Joe Scott 3: The Body Politic

The Coverup Continues

29 November 2005 |permalink | email article

An increasingly defensive President and Vice President continue to hammer on a central theme: there was either an explicit or implied link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in terms of the 9/11 attacks - sufficient justification to rush to war in Iraq when the real enemy was operating out of Afghanistan.

But in another piece of serious investigative reporting about the Bush administrationís prewar propaganda last week, Murray Waas wrote this in the nonpartisan National Journal that 10 days after the attacks:

ìPresident Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and there was scant evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.î

This information was contained in the Presidentís Daily Brief, a CIA assessment also shared with the vice president and other high government officials.

Waas also finds ìfew credible reportsî of Iraq-Al Qaeda contacts involved Husseinís efforts to infiltrate Islamic terrorist groups, which he regarded as anathema to his secular regime. Apparently the Iraqi dictatorís antipathy to Islamic radicals in 2001 was the same as in 1983.

That year, Donald Rumsfeld, a Reagan emissary, embraced Saddam as a secular ally in the U.S. struggle against Iranís theocratic fascist rulers. Contemplate this cynical flip-flop about making nice then with a bloody tyrant and wonder how Rumsfeld can today keep a straight face in his Pentagon briefings.

The New York Timesí Frank Rich has it right: Bush and Cheney should release the rest of the Presidentís Daily Briefs and other prewar documents that are trickling out instead of fighting the release of such information. That should include unclassified documents found in post-invasion Iraq requested from the Pentagon by the pro-war, neoconservative Weekly Standard.

Instead, the undynamic duo continues to dissemble. Rumsfeld, 22 years after embracing Saddam, now says ìitís timeî for the Iraqis to take charge of their country. No wonder a growing majority of Americans will question today’s rosy new White House strategy for victory which so differs from the facts. Update to follow.

Selling the Iraq War

26 November 2005 |permalink | email article

While it has yet to attract any serious mainstream media interest, a Rolling Stone story published online Nov. 17, ìThe Man Who Sold the War,î by journalist James Bamford, is an absolute holiday must-read given the raging national debate over the accuracy of pre-war intelligence.

Anyone trying to understand how the White House secretly engineered consent for the propaganda campaign to invade Iraq may be well ahead of the snail-like pace of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence by following the trail uncovered by Bamfordís expose. It suggests deceit and deception at the highest levels of government despite angry daily denials by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

A key player in all this, and the centerpiece of the article, is John Rendon, a leader in the strategic field known as ìperception management.î The translation: manipulating information ñ and, by extension, the news media - to achieve the desired result.  Rendon has parlayed being a one-time Democratic Party organizer into being perceived behind the scene as Kuwait liberator and secretive Pentagon propagandist for hire.

His firm, The Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when TRG was hired by the CIA to help ìcreate conditions for the removal of Hussein from power.î

In a rare interview, Rendon ìboasted openlyî to Bamford of ìthe sweep and importance of his firmís efforts as a ìfor-profit spy.î Is this the “smoking gun” article that exposes this administration? It depends on whether the Capitol’s inbred “Gang of 500” decides to take it seriously.

New U.S. Isolationism?

23 November 2005 |permalink | email article

This Thanksgiving, and as the holiday season accelerates, Americans are turning inward in response to rising concerns about the Iraq war and increased anti-American sentiment everywhere. That’s the tentative legacy of Bush 43.

The finding about unhappiness with U.S. foreign policy, in a survey by Pew Research in association with the Council on Foreign Relations - reported by The New York Times Nov. 18 ñ is significant because it is such a large sample.

It includes 2,006 adults from the general public and 520 influential Americans in fields including foreign affairs, security, religion, science, engineering and the military surveyed Sept. 5 to Oct. 31.

The overall result provides sobering clues for candidates in both the Senate and House before the mid-term election next year.

Such isolationist feelings among the public might appear to be a paradigm shift. But, quite the contrary, the same sentiment followed the Vietnam War in the 1970s and at the end of the cold war in the 1990s. At the same time, the poll indicated Americans are feeling less unilateralist than in the recent past.

Nearly three-quarters of those surveyed from the public said the U.S. should play a shared leadership role, and only 25% said they wanted the country to be the most active nation in international leadership - another slam at Bushthink.

Reaction to the war had a ìprofound effectî on how the public and opinion leaders ìview Americaís global role, with majorities from each sector saying they disapproved of Bush’s job as president. While 52% of the public was negative, the figure was higher among opinion leaders.

Forty-two percent of the public said they agree that the U.S, should ìmind its own business internationally ñ up from 30% in a similar poll in Dec. 2002, before the Iraq invasion. The result appeared to indicate less support for the Bush thesis about promoting democracy in other nations.

On establishing a stable democracy in Iraq, the public was more optimistic than opinion makers, with 56% expecting success.