Thursday, August 31, 2006

THE GOOD GERMANS

FOR THOSE WHO ARE STILL AWAKE AND PAYING ATTENTION TO THE EVENTS WHICH WILL AFFECT THEIR FUTURE, TAKE A MOMENT TO CONSIDER THE DEBUT OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S NEW FALL PRODUCT LINE.

BETWEEN NOW AND NOVEMBER, YOU WON’T BE HEARING SUCH TIRED WORDS AS HEALTH CARE, ENVIRONMENT, KATRINA, STEM CELLS, ECONOMY, WORLD OPINION, GAS PRICES, OR DEFICIT.

GET READY FOR THE REBRANDING OF THE ELECTION THEME SONG. THE WORD YOU'LL BE HEARING IS ‘FASCISM’.
FASCISM....24/7, AS THEY SAY.

THERE WILL NOT BE A SPEECH OR ARTICLE EMANATING FROM YOUR ADMINISTRATION WITHOUT THE ‘F’ WORD.
LITTLE KIDS MIGHT EVEN START USING IT ON THE PLAYGROUND.

OUR MUCH BELOVED SECRETARY OF OFFENSE, DONALD ‘HENNY-PENNY’ RUMSFELD PRESIDED OVER THE UNVEILING THIS WEEK.

HE SAID THAT CRITICS OF THE WAR IN IRAQ AND THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST TERROR GROUPS SEEM NOT TO HAVE LEARNED HISTORY’S LESSONS. HE THEN ALLUDED TO THOSE IN THE 1930’s WHO ADVOCATED APPEASING FASCIST NAZI GERMANY.
‘RELEASE THE HOUNDS!’
DICK ‘LAST THROES’ CHENEY GAVE A SIMILAR SPEECH THIS WEEK.
GEORGE 'I READ 3 SHAKESPEARES' BUSH HAS BEEN TRAINED TO WORK IT INTO EVERY AWKWARD SENTENCE.

AND WHEN THE PUBLIC STARTS SLUMPING FROM 'FASCIST' FATIGUE,
‘APPEASING’ WILL BE THE UNDERSTUDY WORD.
IT WILL BE USED AS THE DESIGNATED DRIVER WORD WHICH WILL DRIVE THE MESSAGE HOME.

THE GOOD GERMANS WERE THE ONES WHO MADE THE POST- HORROR CLAIM THAT THEY DIDN’T SUPPORT THEIR WICKED GOVERNMENT AND THAT THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON.

I THINK THAT RUMMY IS ON TO SOMETHING. IT’S STARTING TO SMELL LIKE THE 1930’s RIGHT HERE IN HOMELAND.
SO, FOR THE GOOD AMERICANS WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS DECEITFUL, ARROGANT, AND VIOLENT ADMINISTRATION, CONSIDER THIS WORD.

‘ENABLERS’.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

FYI--- fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

The Ancient Rocker said...

Once again, the spin doctors have found a way to reflect their personal political preference through name calling.
Instead of demonizing democrats as tax and spend liberals they will now be seen as fascist pacifying pansies while the real fascists hide behind their republican/ christian right code.

The next time you see the white house flacks on the tube,remember that fascism wears a smiling face.

Keep Smiling!

Ben's friend said...

How can anyone look at that nasty Rumsfeld face and not see a "nazi" or a "facist." Usually one can't tell a book by its cover but Rumsfeld proves the execption to the rule. Has one ever seen a more mean, self righteous, or arrogant face? I certainly haven't.

And the moron Bush. He is soo proud that he read "The Stranger," (although probably with the help of a tutor, Cliff Notes, and the Classic Comic version.) He even got carried away in an interview with Brian Williams, while in New Orleans trying to look concerned and compassioinate, by proudly announcing that he had read "three Shakespeares." There is only one great Shakespeare in literature to my knowledge. Did the moron mean, "three works of Shakespeare?" He was so pleased with himself that he followed that comment up with the observation that his reading tastes are "pretty ecelectic (instead of eclectic). How did this man ever get into Yale? Oh, of course, it must have been with Daddy's help.

Anonymous said...

Wonderful commentary so far... like a bunch of sixth grade yearbook entries...Pathetic.

quicksand said...

YES, BUT THE COMMENTS ARE QUITE ECALECTIC. NO?

SO, WHY DON'T YOU HELP GUIDE THESE FOLKS.
PLEASE, WRITE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON.

I THINK PEOPLE ARE VERY ANGRY.
ARE YOU PLEASED WITH YOUR LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD?

Anonymous said...

I'm not impressed with what I've been reading here lately. People venting and trying to be cute with their wording. No real debate... mostly people trying to feel good about agreeing with Quicksand. I think a forum such as this could be of much more use. It depends on what you want it to be.

quicksand said...

GOOD FOR YOU!

IT'S PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF WHO CAN REDIRECT THE DEBATE.

I MEAN THAT SINCERELY.

IT'S GOOD TO POINT OUT WHAT YOU THINK ARE WEAKNESSES IN AN ARGUMENT. PEOPLE CAN ALWAYS ARGUE BACK. IT MAKES US ALL WISER.
THANKS

The Political Impaler said...

Nothing but sophomoric drivel and whining. Al Gore is Henny-Penny.

drmojo said...

PR department working overtime to come up with that one. Sad thing is it will work. The whole attack people who disagree with your policy or your handling of the war thing is grating on me though. There does need to be much more accountability for what has and is happening. We owe it to the military people who are taking the brunt of this. They want to fight for and defend their country - an honorable calling indeed - but as usual they wind up having to suffer fools, fighting for political ideology and agenda.

The Political Impaler said...

I didn't vote for Bush. I don't like him because of the war. Rumsfeld is a brilliant man and being degraded by mediocre blogers is childish.
all you blogers together couldn't wipe his ass.

Anonymous said...

Quicksand,

I am truly thankful for your writings. Your rantings are the best campaign ads I can pass along to my Republican friends and co-workers. The more you go on and on like Michael Moore, the more Republicans I can get to vote during the next election.
Many thanks!!!

quicksand said...

LET'S THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID.
RUMSFELD IS BRILLIANT? PERHAPS.
YOU LIKE THE COACH'S WAR?

YOU DON'T LIKE BUSH BECAUSE OF THE WAR BUT YOU ARE A RUMSFELD DEFENDER?

RUMSFELD IS THE ARCHITECT OF THE WAR.

I CAN'T HELP BEING MEDIOCORE.I TRY MY BEST.
I'M SURE YOU MIGHT AGREE THAT, HERE IN OUR COUNTRY, EVEN MEDIOCORE PEOPLE CAN VOICE THEIR OPINIONS. NO?

