Maybe it's easier to
grasp this when pondering Sept 11. Our vaunted military did not protect
us from low-tech attacks. America has over 800 military bases strung
across the globe, but the fact is New York and Washington were not
Doubtful? We were warned
about Katrina for years. Newt Gingrich is right when he asks how we can
think we're safe when New Orleans was destroyed under our noses. [Fox
News, Sept. 6, 2005]
Before continuing, I
want to point out an obvious fact. The Bush administration purveys
falsehoods as a matter of policy. Those who prove this are disparaged as
the "reality community." [Boston Globe, quoting writer Ron Suskind, Nov.
These obvious falsehoods
are directed to the administration’s political base, which either
doesn't realize this, or doesn’t care. A few examples of very
significant deceptions are in order.
Bush claimed he invaded
Iraq because Saddam refused to allow inspectors into Iraq (while they
were there). Also, Bush said Saddam refused to disarm. [Nationwide radio
address, Feb. 21, 2004, Office of the Press Sec. July 14, 2003]
It's well documented
that the inspectors were in Iraq from November of 2002 to just before
the invasion, when Bush warned them to leave. CBS publicized their
reaction to Powell's speech while in Iraq, in a story called “The Man
Who Knew.” Also, our own inspectors say Saddam disarmed in the early
1990s, and was left with idle programs. [CBS Oct. 17, 2003, Associated
Press, Feb. 13, 2004]
Bush traveled the
country, repeatedly emphasizing that warrants were required for
government wiretaps, while he had been wiretapping without them for
years. [AFP, Dec. 12, 2005]
Regarding Sept. 11, do
you remember Condoleezza Rice telling us the August 2001 Presidential
Brief was mostly “historical” in nature, vague, not concerned with an
impending attack? The brief warned that Osama bin-Laden was preparing an
attack in America, using planes, activating cells already here. [Los
Angeles Times, April 12, 2004]
You get the point.
I want to show that
Bush’s policies hurt America and our national interests.
warnings of both Sept. 11 and Katrina, we were unprepared and
We invaded Iraq,
although our intelligence officers warned that terrorism would increase
as a result. [The Guardian, Feb. 24, 2003]
While we were told that
the invasion made Iraq and the world safer, the State Department issued
a warning of increased al-Qaeda activity against U.S. personnel and
interests worldwide. [State Department Worldwide Caution]
The invasion was supposed to make Israel more secure, but
their security officers have recently warned the chaos in Iraq makes the
region more unstable and dangerous. [Guardian, Feb. 9, 2006]
All this was foretold by
U.S. and British intelligence.
Military resources were
redeployed away from the hunt for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, to a country
that absolutely was no threat to us.
Former Sen. Bob Graham,
D-Florida, wrote that Saudi Arabia’s role in financing the Sept. 11
attacks was covered up, as proved in the deleted pages of the
Congressional report about Sept 11. [Graham’s “Intelligence Matters”]
Our budget deficits have
private-sector and government analysts warning of a genuine financial
meltdown. Even the mellifluous Alan Greenspan has been warning these
deficits are not sustainable.
Our country's safety has
been neglected, according to the Sept. 11 Commission, which issued
failing grades to the government's response to its recommendations. In
2004, undercover teams slipped weapons past security barriers in 15 U.S.
airports. [USA Today, Sept. 23, 2004]
In 2005, a mock attack
in Boston revealed complete disarray among the terror response units.
[AP, Dec. 27, 2005]
warning about climate change, mercury and soot levels, and contaminants
at Ground Zero, were overruled by political managers. Fifty Nobel prize
winners signed a complaint that science is corrupted by this
Administration. As a result, we miss out on the benefit of scientific
guidance. [Reuters, June 20, 2004]
Our military and
intelligence officers warned that an invasion of Iraq would harm our
international standing just when cooperation was most needed to
coordinate information and responses to terrorist threats.
Also, our troops would
be endangered by incompetent assault planning, and our economy would be
stressed dangerously. The Army itself would be stretched to breaking
because of repeated tours, morale-crunching stop-loss orders,
insufficient protective armor, etc. [Los Angeles Times, July, 4, 2004;
Washington Post, Jan. 13, 2004]
We’re told our troops
will begin to leave Iraq because of improvements in security. The
attacks continue daily, and the real reason, admitted by Colin Powell,
is that current troop levels can’t be sustained without serious damage
to the Army, including recruitment problems. [AP, Dec. 18, 2005]
When undercover agents
are most needed in the war on terror, Valerie Plame was outed for
political sport, showing that our agents are not safe from their own
government. Would you risk your life overseas knowing that?
