We're asking very traditional questions: Was information withheld? Was there deceit about the information? Those are the familiar Watergate/Iran-contra questions. But they overlook the Ideology of Information that the administration created. By this I mean the whole practice of evaluating all information going into the war not for its truth value, but for whether it promoted or hindered the administration's goal of being free to go to war. The President could have been given every bit of intelligence information available, and he and/or Cheney would have reached the same decision because they would have discarded, discounted, or disregarded most of it. Information that was Useful to that goal was put in one box, Not Useful put in another. Entire categories of information were assigned to the Not Useful box because their source was deemed an opponent of U.S. military action, or assumed to have some other motive. All information from the UN inspectors went into the Not Useful box because they were deemed war opponents, or because it was believed that giving any credence to the inspectors would lead back into the mid-1990s cycle of inspections and evasions of inspections. Any information from the CIA was considered Not Useful because they were deemed to have overlooked Saddam's arsenal in the 1990s . . . just a couple of stories that slipped through the cracks of The Ideology of Information: the yellowcake-from-Niger fraud, which had been debunked everywhere, and the question of the aluminum tubes not suitable for centrifuges . . . The White House didn't so much deceive itself or deceive others as close its eyes to the very possibility that there were any questions at issue, regarding not only WMD but also post-invasion planning. They did so in the name of preserving their freedom to act when and how they wished, and as a result got us trapped in a situation in which we no longer have any freedom of action.Emphasis mine. And of course this approach is still being taken today, to continue to insist that "progress" is being made in Iraq as long as the US continues to "stay the course" regardless of what anyone who has actually been there says. It also applies to Guantanamo and the secret prisons and all of the other illegal and immoral claptrap from the Bush administration.
It is important to call attention to the Ideology of Information promoted during that period because it is very much alive. It is inherent in the Plame leak and to this day in the criticisms of Wilson -- the argument that he was the one who revealed information in his op-ed. It is inherent in the Bush and Cheney speeches: criticism and second thoughts, reminders of alternative information are all deemed simply Not Useful. It's something much deeper and sicker than just withholding or manipulating information.
A driver is stuck in a traffic jam on the highway. Nothing is moving. Suddenly a man knocks on the window. The driver rolls down his window and asks, "What happened?"So I tell this to my husband and he immediately counters with this joke:
"Terrorists kidnapped President Bush and are asking for a $10 million ransom. Otherwise they are going to douse him with gasoline and set him on fire. We are going from car to car to take up a collection."
The driver asks, "How much is everyone giving on average?"
"About a gallon."
After Katrina a photographer was in New Orleans taking photos of the devastation when suddenly he sees President Bush floating past him. The photographer realizes he can either save Bush, or take a Pulitzer-prize-winning photo. So the question he has to answer is: colour film or black-and-white?So I went on a search for more Bush jokes. Found some bad ones and some good ones:
In the light of all the criticism that George Bush is an idiot, the Republicans decide to hold a "George Bush Is Not Stupid" convention. Eighty thousand Republicans meet in the Kansas City Chiefs Stadium.And from Letterman
Trent Lott says, "We are all here today to prove to the world that George Bush is not stupid. So ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce President George Bush."
After the cheers die down. Lott says "Mr. President, we're going to prove to the world once and for all that you are not stupid. So tell us, what is 15 plus 15?"
Bush, after scrunching up his face and concentrating real hard for a moment, declares, "Eighteen!"
Obviously everyone is a little disappointed. Then the 80,000 Republicans start cheering, "Give Bush another chance! Give Bush another chance!"
Trent Lott says, "Well since we've gone to the trouble of getting 80,000 of you in one place, I guess we can do that." So he asks, "What is 5 plus 5?"
After nearly 30 seconds of chin-rubbing and grimacing, Bush meekly asks "Ninety?"
Trent Lott is quite perplexed, looks down and just lets out a dejected sigh -- everyone is disheartened.
But then Bush starts pouting, and suddenly the 80,000 Republicans begin to yell and wave their hands, shouting again "Give Bush another chance! Give Bush another chance!"
Lott, unsure whether he's doing more harm than good, eventually says, "Ok! Ok! Just one more chance -- What is 2 plus 2?"
Bush looks down, counts on his fingers, and after a whole minute, proudly announces "Four."
A moment of total silence, then an electric charge surges through the stadium as pandemonium breaks out.
All 80,000 Republicans jump to their feet.
These GOP partisans start to wave their arms, stomp their feet and create a deafening roar:
"GIVE BUSH ANOTHER CHANCE! GIVE BUSH ANOTHER CHANCE!"
President Bush is on his Asian tour now. He'll visit Japan, China, South Korea, Mongolia. Once again, he's skipping Vietnam.
. . . Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress never declared war on Iraq. The Democrats saw the SAME evidence as Bush, or so Bush says, yet the Dems decided to use sanctions, the UN, targeted military operations, and diplomacy to contain Iraq, and it worked. Until Bush invaded, that is. So what Bush and Rummy are now admitting is that they had the same information that Clinton had, yet Clinton decided that invading Iraq was a dumb idea, while Bush deciced that invading Iraq was going to be a 'cake walk.' Remember that phrase? Yes, Mr. President, keep using this argument. Bill Clinton had the same information Bush had, yet Clinton didn't launch a poorly planned and executed war that has now turned into a quagmire and a money-hole, threatening to destabilize the entire region and fanning the flames of anti-American hatred and terror. So you're telling us you're an idiot. I feel better already.Emphasis mine.
The Legion issued a strongly-worded statement against a Remembrance Day protest, saying: 'Such action would be a disgrace and an offence to Her Majesty as well as to the memory of our fallen veterans.' . . . spokesman Bob Butts said: "We think it's the wrong time and the wrong place."
Here was 'the message' [from Bush]: "While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." In other words, after years of questioning the patriotism of those who criticized his decision or the conduct of the war, he'll give up on that battle as long as we all stay away from the one point that is likely to bring the entire house of cards crumbling down, namely; How the war began. Or more aptly, how he began it.Something like six out of ten Americans now believe Bush lied to get the Iraq War started.