AS FOR DEGRADING RUMSFELD...DO YOU SUGGEST THAT HE SHOULDN'T BE CRITICIZED?

MAYBE I'M AIDING AND ABETING THE FASCISTS!

I CALL RUMSFELD 'HENNY PENNY' AND I'M CHILDISHLY BEING DEGRADING.
THEN YOU CALL AL GORE THE SAME NAME.

I COULDN'T WIPE HIS ASS?
YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT CHILDISH DEGRADATION?

NOW THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN THAT OUT OF YOUR SYSTEM...HOW ABOUT SOME THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS.

quicksand said...

DEAR MR. REPUBLICAN

WHILE I GENERALLY DISAGREE WITH THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM, I CAN LIVE WITH A DECENT REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.
BUT THIS ADMINISTRATION IS NOT DECENT.
I HOPE I NEVER SAY ANYTHING TO TURN ANYONE INTO A SUPPORTER OF GEORGE BUSH.

Ben's friend said...

To anonymous:

O.K. I suspect that your comment suggesting that the postings were like sixth grade year book entries referred at least partially to me. You do have a point. Ad hominum attacks are clearly cheap shots. Yet, sometimes it is hard to resist. Do you dispute that Rumsfeld has a mean face? Or that Bush is much less than a genius? Shouldn't we demand that our president (and the most powerful man in the world) be able to string four consecutive words together to make a coherent sentence? Forgive me if my venting is immature, and mean spirited.

The Ancient Rocker said...

Dear Anon,
I am thrilled to know that you find my wording cute... However, I prefer poignant.. Agreeing with Bruce about the war does not make me feel good. The death of my fellow americans at 2600 plus and counting does not make me feel good.War without national committment or political will makes me ill. I love this country but am tired of mypoic ssports distracted countrymen.
A new leader needs to emerge from ..I say Hillary in 08 and Obama in 2012

Until then vote for the democrats,end the war and end the maddness of single party politics.

Anonymous said...

Hillary??? Really???
She was,and I believe still is, a Hawk I think I can count on when it comes to the war and support for Isreal, no matter what she says to appease the Liberal/Anti-war Left...If elected as our prez as you so desire, she'll have to come out swinging like a Hawk on crack cocaine to show the world she won't be weak. Don't doubt it for a second. I won't be voting for her, but I know I can count on her.

Anonymous said...

"Until then vote for the democrats,end the war and end the maddness of single party politics."

Translation: Vote for democrats, retreat, abandon a newly elected government that needs our support, and empower fanatics who already know we are weak because of people like you.

You write that the deaths of 2600 americans makes you ill. How many more americans will die in the future if we don't stay in Iraq and try to leave a government that can defend itself and her citizens? How many more americans will die if radical muslims see that they can blow themselves up and cause us to run with our tail between our legs? Beirut, Somalia, the first attack on the Twin Towers, the embassy bombings in Africa, etc. Each an example of your "concerned for american lives" policy which has empowered radical muslims into thinking they can do what they want without consequences.

quicksand said...

THERE IS NO TEXTBOOK PROCEDURE WE CAN USE TO GET OUT OF THIS IRAQIAN DILEMMA.
THE PEOPLE WHO CAUTIONED AGAINST THE INVASION WERE PAINFULLY CORRECT.WE HAVE DONE MUCH MORE HARM THAN GOOD. I INCLUDE OUR OWN SECURITY IN THAT EQUATION.
WE ARE NOW MIRED IN A LOSE-LOSE SITUATION.
THE BEST WE MIGHT HOPE FOR NOW IS FOR OUR GOVERNMENT TO SPEAK THE TRUTH. UNLIKELY.

Anonymous said...

Quicksand,

You are watching too much network news.

Many provinces of Iraq are not nearly as violent as we are lead to believe by the mainstream media.
I fully acknowledge we are facing extremely challenging circumstances. Read about any military battles this country has been in and you'll discover that we have been in pretty bleak positions before.

Your attitude will get us nowhere.

Ben's friend said...

To anonymous:
I love it! You say the quicksand's attitude will get us nowhere? Bush's foriegn policies will get us nowhere.Or maybe more accurately it will get us somwhere, more trouble. He is the one who got us into this war with at best a mistake, at worst a lie about WMD. He was the one who unilaterally launched an attack on a soveriegn nation claiming that they were defying U.N. inspections (at the time we invaded, Saddam was allowing the U.N. inspectors to do their work.) He was the one who at very least allowed and possibly encouraged the perception that somehow Iraq was involved in 9-11. He was the one who even ignored the advice of his father about attacking Iraq. He was the one who squandered the good will of the entire world after 9-11 by attaking Iraq because it was a convenient target, rather than the correct target. He was the one, or at least his administration who suggested that this would be an easy victory with the Iraquis showering us with roses as we victoriously marched through the streets. And don't suggest that I am supporting the likes of Saddam Hussien, a despicable tyrant. We have often put up with, or worse supported despicable tyrants when it was in our interests. So the idea that we did this for humanitarian reasons is clearly ludicrous.

It was clearly a strategic and moral mistake to go into Iraq. Once you believe that the next logical thing to do is admit the mistake and not continue to make the same mistake. When the captain of the Titanic realized he was headed for an iceberg he tried desperately to "cut and run." He didn't "stay the course." Too bad the current administration doesn't have the same common sense, or honesty.

Anonymous said...

I refuse to debate someone who writes,"at the time we invaded, Saddam was allowing the U.N. inspectors to do their work"

Enjoy!!! Bank to ranting without any opposing views. I believe that's what is truly wanted here anyway.

The Political Impaler said...

I am not sticking up for Rumsfeld, but critize him for the way he ran this unholy and illegal war and not for something meaningless he said like fascist. If you think the democrats are going to do any better you are mistaken. All politicans are dishonest and crooks. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it. Do you really want that incompetent,lying bitch, Nancy Pelosi two heartbeats away from the presidency. Be afraid,be very afraid. The republicans and democrats have destroyed this country. They can no longer be trusted. I have no idea what the answer is but I know its not John McCain or Hillary Clinton.

