surge strategy in Iraq.

–
A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.

–

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.

As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.

“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”

More than anything, this shows the absolute contempt the Bush Administration feels towards the people they serve.

But we knew that.

And how horrible the media is for helping them.

And we knew that too.

Well, some of us did.

(I make reference to body counts below, a couple times. I am only referring to American dead. 4000. For the purpose of this post, we’ll forget about the astronomical number of Iraqis who have died in all this. The argument described below is based purely on how the troops, and the price they and their families pay, are being manipulated by the media and government.)

First, lets make it abundantly clear. The President’s people are not going to bring him around, very often, to families that want the war to end. They certainly won’t be getting any camera time.

Second, this is part of the stupidest argument people use to justify continuing the war. It is, like all good politics, aimed at your emotions.

People say things like “don’t let their deaths be in vain” or “Don’t dishonor our troops by bringing them home before the job is done”. While I do agree that any life that has been lost is a tragedy, we aren’t doing anything for the fallen soldiers by continuing the war (or not, for that matter). To be blunt, they are dead. They are, in fact, no longer a part of this world.

The “don’t dishonor our troops” is a very cheap shot. I am sorry that they might have to come home, their sacrifices having been in vain, perhaps. Their sense of honor besmirched. But if it comes down to therapy for a few thousand soldiers versus EVEN ONE MORE DEAD BODY, I’ve got the number for a few good shrinks. Hurt feelings and disappointments and such are not reasons to keep shooting.

Similarly, the ‘died in vain’ line translates to “please don’t let our loss be in vain” from the families and loved ones. I sympathize with these people, I truly do, regardless of their stance on the war. I can not imagine the pain of their loss.

But I would ask them this: If we left Iraq now, no more of our soldiers would die. No more sons, and daughters, and fathers and mothers coming home in body bags. If we stay in Iraq, more families will feel the same pain that you do. How many are you willing to let die in order to feel that your son’s death had meaning? How many families do you want to feel the same pain as you?

They forget that winning, if such a thing is possible and ever gets clearly defined, isn’t just about effort and determination. It is about blood and body parts spread out in the sand.

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

Most of the families of the fallen that he meets with have one request of the President, which is: Do not let my loved one’s sacrifice be in vain…Q Aren’t there also families of the bereaved who ask him to stop the war?

MS. PERINO: There have been, but the vast majority have all asked him not to allow that sacrifice to be in vain. But certainly there are some.

Q The “vast majority”? Can you say that with certainty?

MS. PERINO: Well, he has said that repeatedly, and that is true for the I think almost nearly a thousand families of the fallen that he’s met with.

Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean.
While I do see the distinction between saying there has been a big victory, and saying that the door has been opened for a big victory, you know damn well that what Bush was saying was “there’s been a big victory, but I don’t hold me to that”. He’s saying that for two reasons:
1. there hasn’t been a big victory (though there may have been progress)
2. he needs people to THINK there’s been a big victory
3. when it all falls apart, or there’s a massive setback, he can’t be held to the ‘big victory’
4. if it continues to move forward, he can come out and say “TOLD you there’d been a big victory”
5. the statement, at its heart, says virtually nothing.

lgf: BBC Lies About Bush ‘Claiming Victory’

This is what the relevant part of the BBC report said:

He said recent troop reinforcements had brought about “a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror”.

Surely this is more ammunition for the President’s many critics. There he goes again! They’ll be shrieking. We knew he was stupid, but this is unbelievable!

If you read the speech, however - I happened to see the excerpt in question on Hugh Hewitt’s blog - you’ll find that Bush didn’t say that at all. (If you don’t want to read the whole thing use your browser’s ‘Find’ field to search for ‘victory’ – it’s the first instance.)

What he said was the following:

The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around – it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror.

While I do understand that, sometimes, the government makes a commitment, or has to do unpopular things.
Thats fine and as it should be.
Cheney does go on to say, basically, that, when pressed. But the initial response is very telling about the absolute contempt this administration holds for the people who they were elected to serve.

The Raw Story | Asked about two thirds of Americans’ opposition to war, Cheney says, ‘So?’

Vice President Dick Cheney had a different message. Informed during a Good Morning America interview broadcast Wednesday that two-thirds of Americans now think the war was not worth fighting, Cheney said: “So?”

The Pentagon writes a report saying that there’s no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
The report shows the truth, which goes against the lies the administration told the american people, and themselves.  Therefor, the report is censored.  Better to hide the truth and live the lie.
THIS is why people hate them.
Shockingly, ABC news is reporting this.

Rapid Report: Pentagon Report on Saddam’s Iraq Censored?
The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study
that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to
get any attention.  This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send
out a press release announcing the report’s release and will no longer
make the report available online.
…
ABC News obtained the comprehensive military study of Saddam Hussein’s
links to terrorism on Tuesday.  Read the report’s executive summary HERE.

Now, the report DOES indicate that Hussein was actively supporting terrorism in the Middle East.  But who in the Middle East isn’t? 

Just a little reminder thanks to the top GAO official, David Walker.  In short, we sent lots of guns to Iraq and have no idea where they are.  I am SO glad this administration has done such a crackerjack job running this war.
What could be better than being a US soldier getting shot at by US weapons?  I mean, THINK OF THE IRONY!!!

Data on violence point to stalemate in Iraq - International Herald Tribune

Testimony by Walker and two other federal officials also highlighted continuing concerns over corruption in contracting and problems in tracking arms shipments to Iraqi and American forces. Both the accountability office and an independent federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, have found that thousands of pistols, automatic rifles and other equipment delivered to Iraq in past years cannot be accounted for.

No, the White House would never obfuscate, evade, or otherwise keep the truth from the American people.
Ms. Perino, do you cry yourself to sleep at night, a bottle of bourbon next to you on your pillow?
Do you?

Crooks and Liars » Dana Perino “Under Strict Instructions…To Not Talk About The Dollar”

MS. PERINO: Wendell, I’m under strict instructions, and have been from the beginning, to not talk about the dollar, and I’m not going to get fired to satisfy your question.

No, this isn’t just a rumor.  And yes, this happened under the watch of those oh-so-patriotic members of the ChickenHawk-filled Republican Party.
Not only are they OK with sending other people’s kids off to die (Kiss my ass, Romney), but they are also OK with virtually poisoning them.

KBR/Halliburton did provide dirty water to U.S. troops in Iraq - AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth

All of this happened under the watchful eyes of the Republicans who started this war. Bush let it happen. Cheney let it happen. McCain let it happen. Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman, who ran the Senate’s Oversight Committee, let it happen. They don’t support the troops. KBR didn’t fear consequences because the company’s friends were in power.