General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsmy problem with the "Hubris" special
Good so far as it goes, but the main narrative is - "..after 9-11, the Bush team sought to make the attack a pretext for war with Iraq".
IN FACT we know, from the most mainstream of reliable sources, Bush's former Sec. of Treasury, Paul O Neil, that a war with Iraq was a primary driver of the administration from day one.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-592330.html
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
You could go back to the Project for a New American Century document written even well before the election to see the
roots of the policy, but I understand how timid news media might avoid that for fear of being accused of conspiratorial thinking.
I am disappointed that the MSNBC team would not make use of as generally-regarded-as-mainstream-but-woefully-never-discussed source as the O' Neil revelations.
Euphoria
(448 posts)It's crucial to understanding what happened and why
annabanana
(52,791 posts)And that they were looking to 9/11 as a good excuse to sell America on an Iraq attack. (Remember "hit a trifecta"?)
JHB
(37,160 posts)I haven't seen it yet. Did she mention the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton urging action against Saddam? So many of its signers became part of the Bush administration that a letter to him would be comedically redundant.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)As well as other important points in the story.
The end, there s another reason Shrub will never admit it...agressive war s a war crime.
tavernier
(12,389 posts)for one thing, the screams and protests around the world. Congress may have voted for it, but millions of citizens lined the streets around the nation rallying against it. The show made it sound as though everyone was duped, when in fact that was just not true.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)But, it's MSNBC... not Current TV... Nobody's ready for what should be on real prime time...
Cleita
(75,480 posts)at the beginning of the program. However, unless you already knew it came from the PNAC website you wouldn't make the connection.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
She didn't mention O'Neil did she? Or, did I miss it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)be at least 90 minutes. Rachel mentioned the desperation of the Bush cabal to link Iraq to 9/11 as a pretext for war.
Another of Bush's biggest lies submitted for media dissemination was the letter to Congress.
After mentioning the 16 words in the SOTU, it would have been good to mention the letter to Congress before showing Bush talking to Americans. That lie ties it all together.
Hubris: Selling the Iraq War - The Rumsfeld memos
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022394769
Auggie
(31,172 posts)msongs
(67,412 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)it on DU anymore.
delrem
(9,688 posts)it's the simplest explanation and it eliminates all the absurdities about how "it was a surprise".
And it eliminates the absurdities about "controlled demolition".
It's the explanation that fits the goals of the PNAC admin in the US at the time. And it's the explanation for the WoT.
malaise
(269,022 posts)tiny elvis
(979 posts)the slightest effort or deliberate neglect would be participation in the attack
because stopping attacks was their job
how many different things did bushco do to let it happen?
what was the limit to participation?
look the other way and cross their fingers?
even that is MIHOP
Festivito
(13,452 posts)One reads a lot, finds out what has happened, and one wants to throw the book at them! Letting it happen, ha! Those actions sound like they made it happen... I hear ya. But...
Let's not muddy or water down our words.
Can we leave MIHOP for those who think WTC was controlled demolition, that no plane flew into the Pentagon, ... and keep LIHOP for those who think it was a more conventional hit, that the Bush team knew: parts of, all of it, whatever, because it does not matter how much or little they knew. They knew enough.
I preferred HIHOP, helped it happen on purpose. But, all it did was to confuse the conversations, so I dropped it and moved on. Slow progress, but we're getting closer.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)whatever.. It didn't go to the BEGINNING....
It was what it was. Old news for many of us here on DU...maybe new to Rachel's audience.
global1
(25,251 posts)And without mentioning Judith Miller - I believe there was a reference to a NYT article that Cheney referred to in order to make his point. Interesting that contents of that article was probably supplied to the NYT (Miller) from Cheney or his office.
hay rick
(7,621 posts)Yellowcake from Nigeria was highlighted, but I don't think it was connected to Wilson. Judy Miller wasn't mentioned but they showed a NYT headline with her name (and another) in the byline. That story would have been a distraction and was probably better left out if the object was to compress the story into one hour.
The PNAC connection, Paul O'Neill's observations, and the Downing Street memos are all obviously relevant to the story but also reasonable candidates for the cutting room floor if you're trying to make it short and sweet.
global1
(25,251 posts)I believe that she will fill in the blanks and also have guests on that will help round out the story, the lies and deception. My suggestion is that you contact her through her website and urge her to do so.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)it's no wonder important facts had to be left out.
LeftInTX
(25,363 posts)However, Hubris is short and to the point. It also appeals to a broad target audience.