Ben's friend said...

to anonymous
How convenient that you refuse to address any of my points, because you question the historical accuracy of one parenthetical. Of course you can refuse to debate me. That is your right, but you should know what you are talking about before you closemindedly dismiss my claim. Check the facts. It is true. For a long time Saddam Hussein was playing a game of cat and mouse with the U.N. inspectors. He would let them in, then throw them out. Then he would let them in under very strict guidelines. Then he would dismiss them again and bring them back as long as they gave prior notice as to what and where they were inspecting. Of course the U.S. legitimately assumed at this point that they were getting prior notice in order to hide things before the inspection. At one point Saddam insisted that his presidential palaces were sacrosanct and off limits. However, the inconvenient truth that you choose to ignore (and was only a very small part of my argument)is that at the time that the U.S. had decided to invade Iraq, Saddam was allowing inspectors access to sites. You have fallen prey to Bush's tactic of repeating something often enough in the hope that people will just accept it as true. He repeatedly said that one of the reasons that we must invade Iraq was because Saddam was refusing access to U.N. inspectors. That is only a partial truth. Saddam had kicked U.N. inspectors out on several occassions, but at the time the U.S. had crossed the Iraqui "rubicon" Saddam was cooperating. If you check the facts you will find that I am right. Sorry to see that you fell for the Bush administrations shell game with the truth. But take comfort. You are not alone.I dare say that many U.S. citizens still think that Saddam is the same person as Ossama. I know that you are more astute than that, however.

Ben's friend said...

P.S. to anonymous

Why is it that what you have to say is
an "opposing view," while what someone else has to say which you don't like or agree with is a "rant?" Come on! Isn't this venue supposed to be a forum for us to exchange views rather than dismiss other's views as rants?

The Political Impaler said...

to bens friend

every intelligence agency in the world said he had WMD. All your great Democratic senators and congressmen said he had WMD. At Sadams trial his generals stated they thought he had gas because they wanted to use it on the coalition troops marching on bagdad. Only then did they realize he was lying, but you with your great intelligence knew there were no WMD, yea right. Stop patting yourself on the shoulder. Your a monday morning quaterback like the rest of us, no more, no less. The only person that knew if there were WMD was Sadam himself.

Anonymous said...

UN Report
(There's plenty more if your interested in facts)


Immediately following the Gulf war, the Iraqi Presidency collected reports on weapons remaining with Iraq's Armed Forces after the war, including its weapons prohibited by recently adopted resolution 687(1991). Such documents were provided to the Presidency in the spring of 1991. A decision was taken by a high-level committee (one of whose members was Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Tariq Aziz) to provide to the Commission only a portion of its proscribed weapons, their components and production capabilities and stocks. The policy, as deduced from a range of evidence available to the Commission including the initial false Iraq’s declarations, was based on the following Iraqi actions:
-- provide a portion of their extensive weapon stocks, with an emphasis on those, which were least modern.
-- retain production capability and the "know-how" documentation necessary to revive programmes when possible
-- conceal the full extent of chemical weapons programmes, including its VX project, and retain production equipment and raw materials
-- conceal the number and type of BW and CW warheads for proscribed missiles
-- conceal indigenous long-range missile production, and retain production capabilities, specifically with respect to guidance systems and missile engines
-- conceal the very existence of its offensive biological weapons programme and retain all production capabilities

blog1 said...

Anonymous: You sound like another Republican lap dog buying the Fox News version of why we went to War! I can't believe you how you have taken this bait and believe these lies. Below is an article written by James Bamford published in Rolling Stone Magazine earlier this year. It's scary to think of how we are manipulated by the Bush PR machine. Blog1
 
The Man Who Sold the War
Meet John Rendon, Bush's general in the propaganda war
By JAMES BAMFORD