To those who believe in
the President, I say you live in a dream world. The President routinely
does the opposite of what he says. Therefore, you have no idea what it
is you support.
Mr. Bush campaigned in
2000 on a “humble” foreign policy, deriding nation-building. But he
clearly planned the Iraq invasion before Sept 11, and Condi Rice
testified that the administration decided to remake the entire Middle
East. [UPI, Oct. 19, 2005; Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, Judicial Watch
Web site, March 2004]
How humble is that? How
do you think they're doing so far? Does Katrina make you pretty
confident? They are enacting goals written in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz,
long before Bush was elected. [Carnegie Endowment for Peace, March 19,
Did you know that during
the 2000 campaign?
Bush was going to
restore honor and integrity to the White House. Have you ever heard of
Abramoff? Did you see articles reporting how Rove is threatening
Republicans if they revolt against NSA wiretaps? [Taegan Goddard’s
Political Wire, Feb. 7, 2006]
How about the Medicare actuary threatened if he revealed the
true cost of the seniors' drug benefit? [CBS, March 16, 2004, “Medicare
administrator warns actuary, Rick Foster to not tell Congress the price
Bush traveled the
country assuring us that court warrants are still required for wiretaps.
He guaranteed that. Yet years before, he had ordered wiretaps contrary
to the FISA requirements. Who still has faith in what Bush says? Why
listen at all?
Bush scared us with dire
threats of WMDs in Iraq. Wolfowitz slipped up by saying WMDs were only a
bureaucratic device to gain agreement among individual planners. [AP,
May 30, 2003]
But Bush, faced with
absence of WMDs, told Fox News he would have ordered the invasion
knowing they weren't there. [Fox News, anchor Brit Hume, Dec. 14, 2005]
They didn't matter at all!
Remember the mushroom
Scott Ritter, the lead
U.N. inspector, reported the U.S. knew Iraq had no WMDs since 1995!
[Newsday, June 4, 2004] Blair's minister, Robin Cook, wrote that he was
told by the chief of British intelligence that Saddam had no usable WMDs
before the invasion. [Guardian, July 12, 2004]
Our top CIA analyst in
the Middle East (Paul Pillar) just wrote that the Administration
corrupted the intelligence on Iraq, and invaded for entirely different
reasons. [AFP, Feb. 10. 2006]
We’re told Bush needs
wiretaps to keep us safe. Did you know that he permitted the evacuation
of dozens of Saudis, without proper interviews, right after Sept. 11,
while commercial planes were grounded? [NYT, quoted in AFP, March 28,
Or that hundreds of hours of Arabic language intercepts remain
untranslated? [Justice Department inspector general's report released in
September 2004] Who knows what’s on those tapes. Does that make you feel
I want to draw the
obvious conclusion underlying these few examples.
Bush has been governing
like a King, not a democratically elected President. He lied to Congress
about the weapons in Iraq, and then said their absence made no
difference. He lied to all of us by assuring that warrants were required
for wiretaps, while he was wiretapping thousands of innocent citizens
with no court order. [NYT, Jan. 17, 2006]
He has devised a veto of
Congressionally enacted statutes by signing statements, which declare
his refusal to honor the clear intent of the law. [Boston Globe, Jan. 4,
2006] He claims authority to ignore explicit laws under theories which
caused Justice Department officers to resign, and which Gonzales
admitted Congress would not have granted. [Newsweek, Feb. 6, 2006;
Council on Foreign Relations Feb. 3, 2006]
Republican senators have
pointed this out, but have no stomach for forcing him to follow the law.
They enact a charade of hearings, according Mr. Gonzales credence while
he lied about existing wiretaps. [Washington Post, Jan. 31, 2006]
Instead of censuring
Gonzales, they continue the theatrics, knowing full well he’ll say
whatever is needed to distract attention from the criminality of the
Most importantly, the
lie is given to the “everything changed after Sept. 11” canard. New York
Times reporter James Risen writes that these wiretaps were established
right after Mr. Bush’s inauguration, eight months before Sept. 11. [Risen’s
State of War]
After the attacks,
thousands of innocents were tapped, causing the FBI to be flooded with
useless information. Does this sound like a “highly targeted” tap on
only U.S. to overseas communications?
Dear readers, the truth
doesn’t matter today in Washington.
assumes nobody pays attention, cares, or notices the bulk of its
disinformation. If we don’t wake up, the America we learned about in
school will remain only a shimmering dream.
The British magazine,
The Economist, is right for calling Bush incompetent. [The Economist,
Oct. 28, 2004]
But worse, he’s
dangerous, and has harmed America and the world.
Author Alex Sabbeth acts
as an informal researcher and organizer for several retired intelligence
officers who share his concerns about America's future.