My Zen Arcade

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.

Parents Keep Veterans From Giving Talk At School
A group, Veterans For Freedom is going around giving talks and whatever.  Anyhow, they were signed up to speak at a high school which was eventually cancelled due to the politics of the event.  Michelle Malkin has kittens.

Ms. Malkin quotes the Star Tribune, but doesn’t want to give all the information.

We have not endorsed a presidential candidate. We’re not in the business of doing that.” According to the Veterans for Freedom website, the national tour “is about supporting our troops, honoring their commitment and rallying the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan”.
When asked whether the part about “rallying the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan” could indeed be construed as political, Hegseth said that the group agreed not to advocate about the “progress made in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

“It’s Iraq and Afghan veterans talking about what they saw and what they did there, and about what it means to put on the uniform of your country,”

Exactly how are you going to talk about what you did and saw in Iraq without promoting one side or the other?  Especially given that this group has a political agenda, it seems pretty unlikely that they’d be able to avoid any kind of ‘rallying’.    And, even if they didn’t have an agenda, how can they possibly explain the horrors of war?  Of being shot?  Of losing a limb?  Its easy to describe the good.  The bad isn’t so much.  And given that these kids are, or soon will be, of age to sign up, I think a balanced report is required.
Here’s balanced.
“We went in to this village and cleared out all the bad guys.  We then stayed a few days to get the town water supply running.  Three women brought us their children to let them thank us for saving them from the terrorists and Saddam.  Unfortunately, during all this, one of my best friends was blown to pieces by an IED.  He spent a long time screaming as he died, his left leg no where to be found.  I still hear him screaming at night.”
They’d be happy to go on about the first part, but do you realy think they’d include that last part?
They might mention that people die, but I doubt they’d feel comfortable talking about it in equal detail to the help they provide.

One has to wonder, what if a group came around taking the opposite stance.  Oh, right, they’d obviously be traitors or simply bad soldiers, no matter how long they’d served or how much they’d lost. 

God forbid, though, that anyone has a frank talk about sex with these kids.  We don’t want them going off and having sex now.  Just give’em a gun.

(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.

Rather, she either doesn’t want to answer the question, can’t answer the question, or doesn’t understand the question.
How could al-Qaeda take over Iraq’s oil supplies?

Daily Kos: Dana Perino: Missed the point or lied

Q The President warned of the danger that al Qaeda could gain access to Iraq’s oil resources. But I don’t understand how a fragmented, clandestine, non-Iraqi terrorist organization could produce and sell Iraqi oil on the global market, especially when the majority of Iraqis have turned against al Qaeda. Could you describe a plausible scenario?

MS. PERINO: The purpose of what the President said is that al Qaeda should not be allowed to have safe haven in Iraq and take over –

Q How can they take over Iraq’s oil reserves –

MS. PERINO: Well, if we were to leave we would certainly ensue chaos and not be able to — if we were to leave too soon, it would certainly be chaos and it would be terrible for not only the innocent Iraqis, but the entire region and, in fact, our own national security. That’s what the President –

Q But the Iraqis would let a foreign terrorist organization take over their oil?

MS. PERINO: You’re missing the point, and I think that you should go back and read –

Q No, I –

MS. PERINO: Yes, actually, I think you are missing the point. And I call on you because I see what you write about how you come here and you really want to have questions asked. And I’m calling on you and I’m providing it to you, but I suggest that you read the President’s speech and read it in context, because that’s — what you’re suggesting is not what the President said.

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?”

John, you know nothing about science, even less about economics (which you admit), you scare the military, and apparently can’t keep a handle on foreign policy issues.

Think Progress » Blog Archive » McCain Conflates Shiite Iran And Sunni Al Qaeda, Needs To Be Corrected By Lieberman

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”

I understand that there’s a good reason that the military is run by civilians.
But two things seem apparent to me.
1. If we want to use the military, our civilian leaders should set the goals and parameters and then step the fuck back. Seriously. These men and women have spent their lives training and learning how to do this. Most people in the government haven’t ever even seen an ‘enemy unit’ except on TV. Let them do the job.
2. Then, when they give a military assessment, listen to them. Assume, and I know this is anathema both in D.C. and in the right-wing blogosphere, that they know better. Funny, I understand why thats the case in D.C., but the right-wing blogs? The whole essence of the conservative movement is authority. If you ignore these guys…ah well.

Crooks and Liars » McCain, Cheney reject Petraeus analysis of Iraq

Just four days ago, Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that “no one” in the U.S. and Iraqi governments “feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation,” or in the provision of basic public services.

As it turns out, “no one” doesn’t include John McCain, who feels there’s been plenty of progress…

“Anybody who believes the surge has not succeeded, militarily, politically and in most other ways, frankly, does not know the facts on the ground.”

… nor does it include Dick Cheney, who apparently sees political progress Petraeus doesn’t.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday declared the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq a “successful endeavor,” pointing to security and political progress on a visit ahead of the fifth anniversary of the war.

If, as Ms. Bachmann says, things are so good in Iraq, why are people still blowing up?
And, if she can’t read the body count, why should anyone listen to her on global warming?

Bachmann on: McCain, global warming and the media (The Political Animal)

Bachmann recalled having Christmas Eve dinner with General Patraeus, who told her Baghdad was 80% secure and that the head of the insurgency there threw in the towel, saying he wanted to live in a stable society.

Dick, if there was ANY CONNECTION AT ALL between al-Qaeda and Saddam, don’t you think that, since the Pentagon really REALLY wants there to be a link in order to continue to justify this war, they’d highlight even the slightest, even the tiniest connections they could find? Don’t you think that the administration would have pushed those connections to the media instead of burying the report? Don’t you think that someone other than Hayes might have been able to take the report and form something reasonably coherent to solidify these ties?
Of course…maybe, just maybe, the Pentagon (professional soldiers, not professional draft dodgers) might realize that we are drowning, and so they are doing everything they can to get us out of a generation-long military commitment…
But who am I to speak…

The Raw Story | Cheney ties Iraq, al-Qaeda again after fielding question from his own official biographer

Reminded of the release last week of an exhaustive Pentagon report which concluded that there were no ties between Saddam Hussein and the terror network, Cheney answered, “Well, it says no operational link. But there was, as I recall from looking at it, extensive links with Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Egyptian Islamic Jihad was the organization headed by Zawahiri, and he merged EIJ with al-Qaeda when he became the deputy director of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s number two.