The road to war in Iraq led through many unlikely places. One of them was a chic hotel nestled among the strip bars and brothels that cater to foreigners in the town of Pattaya, on the Gulf of Thailand.
On December 17th, 2001, in a small room within the sound of the crashing tide, a CIA officer attached metal electrodes to the ring and index fingers of a man sitting pensively in a padded chair. The officer then stretched a black rubber tube, pleated like an accordion, around the man's chest and another across his abdomen. Finally, he slipped a thick cuff over the man's brachial artery, on the inside of his upper arm.
Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty-three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now determined to bring down Saddam Hussein. For hours, as thin mechanical styluses traced black lines on rolling graph paper, al-Haideri laid out an explosive tale. Answering yes and no to a series of questions, he insisted repeatedly that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam's men to secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al-Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in Baghdad.
It was damning stuff -- just the kind of evidence the Bush administration was looking for. If the charges were true, they would offer the White House a compelling reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. That's why the Pentagon had flown a CIA polygraph expert to Pattaya: to question al-Haideri and confirm, once and for all, that Saddam was secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
There was only one problem: It was all a lie. After a review of the sharp peaks and deep valleys on the polygraph chart, the intelligence officer concluded that al-Haideri had made up the entire story, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa.
The fabrication might have ended there, the tale of another political refugee trying to scheme his way to a better life. But just because the story wasn't true didn't mean it couldn't be put to good use. Al-Haideri, in fact, was the product of a clandestine operation -- part espionage, part PR campaign -- that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose of selling the world a war. And the man who had long been in charge of the marketing was a secretive and mysterious creature of the Washington establishment named John Rendon.
Rendon is a man who fills a need that few people even know exists. Two months before al-Haideri took the lie-detector test, the Pentagon had secretly awarded him a $16 million contract to target Iraq and other adversaries with propaganda. One of the most powerful people in Washington, Rendon is a leader in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against Saddam. It was as if President John F. Kennedy had outsourced the Bay of Pigs operation to the advertising and public-relations firm of J. Walter Thompson.
"They're very closemouthed about what they do," says Kevin McCauley, an editor of the industry trade publication O'Dwyer's PR Daily. "It's all cloak-and-dagger stuff."
Although Rendon denies any direct involvement with al-Haideri, the defector was the latest salvo in a secret media war set in motion by Rendon. In an operation directed by Ahmad Chalabi -- the man Rendon helped install as leader of the INC -- the defector had been brought to Thailand, where he huddled in a hotel room for days with the group's spokesman, Zaab Sethna. The INC routinely coached defectors on their stories, prepping them for polygraph exams, and Sethna was certainly up to the task -- he got his training in the art of propaganda on the payroll of the Rendon Group. According to Francis Brooke, the INC's man in Washington and himself a former Rendon employee, the goal of the al-Haideri operation was simple: pressure the United States to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.
As the CIA official flew back to Washington with failed lie-detector charts in his briefcase, Chalabi and Sethna didn't hesitate. They picked up the phone, called two journalists who had a long history of helping the INC promote its cause and offered them an exclusive on Saddam's terrifying cache of WMDs.
For the worldwide broadcast rights, Sethna contacted Paul Moran, an Australian freelancer who frequently worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corp. "I think I've got something that you would be interested in," he told Moran, who was living in Bahrain. Sethna knew he could count on the trim, thirty-eight-year-old journalist: A former INC employee in the Middle East, Moran had also been on Rendon's payroll for years in "information operations," working with Sethna at the company's London office on Catherine Place, near Buckingham Palace.
"We were trying to help the Kurds and the Iraqis opposed to Saddam set up a television station," Sethna recalled in a rare interview broadcast on Australian television. "The Rendon Group came to us and said, 'We have a contract to kind of do anti-Saddam propaganda on behalf of the Iraqi opposition.' What we didn't know -- what the Rendon Group didn't tell us -- was in fact it was the CIA that had hired them to do this work."
The INC's choice for the worldwide print exclusive was equally easy: Chalabi contacted Judith Miller of The New York Times. Miller, who was close to I. Lewis Libby and other neoconservatives in the Bush administration, had been a trusted outlet for the INC's anti-Saddam propaganda for years. Not long after the CIA polygraph expert slipped the straps and electrodes off al-Haideri and declared him a liar, Miller flew to Bangkok to interview him under the watchful supervision of his INC handlers. Miller later made perfunctory calls to the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, but despite her vaunted intelligence sources, she claimed not to know about the results of al-Haideri's lie-detector test. Instead, she reported that unnamed "government experts" called his information "reliable and significant" -- thus adding a veneer of truth to the lies.
Her front-page story, which hit the stands on December 20th, 2001, was exactly the kind of exposure Rendon had been hired to provide. AN IRAQI DEFECTOR TELLS OF WORK ON AT LEAST 20 HIDDEN WEAPONS SITES, declared the headline. "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer," Miller wrote, "said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." If verified, she noted, "his allegations would provide ammunition to officials within the Bush administration who have been arguing that Mr. Hussein should be driven from power partly because of his unwillingness to stop making weapons of mass destruction, despite his pledges to do so."
For months, hawks inside and outside the administration had been pressing for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. Now, thanks to Miller's story, they could point to "proof" of Saddam's "nuclear threat." The story, reinforced by Moran's on-camera interview with al-Haideri on the giant Australian Broadcasting Corp., was soon being trumpeted by the White House and repeated by newspapers and television networks around the world. It was the first in a long line of hyped and fraudulent stories that would eventually propel the U.S. into a war with Iraq -- the first war based almost entirely on a covert propaganda campaign targeting the media.
By law, the Bush administration is expressly prohibited from disseminating government propaganda at home. But in an age of global communications, there is nothing to stop it from planting a phony pro-war story overseas -- knowing with certainty that it will reach American citizens almost instantly. A recent congressional report suggests that the Pentagon may be relying on "covert psychological operations affecting audiences within friendly nations." In a "secret amendment" to Pentagon policy, the report warns, "psyops funds might be used to publish stories favorable to American policies, or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of administration policies." The report also concludes that military planners are shifting away from the Cold War view that power comes from superior weapons systems. Instead, the Pentagon now believes that "combat power can be enhanced by communications networks and technologies that control access to, and directly manipulate, information. As a result, information itself is now both a tool and a target of warfare."
It is a belief John Rendon encapsulated in a speech to cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1996. "I am not a national-security strategist or a military tactician," he declared. "I am a politician, a person who uses communication to meet public-policy or corporate-policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception manager." To explain his philosophy, Rendon paraphrased a journalist he knew from his days as a staffer on the presidential campaigns of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter: "This is probably best described in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, when he wrote, 'When things turn weird, the weird turn pro.'"
John Walter Rendon Jr. rises at 3 a.m. each morning after six hours of sleep, turns on his Apple computer and begins ingesting information -- overnight news reports, e-mail messages, foreign and domestic newspapers, and an assortment of government documents. According to Pentagon documents obtained by Rolling Stone, the Rendon Group is authorized "to research and analyze information classified up to Top Secret/SCI/SI/TK/G/HCS" -- an extraordinarily high level of clearance granted to only a handful of defense contractors. "SCI" stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information, data classified higher than Top Secret. "SI" is Special Intelligence, very secret communications intercepted by the National Security Agency. "TK" refers to Talent/Keyhole, code names for imagery from reconnaissance aircraft and spy satellites. "G" stands for Gamma (communications intercepts from extremely sensitive sources) and "HCS" means Humint Control System (information from a very sensitive human source). Taken together, the acronyms indicate that Rendon enjoys access to the most secret information from all three forms of intelligence collection: eavesdropping, imaging satellites and human spies.
