Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
But... I think what hasn't sunk in over at dKos yet, and is still sinking in over here, is the fact that of course Bush lied about Iraq. The run-up was based completely on lies and spin. There was never anything else happening.

We've had the stories from inspectors, we've had the Downing Street memo, we've had Powell's nearly-but-not-quite mea culpa, and we've had the generals resigning en masse. And what's left now isn't so much the feeling of 'Well, that was a bad idea' but more that battered spouse moment of 'I can't believe someone I know just did that...'

The full horror of Iraq hasn't sunk in, because the depths of the horror haven't become obvious yet. And while we're focussed over there, it's easier to deny what's been happening over here.

The dead, the tortured, the maimed, the homeless, and the disturbed are bad enough. But here in The WestTM we're still struggling with the fact that our leaders have been revealed as Stone Age barbarian pig fuckers - who are not just willing to start the war, and willing to lie about it and continue it, but willing to pretend that there's a moral justification for winding up the ethical violence machine which is desperately trying to burn out the humanity of everyone it comes into contact with.

What's most disturbing of all is that we're starting to pick up traces of the same evil in our own morality. Surely we should be able to do more to stop them. Surely more people should care than actually seem to. And surely the ghouls who make the most noise in support of the horror should have been put away somewhere soft and quiet, and shouldn't be out on the streets after however many hundred years it is of Enlightenment values.

In theory we don't do war any more, except for what we like to think of as occasional humanitarian reasons. In practice there's Bush the Pig Fucker, winding up the meat grinder and opening it wide so that the troops, the Iraqis, and anyone else who gets in the way can be minced into an oozing and nasty but very profitable pulp that ends up on the table of the ruling have-mores. The gap is literally shocking, and we're still trying to come to terms with the grief.

But this is where we are in 2007. The only good news is that ten years ago things looked so much more promising. If so much has changed in so short a time, there's still hope it could change again in the other direction at least as quickly.

Somehow, the genie needs to be put into the bottle. And while this diary is an excellent piece of journalism, I think the answer now isn't pointing out that liars lie - because Bush, far more than any other politician in history, lies as easily as he breathes.

It's more about getting wider understanding of the nature of that squatting, oozing monster that's sitting in the White House, and understanding that to him, everyone who doesn't have leverage is a potential mark, and a potential victim. So that the desire for a bit of a change, for Obama or Hillary, is replaced with something a little more stern and basic - such as a push for a return to real values, and not the shrink-wrapped easy-heat con-artistry with a side order of violent physical abuse that's currently so in vogue.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 3rd, 2007 at 08:45:46 PM EST
I think the point is not how much of a liar Bush is. The point is that Papa Bush was a liar, that Clinton and Albright were liars, that the press forgot to look into their own archives from 5 years earlier to call bullshit on the claims that Iraq threw out the inspectors, and that the entire political, bureaucratic and journalistic elite in the US is hell-bent on death and destruction. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 04:57:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry Migeru. I say the same thing below that you said, but I hadn't seen your post yet.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 05:17:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're a little easier on Clinton's coterie ;-)

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 05:17:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Something completely missing in most of the stories about the Democrats' recent, poll-driven anti-war "awakaning" is that Bill Clinton himself supported the invasion of Iraq until at least 2004. Repeating the discredited nonsense that kept coming up as excuses:

...Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

The above quote should be seen under the light of Scott Ritter's statement that:

I can tell you what the Intelligence communities of the world were saying. And there was 100% agreement that Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed by 1998. There was not a single intelligence agency out there saying we have hard data that Saddam retains huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction or that he has reconstituted a meaningful WMD program. Not a single agency! And the reason is that because we had weapons inspectors in place and we could bring facts to table to show that Iraq did not had these weapons, that we had accounted for the vast majority of its weapons and there was no evidence of a reconstituted program.

This was a bi-partisan crime.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 09:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ehm: "awakening"

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 09:58:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I added a link to the first quoted article in the conclusion, thanks.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 5th, 2007 at 01:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
More instructive is this quote ;-
Secy. of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it

What was the "it" ? What is it that they wanted ? Saddam overthrown ? The vatican sized embassy and permanent bases ? What was so important it was worth telling all of these bare faced lies ?

Whichever, it suggests that there was a bipartisan view that, post Gulf War 1, something was worth overthrowing Saddam for, or at least coralling him over. If GB1 was a part of that view, then one wonders if the deliberate ambiguity in response to Saddam asking for permission to invade Kuwait was deliberate. However, it's worth remembering that the US took a lot of convincing that an invasion was justified. Personally I think he was out of the loop.

It was Albright who seems to have defined the problem and been belligerent when clinton seemed ambivalent at best. Of course, Cheney would have bought into the idea and been well placed to bamboozle bush. But what did they want ? Oil is almost too banal, although the country that controls the oil effectively rules the world.

So was Albright a PNAC co-signer ? Or does it come back to likud and AIPAC after all that ?

What was it all for ? What was "it" ?

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 11:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Albright left us with a lot of shit. Two things I can think of immediately:
1- Unfinished Iraq.
2- Expanding NATO into Eastern Europe.
Big political mistakes can last for years if not decades.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 11:33:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What a revelation for me. That's why I wondered why this debate over Bush and MSM lies in the run-up to Iraq war just refuses to die down.

Of course I agree with your point but think of it in more mellow terms - they did it all for your sake (not forgetting their friends in MIC) to prolong the West's domination in the world. This is natural.

The curious thing in all this affair is outrage of public over the exposure of liars - Westerners apparently thought they lead the world as moral authority. Western society long ago used to self-congratulating reports in media so it's not surprising.

by FarEasterner on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 01:12:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd say there is a spectrum of views in the West (both across countries and within countries) regarding how much they buy into leading the world as moral authority, and how much self-congratulatory reports there are (the West isn't any more monolythic than the East, Orientalists notwithstanding), but in general, you do have a point. For centuries, imperial policies have been sold as moral crusades.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 5th, 2007 at 01:28:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

Oil? American exceptionalism? American imperialism? Capitalism? What's the disease?

by Magnifico on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 03:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You could call the Clinton administration people "pre-pig fuckers."
I think it's difficult for Democrats (daily kos?) to recognize that Bush's policies were extensions of the lies and policies of Albright, Berger and, of course, Clinton.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 05:14:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The full horror of Iraq hasn't sunk in, ...

But here in The WestTM we're still struggling with the fact that our leaders have been revealed as Stone Age barbarian pig fuckers

This is the most difficult thing for me to accept :
How come today some can shake hands with a Blair and not feel an irrepressive urge to desinfect the area of contact ?
How come the media dare show us the obscene footage of Blair embracing Khaddafi on his farewell tour ? (BTW, Blair, fare well ? Please.)

Maybe it be like right after WWII, when it took maybe 20 years for the public consciousness to fully grap the extent of the tragedy.

To go back to DoDo diary, it's a great job. I would maybe add an introduction with an indictment of the media, from a more general perspective, how they have their share of responsibility and should be held accountable.

by balbuz on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 06:09:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe it be like right after WWII, when it took maybe 20 years for the public consciousness to fully grap the extent of the tragedy.

And 50 more years to forget it again?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 06:15:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think my focus was on a broader issue: the perpetuation of imperial foreign policy, of which the MSM is an important part, but not the only one. I will extend the conclusion tonight, and put a few words about the media in there.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 02:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series