Rendon lives in a multimillion-dollar home in Washington's exclusive Kalorama neighborhood. A few doors down from Rendon is the home of former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara; just around the corner lives current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. At fifty-six, Rendon wears owlish glasses and combs his thick mane of silver-gray hair to the side, Kennedy-style. He heads to work each morning clad in a custom-made shirt with his monogram on the right cuff and a sharply tailored blue blazer that hangs loose around his bulky frame. By the time he pulls up to the Rendon Group's headquarters near Dupont Circle, he has already racked up a handsome fee for the morning's work: According to federal records, Rendon charges the CIA and the Pentagon $311.26 an hour for his services.
Rendon is one of the most influential of the private contractors in Washington who are increasingly taking over jobs long reserved for highly trained CIA employees. In recent years, spies-for-hire have begun to replace regional desk officers, who control clandestine operations around the world; watch officers at the agency's twenty-four-hour crisis center; analysts, who sift through reams of intelligence data; and even counterintelligence officers in the field, who oversee meetings between agents and their recruited spies. According to one senior administration official involved in intelligence-budget decisions, half of the CIA's work is now performed by private contractors -- people completely unaccountable to Congress. Another senior budget official acknowledges privately that lawmakers have no idea how many rent-a-spies the CIA currently employs -- or how much unchecked power they enjoy.
Unlike many newcomers to the field, however, Rendon is a battle-tested veteran who has been secretly involved in nearly every American shooting conflict in the past two decades. In the first interview he has granted in decades, Rendon offered a peek through the keyhole of this seldom-seen world of corporate spooks -- a rarefied but growing profession. Over a dinner of lamb chops and a bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape at a private Washington club, Rendon was guarded about the details of his clandestine work -- but he boasted openly of the sweep and importance of his firm's efforts as a for-profit spy. "We've worked in ninety-one countries," he said. "Going all the way back to Panama, we've been involved in every war, with the exception of Somalia."
It is an unusual career twist for someone who entered politics as an opponent of the Vietnam War. The son of a stockbroker, Rendon grew up in New Jersey and stumped for McGovern before graduating from Northeastern University. "I was the youngest state coordinator," he recalls. "I had Maine. They told me that I understood politics -- which was a stretch, being so young." Rendon, who went on to serve as executive director of the Democratic National Committee, quickly mastered the combination of political skulduggery and media manipulation that would become his hallmark. In 1980, as the manager of Jimmy Carter's troops at the national convention in New York, he was sitting alone in the bleachers at Madison Square Garden when a reporter for ABC News approached him. "They actually did a little piece about the man behind the curtain," Rendon says. "A Wizard of Oz thing." It was a role he would end up playing for the rest of his life.
After Carter lost the election and the hard-right Reagan revolutionaries came to power in 1981, Rendon went into business with his younger brother Rick. "Everybody started consulting," he recalls. "We started consulting." They helped elect John Kerry to the Senate in 1984 and worked for the AFL-CIO to mobilize the union vote for Walter Mondale's presidential campaign. Among the items Rendon produced was a training manual for union organizers to operate as political activists on behalf of Mondale. To keep the operation quiet, Rendon stamped CONFIDENTIAL on the cover of each of the blue plastic notebooks. It was a penchant for secrecy that would soon pervade all of his consulting deals.
To a large degree, the Rendon Group is a family affair. Rendon's wife, Sandra Libby, handles the books as chief financial officer and "senior communications strategist." Rendon's brother Rick serves as senior partner and runs the company's Boston office, producing public-service announcements for the Whale Conservation Institute and coordinating Empower Peace, a campaign that brings young people in the Middle East in contact with American kids through video-conferencing technology. But the bulk of the company's business is decidedly less liberal and peace oriented. Rendon's first experience in the intelligence world, in fact, came courtesy of the Republicans. "Panama," he says, "brought us into the national-security environment."
In 1989, shortly after his election, President George H.W. Bush signed a highly secret "finding" authorizing the CIA to funnel $10 million to opposition forces in Panama to overthrow Gen. Manuel Noriega. Reluctant to involve agency personnel directly, the CIA turned to the Rendon Group. Rendon's job was to work behind the scenes, using a variety of campaign and psychological techniques to put the CIA's choice, Guillermo Endara, into the presidential palace. Cash from the agency, laundered through various bank accounts and front organizations, would end up in Endara's hands, who would then pay Rendon.
A heavyset, fifty-three-year-old corporate attorney with little political experience, Endara was running against Noriega's handpicked choice, Carlos Duque. With Rendon's help, Endara beat Duque decisively at the polls -- but Noriega simply named himself "Maximum Leader" and declared the election null and void. The Bush administration then decided to remove Noriega by force -- and Rendon's job shifted from generating local support for a national election to building international support for regime change. Within days he had found the ultimate propaganda tool.
At the end of a rally in support of Endara, a band of Noriega's Dignity Battalion -- nicknamed "Dig Bats" and called "Doberman thugs" by Bush -- attacked the crowd with wooden planks, metal pipes and guns. Gang members grabbed the bodyguard of Guillermo Ford, one of Endara's vice-presidential candidates, pushed him against a car, shoved a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. With cameras snapping, the Dig Bats turned on Ford, batting his head with a spike-tipped metal rod and pounding him with heavy clubs, turning his white guayabera bright red with blood -- his own, and that of his dead bodyguard.
Within hours, Rendon made sure the photos reached every newsroom in the world. The next week an image of the violence made the cover of Time magazine with the caption POLITICS PANAMA STYLE: NORIEGA BLUDGEONS HIS OPPOSITION, AND THE U.S. TURNS UP THE HEAT. To further boost international support for Endara, Rendon escorted Ford on a tour of Europe to meet British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the Italian prime minister and even the pope. In December 1989, when Bush decided to invade Panama, Rendon and several of his employees were on one of the first military jets headed to Panama City.
"I arrived fifteen minutes before it started," Rendon recalls. "My first impression is having the pilot in the plane turn around and say, 'Excuse me, sir, but if you look off to the left you'll see the attack aircraft circling before they land.' Then I remember this major saying, 'Excuse me, sir, but do you know what the air-defense capability of Panama is at the moment?' I leaned into the cockpit and said, 'Look, major, I hope by now that's no longer an issue.'"
Moments later, Rendon's plane landed at Howard Air Force Base in Panama. "I needed to get to Fort Clayton, which was where the president was," he says. "I was choppered over -- and we took some rounds on the way." There, on a U.S. military base surrounded by 24,000 U.S. troops, heavy tanks and Combat Talon AC-130 gunships, Rendon's client, Endara, was at last sworn in as president of Panama.
Rendon's involvement in the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein began seven months later, in July 1990. Rendon had taken time out for a vacation -- a long train ride across Scotland -- when he received an urgent call. "Soldiers are massing at the border outside of Kuwait," he was told. At the airport, he watched the beginning of the Iraqi invasion on television. Winging toward Washington in the first-class cabin of a Pan Am 747, Rendon spent the entire flight scratching an outline of his ideas in longhand on a yellow legal pad.
"I wrote a memo about what the Kuwaitis were going to face, and I based it on our experience in Panama and the experience of the Free French operation in World War II," Rendon says. "This was something that they needed to see and hear, and that was my whole intent. Go over, tell the Kuwaitis, 'Here's what you've got -- here's some observations, here's some recommendations, live long and prosper.'"
Back in Washington, Rendon immediately called Hamilton Jordan, the former chief of staff to President Carter and an old friend from his Democratic Party days. "He put me in touch with the Saudis, the Saudis put me in touch with the Kuwaitis and then I went over and had a meeting with the Kuwaitis," Rendon recalls. "And by the time I landed back in the United States, I got a phone call saying, 'Can you come back? We want you to do what's in the memo.'"
What the Kuwaitis wanted was help in selling a war of liberation to the American government -- and the American public. Rendon proposed a massive "perception management" campaign designed to convince the world of the need to join forces to rescue Kuwait. The Kuwaiti government in exile agreed to pay Rendon $100,000 a month for his assistance.
To coordinate the operation, Rendon opened an office in London. Once the Gulf War began, he remained extremely busy trying to prevent the American press from reporting on the dark side of the Kuwaiti government, an autocratic oil-tocracy ruled by a family of wealthy sheiks. When newspapers began reporting that many Kuwaitis were actually living it up in nightclubs in Cairo as Americans were dying in the Kuwaiti sand, the Rendon Group quickly counterattacked. Almost instantly, a wave of articles began appearing telling the story of grateful Kuwaitis mailing 20,000 personally signed valentines to American troops on the front lines, all arranged by Rendon.
Rendon also set up an elaborate television and radio network, and developed programming that was beamed into Kuwait from Taif, Saudi Arabia. "It was important that the Kuwaitis in occupied Kuwait understood that the rest of the world was doing something," he says. Each night, Rendon's troops in London produced a script and sent it via microwave to Taif, ensuring that the "news" beamed into Kuwait reflected a sufficiently pro-American line.
When it comes to staging a war, few things are left to chance. After Iraq withdrew from Kuwait, it was Rendon's responsibility to make the victory march look like the flag-waving liberation of France after World War II. "Did you ever stop to wonder," he later remarked, "how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American -- and, for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries?" After a pause, he added, "Well, you now know the answer. That was one of my jobs then."
Although his work is highly secret, Rendon insists he deals only in "timely, truthful and accurate information." His job, he says, is to counter false perceptions that the news media perpetuate because they consider it "more important to be first than to be right." In modern warfare, he believes, the outcome depends largely on the public's perception of the war -- whether it is winnable, whether it is worth the cost. "We are being haunted and stalked by the difference between perception and reality," he says. "Because the lines are divergent, this difference between perception and reality is one of the greatest strategic communications challenges of war."
By the time the Gulf War came to a close in 1991, the Rendon Group was firmly established as Washington's leading salesman for regime change. But Rendon's new assignment went beyond simply manipulating the media. After the war ended, the Top Secret order signed by President Bush to oust Hussein included a rare "lethal finding" -- meaning deadly action could be taken if necessary. Under contract to the CIA, Rendon was charged with helping to create a dissident force with the avowed purpose of violently overthrowing the entire Iraqi government. It is an undertaking that Rendon still considers too classified to discuss. "That's where we're wandering into places I'm not going to talk about," he says. "If you take an oath, it should mean something."
Thomas Twetten, the CIA's former deputy of operations, credits Rendon with virtually creating the INC. "The INC was clueless," he once observed. "They needed a lot of help and didn't know where to start. That is why Rendon was brought in." Acting as the group's senior adviser and aided by truckloads of CIA dollars, Rendon pulled together a wide spectrum of Iraqi dissidents and sponsored a conference in Vienna to organize them into an umbrella organization, which he dubbed the Iraqi National Congress. Then, as in Panama, his assignment was to help oust a brutal dictator and replace him with someone chosen by the CIA. "The reason they got the contract was because of what they had done in Panama -- so they were known," recalls Whitley Bruner, former chief of the CIA's station in Baghdad. This time the target was Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the agency's successor of choice was Ahmad Chalabi, a crafty, avuncular Iraqi exile beloved by Washington's neoconservatives.
Chalabi was a curious choice to lead a rebellion. In 1992, he was convicted in Jordan of making false statements and embezzling $230 million from his own bank, for which he was sentenced in absentia to twenty-two years of hard labor. But the only credential that mattered was his politics. "From day one," Rendon says, "Chalabi was very clear that his biggest interest was to rid Iraq of Saddam." Bruner, who dealt with Chalabi and Rendon in London in 1991, puts it even more bluntly. "Chalabi's primary focus," he said later, "was to drag us into a war."
The key element of Rendon's INC operation was a worldwide media blitz designed to turn Hussein, a once dangerous but now contained regional leader, into the greatest threat to world peace. Each month, $326,000 was passed from the CIA to the Rendon Group and the INC via various front organizations. Rendon profited handsomely, receiving a "management fee" of ten percent above what it spent on the project. According to some reports, the company made nearly $100 million on the contract during the five years following the Gulf War.
Rendon made considerable headway with the INC, but following the group's failed coup attempt against Saddam in 1996, the CIA lost confidence in Chalabi and cut off his monthly paycheck. But Chalabi and Rendon simply switched sides, moving over to the Pentagon, and the money continued to flow. "The Rendon Group is not in great odor in Langley these days," notes Bruner. "Their contracts are much more with the Defense Department."
Rendon's influence rose considerably in Washington after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. In a single stroke, Osama bin Laden altered the world's perception of reality -- and in an age of nonstop information, whoever controls perception wins. What Bush needed to fight the War on Terror was a skilled information warrior -- and Rendon was widely acknowledged as the best. "The events of 11 September 2001 changed everything, not least of which was the administration's outlook concerning strategic influence," notes one Army report. "Faced with direct evidence that many people around the world actively hated the United States, Bush began taking action to more effectively explain U.S. policy overseas. Initially the White House and DoD turned to the Rendon Group."
Three weeks after the September 11th attacks, according to documents obtained from defense sources, the Pentagon awarded a large contract to the Rendon Group. Around the same time, Pentagon officials also set up a highly secret organization called the Office of Strategic Influence. Part of the OSI's mission was to conduct covert disinformation and deception operations -- planting false news items in the media and hiding their origins. "It's sometimes valuable from a military standpoint to be able to engage in deception with respect to future anticipated plans," Vice President Dick Cheney said in explaining the operation. Even the military's top brass found the clandestine unit unnerving. "When I get their briefings, it's scary," a senior official said at the time.
In February 2002, The New York Times reported that the Pentagon had hired Rendon "to help the new office," a charge Rendon denies. "We had nothing to do with that," he says. "We were not in their reporting chain. We were reporting directly to the J-3" -- the head of operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Following the leak, Rumsfeld was forced to shut down the organization. But much of the office's operations were apparently shifted to another unit, deeper in the Pentagon's bureaucracy, called the Information Operations Task Force, and Rendon was closely connected to this group. "Greg Newbold was the J-3 at the time, and we reported to him through the IOTF," Rendon says.
According to the Pentagon documents, the Rendon Group played a major role in the IOTF. The company was charged with creating an "Information War Room" to monitor worldwide news reports at lightning speed and respond almost instantly with counterpropaganda. A key weapon, according to the documents, was Rendon's "proprietary state-of-the-art news-wire collection system called 'Livewire,' which takes real-time news-wire reports, as they are filed, before they are on the Internet, before CNN can read them on the air and twenty-four hours before they appear in the morning newspapers, and sorts them by keyword. The system provides the most current real-time access to news and information available to private or public organizations."
The top target that the pentagon assigned to Rendon was the Al-Jazeera television network. The contract called for the Rendon Group to undertake a massive "media mapping" campaign against the news organization, which the Pentagon considered "critical to U.S. objectives in the War on Terrorism." According to the contract, Rendon would provide a "detailed content analysis of the station's daily broadcast . . . [and] identify the biases of specific journalists and potentially obtain an understanding of their allegiances, including the possibility of specific relationships and sponsorships."
The secret targeting of foreign journalists may have had a sinister purpose. Among the missions proposed for the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence was one to "coerce" foreign journalists and plant false information overseas. Secret briefing papers also said the office should find ways to "punish" those who convey the "wrong message." One senior officer told CNN that the plan would "formalize government deception, dishonesty and misinformation."
According to the Pentagon documents, Rendon would use his media analysis to conduct a worldwide propaganda campaign, deploying teams of information warriors to allied nations to assist them "in developing and delivering specific messages to the local population, combatants, front-line states, the media and the international community." Among the places Rendon's info-war teams would be sent were Jakarta, Indonesia; Islamabad, Pakistan; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Cairo; Ankara, Turkey; and Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The teams would produce and script television news segments "built around themes and story lines supportive of U.S. policy objectives."
Rendon was also charged with engaging in "military deception" online -- an activity once assigned to the OSI. The company was contracted to monitor Internet chat rooms in both English and Arabic -- and "participate in these chat rooms when/if tasked." Rendon would also create a Web site "with regular news summaries and feature articles. Targeted at the global public, in English and at least four (4) additional languages, this activity also will include an extensive e-mail push operation." These techniques are commonly used to plant a variety of propaganda, including false information.
Still another newly formed propaganda operation in which Rendon played a major part was the Office of Global Communications, which operated out of the White House and was charged with spreading the administration's message on the War in Iraq. Every morning at 9:30, Rendon took part in the White House OGC conference call, where officials would discuss the theme of the day and who would deliver it. The office also worked closely with the White House Iraq Group, whose high-level members, including recently indicted Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby, were responsible for selling the war to the American public.
Never before in history had such an extensive secret network been established to shape the entire world's perception of a war. "It was not just bad intelligence -- it was an orchestrated effort," says Sam Gardner, a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College. "It began before the war, was a major effort during the war and continues as post-conflict distortions."
In the first weeks following the September 11th attacks, Rendon operated at a frantic pitch. "In the early stages it was fielding every ground ball that was coming, because nobody was sure if we were ever going to be attacked again," he says. "It was 'What do you know about this, what do you know about that, what else can you get, can you talk to somebody over here?' We functioned twenty-four hours a day. We maintained situational awareness, in military terms, on all things related to terrorism. We were doing 195 newspapers and 43 countries in fourteen or fifteen languages. If you do this correctly, I can tell you what's on the evening news tonight in a country before it happens. I can give you, as a policymaker, a six-hour break on how you can affect what's going to be on the news. They'll take that in a heartbeat."
The Bush administration took everything Rendon had to offer. Between 2000 and 2004, Pentagon documents show, the Rendon Group received at least thirty-five contracts with the Defense Department, worth a total of $50 million to $100 million.
The mourners genuflected, made the sign of the cross and took their seats along the hard, shiny pews of Our Lady of Victories Catholic Church. It was April 2nd, 2003 -- the start of fall in the small Australian town of Glenelg, an aging beach resort of white Victorian homes and soft, blond sand on Holdback Bay. Rendon had flown halfway around the world to join nearly 600 friends and family who were gathered to say farewell to a local son and amateur football champ, Paul Moran. Three days into the invasion of Iraq, the freelance journalist and Rendon employee had become the first member of the media to be killed in the war -- a war he had covertly helped to start.
Moran had lived a double life, filing reports for the Australian Broadcasting Corp. and other news organizations, while at other times operating as a clandestine agent for Rendon, enjoying what his family calls his "James Bond lifestyle." Moran had trained Iraqi opposition forces in photographic espionage, showing them how to covertly document Iraqi military activities, and had produced pro-war announcements for the Pentagon. "He worked for the Rendon Group in London," says his mother, Kathleen. "They just send people all over the world -- where there are wars."
Moran was covering the Iraq invasion for ABC, filming at a Kurdish-controlled checkpoint in the city of Sulaymaniyah, when a car driven by a suicide bomber blew up next to him. "I saw the car in a kind of slow-motion disintegrate," recalls Eric Campbell, a correspondent who was filming with Moran. "A soldier handed me a passport, which was charred. That's when I knew Paul was dead."
As the Mass ended and Moran's Australian-flag-draped coffin passed by the mourners, Rendon lifted his right arm and saluted. He refused to discuss Moran's role in the company, saying only that "Paul worked for us on a number of projects." But on the long flight back to Washington, across more than a dozen time zones, Rendon outlined his feelings in an e-mail: "The day did begin with dark and ominous clouds much befitting the emotions we all felt -- sadness and anger at the senseless violence that claimed our comrade Paul Moran ten short days ago and many decades of emotion ago."
The Rendon Group also organized a memorial service in London, where Moran first went to work for the company in 1990. Held at Home House, a private club in Portman Square where Moran often stayed while visiting the city, the event was set among photographs of Moran in various locations around the Middle East. Zaab Sethna, who organized the al-Haideri media exclusive in Thailand for Moran and Judith Miller, gave a touching tribute to his former colleague. "I think that on both a personal and professional level Paul was deeply admired and loved by the people at the Rendon Group," Sethna later said.
Although Moran was gone, the falsified story about weapons of mass destruction that he and Sethna had broadcast around the world lived on. Seven months earlier, as President Bush was about to argue his case for war before the U.N., the White House had given prominent billing to al-Haideri's fabricated charges. In a report ironically titled "Iraq: Denial and Deception," the administration referred to al-Haideri by name and detailed his allegations -- even though the CIA had already determined them to be lies. The report was placed on the White House Web site on September 12th, 2002, and remains there today. One version of the report even credits Miller's article for the information.
Miller also continued to promote al-Haideri's tale of Saddam's villainy. In January 2003, more than a year after her first article appeared, Miller again reported that Pentagon "intelligence officials" were telling her that "some of the most valuable information has come from Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri." His interviews with the Defense Intelligence Agency, Miller added, "ultimately resulted in dozens of highly credible reports on Iraqi weapons-related activity and purchases, officials said."
Finally, in early 2004, more than two years after he made the dramatic allegations to Miller and Moran about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, al-Haideri was taken back to Iraq by the CIA's Iraq Survey Group. On a wide-ranging trip through Baghdad and other key locations, al-Haideri was given the opportunity to point out exactly where Saddam's stockpiles were hidden, confirming the charges that had helped to start a war.
In the end, he could not identify a single site where illegal weapons were buried.
As the war in Iraq has spiraled out of control, the Bush administration's covert propaganda campaign has intensified. According to a secret Pentagon report personally approved by Rumsfeld in October 2003 and obtained by Rolling Stone, the Strategic Command is authorized to engage in "military deception" -- defined as "presenting false information, images or statements." The seventy-four-page document, titled "Information Operations Roadmap," also calls for psychological operations to be launched over radio, television, cell phones and "emerging technologies" such as the Internet. In addition to being classified secret, the road map is also stamped noforn, meaning it cannot be shared even with our allies.
As the acknowledged general of such propaganda warfare, Rendon insists that the work he does is for the good of all Americans. "For us, it's a question of patriotism," he says. "It's not a question of politics, and that's an important distinction. I feel very strongly about that personally. If brave men and women are going to be put in harm's way, they deserve support." But in Iraq, American troops and Iraqi civilians were put in harm's way, in large part, by the false information spread by Rendon and the men he trained in information warfare. And given the rapid growth of what is known as the "security-intelligence complex" in Washington, covert perception managers are likely to play an increasingly influential role in the wars of the future.
Indeed, Rendon is already thinking ahead. Last year, he attended a conference on information operations in London, where he offered an assessment on the Pentagon's efforts to manipulate the media. According to those present, Rendon applauded the practice of embedding journalists with American forces. "He said the embedded idea was great," says an Air Force colonel who attended the talk. "It worked as they had found in the test. It was the war version of reality television, and for the most part they did not lose control of the story." But Rendon also cautioned that individual news organizations were often able to "take control of the story," shaping the news before the Pentagon asserted its spin on the day's events.
"We lost control of the context," Rendon warned. "That has to be fixed for the next war."


James Bamford is the best-selling author of "A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" (2004) and "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" (2001). This is his first article for Rolling Stone.
NOTE: This story has been updated to make two clarifications to the original, published version
Response by the Rendon Group
James Bamford Replies
(Posted Nov 17, 2005)

ben's friend said...

to the political impaler:

Read carefully. Never did I make a claim that I knew before anyone else that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Don't put words in my mouth. I challenge you to show me where I made that claim. I will say that the Bush administration wasn't just caught up in the misconception. They fostered the misconception. They wanted to believe WMD's existed to justify a war that they had already decided on. They "cooked" all the evidence even to a point that they sent a witting or unwitting Colin Powell to address the U.N. with dubious intel.

bens' friend said...

to anonymous

Thanks! Sure I am interested in facts. But you never addressed the issue that you callanged me on, my claim of compliance with U.N. inspections. See my previous comments to political impaler for further thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Was the UN lying???

ben's friend said...

to anonymous:
Please answer my question first!
Why are you avoiding it?

ben's friend said...

to anonymous:
All right! I will respond even though you seem to be avoiding the issue. Your earlier posting stated, "I refuse to debate anyone who says,'Saddam....' " I think that suggested that I was talking through my ass. When I defended myself you insisted on avoiding that issue and bringing up many others to confuse the issue. Producing all sorts of "facts" all of which ignored my claim that U.N. inspectors were operating in Iraq with the consent of Saddam at the time that the U.S. decided to attack. I even conceded that Iraq was deceptive and obstructionist throughout the inspection ordeal. Now you challenge me with the irrelevant question of whether the U.N. was lying. Lying? Lying about what? That they too thought that Iraq had WMD? Perhaps they did. I never disputed that. A large part of the world's perception of this WMD business came from the U.S. which clearly spun the evidence to make it look like these weapons existed to justify starting a war with Iraq. Since you are now putting so much trust in the U.N. why do you so conveniently overlook the fact that the U.N. did not sanction the U.S. war. The Bush administration castigated the U.N. for being cautious and not jumping to conclusions. Now when it is convenient you hold up the U.N. as a justification for our war.

The simple answer to you question is , no I don't think that the U.N. was lying. They were probably simply wrong like others. I do believe that the Bush administration however, cynically used the WMD business to justify Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney's war. Did they lie? I suspect they did. At very least they were very selective and chose evidence which justified a war policy that was already decided.

Did you read the article that Blog 1 reproduced? Very interesting and enlightening.
Good night!

quicksand said...

I HAVEN'T WATCHED NETWORK NEWS IN DECADES.

MOST OF THE WORLD BELIEVED THAT SADDAM HAD WMD. THAT'S WHY THE WORLD CORNERED HIM INTO HAVING
INSPECTORS IN IRAQ.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS AFRAID OF INSPECTIONS.
IF WMD WERE FOUND....THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED.....NO WAR.

IF NO WEAPONS WERE FOUND....NO WAR.

THE ADMINISTRATION WANTED A WAR.
ALLOWING INSPECTIONS TO CONTINUE WOULD HAVE REMOVED ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR.

quicksand said...

FOOTNOTE:

MY FAVORITE ADMENDMENT IS THE FIRST.
I DON'T LIKE CENSORSHIP.
I DON'T WANT TO DELETE MESSAGES HERE.

SO, IT WOULD BE A GOOD PRACTICE FOR ALL OF US TO AVOID INSULTS.
WHILE THERE ARE FACTS, OPINIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE REASONABLE ELEMENTS.
ALSO, IF YOU WANT TO PUBLISH A LONG DOCUMENT, PERHAPS YOU MIGHT JUST ENTER THE WEB SITE WHICH WOULD PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE DOCUMENT.

quicksand said...

BECAUSE I THINK THIS ADMINISTRATION IS DOING GRAVE HARM TO OUR COUNTRY, DOES NOT MEAN THAT I'M A FAN OF NANCY OR HILLARY OR THE PRESENT STATE OF THE DEMOCRATS.

THEY ENABLED THIS DESTRUCTIVE ADMINISTRATION. THERE IS A SCARCITY OF CLEAN HANDS IN OUR GOVERNMENT.
I'M ANGRY AT THE DIRTIEST HANDS.
THE BLOODIEST HANDS.

ben's friend said...

Quite an article by James Bamford posted by Blog 1. Certainly puts the war and the Bush administrations handling of the "facts" in perspective. Obviously, nothing was going to stop the Bush admin from pursuing this war; certainly they weren't going to let the truth get in the way.

mad poster said...

to quicksand
This is not about you and your love for the first amendment anymore. You, Dr. Frankenstien, have created a monster! This is bigger than you...bigger than all of us. We will slash and burn and destroy each other whether you like it or not. I also plan on cutting and pasting all of REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST on my nest posting.

quicksand said...

NO!
NO!
I SHAN'T HEAR OF IT.

I AM MERELY IGOR.

Anonymous said...

[url=http://aluejxfttk.com]KhOXICUiYVt[/url] , ssSfAftKjqHNuZi , http://iluubcb.com