I thought Rachel was able to put a lot of information into 1 hour. I thought it was concise and easy to follow.
Link to the Bush's War
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
yodermon
(6,143 posts)The 8th link from the top is a post I made on DU on June 6th 2005, with that quote as the title.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3797390
It was in the wake of the Downing Street Minutes, and of course we were all hoping it would lead to shrub's impeachment, har har.
More germaine to the OP though are the 2 other quotes in that post, from Colin Powell and Condi, and
Here they are again:
- Colin Powell, February 24, 2001
- Condoleeza Rice, July 2001
frazzled
(18,402 posts)While we knew every bit of that information as it was unfolding. We knew the Prague thing was a hoax, we knew the mobile labs were a hoax, we knew Chalabi was untrustworthy, we knew the yellowcake was a forgery. We knew that the Intelligence report had many qualifications and reservations about things they were saying were proven. We knew it all back then.
I didn't really learn anything new from that show. What I wanted to know was why the media didn't know what we knew, and why they didn't report on it.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)And that Rove was in charge of keeping "records" of which 'media' "didn't want to lose access" and they mostly complied...
just1voice
(1,362 posts)A woman in Greece said it about a year ago "I feel like I've betrayed my children because my generation traded civility for corruption".
Damn straight.
mostlyconfused
(211 posts)There were plenty of dems who were positive about the threat Saddam posed, that he had WMD's (or soon would), and that he had to go. Not hard to find public statements to that effect, or to identify those who voted in favor of the authorization to use force. They should not be let off the hook either. There were really only a few in DC who stood consistently against this.
JHB
(37,160 posts)...which was Phil Donahue's show on... MSNBC. His ratings were good, but the network at the very least did not want to get branded as the "anti war" channel. And going past that "very least", remember it was owned by major defense contractor GE.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)O.I.L., the short version.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)On January 17, 2001, the Onion published a uncannily prescient satirical article. Their prediction of what Bush would accomplish in his years in office was frightening at the time even as it was intended as humor.
ISSUE 4301 ISSUE 3701 Jan 17, 2001
WASHINGTON, DCMere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."
<SNIP>
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.
<SNIP>
Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.
"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
More: http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/
Bush's goal as predicted by The Onion were certainly achieved - in this Bush was a complete success.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)Now that our reality is beyond satire, I think the Onion should be our national paper of record.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Behind everything. And it's not 42.
Fedaykin
(118 posts)[img][/img]
Number23
(24,544 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)We're talking 100's of 1000's dead, millions of refugees, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, a system of disappearing people and sending them to black sites, and a continuing destruction of US civil liberties that US citizens have not yet gotten their minds around in either scope or implications.
President Obama said this: "I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we have to look forward as opposed to looking backward, and part of my job is to make sure that, for example, at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to make Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all of their time at work looking over their shoulders and lawyering... we have not made a final decision but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if some have blatantly broken the law that they are above the law, but my orientation is going to be to look forward. ... ... My general belief is that when it comes to national security what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past."
He has now set up a multinational system of targeted assassination by drones, while ensuring that all "rendering" and "torture" are outsourced to two degrees of deniability.
This is foreign policy, for the most part, so no problem for any American. Except for.... oh yeah... that.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)VPStoltz
(1,295 posts)It had nothing to do with SADDAM - it was all about the oil.
That's what Cheney's secret meeting was about just after the stolen election - divvying up the oil fields among the corporations.
Fedaykin
(118 posts)...and for those of us plugged into alternative media for years since Gulf War I, what was presented tonight on television was nothing new... Norm Solomon, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, just to name a few asked the relevant questions M$M "journalists" were afraid to ask...
patrice
(47,992 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Sure, many of us know of lots of damning evidence that was left out. But that's not what this is about, it's not about releasing a definitive indictment.
It's about being irrefutable. It's about not looking shrill. It's about releasing a powerful narrative that the relatively uninformed can watch and gain a truthful understanding of just how wrong and deceitful the war mongers were about the war with Saddam Hussein.
It was a bullet proof presentation and when it gets talked about we won't have to defend it or explain it.
Well, we might have to note that there's plenty more to be said.
greenman3610
(3,947 posts)but it's damn sad that that is the media environment that we live in.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)drone strikes etc
lunatica
(53,410 posts)I think Rachel's team chose deliberately to keep it simple because most Americans don't know what was really going on. First you present just enough to get them interested in what might have happened. If you present too much, such as PNAC it just sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory coming from wackos. When your aim is to expose the truth which is going to be very painful to accept, it's best to do it in smaller doses.
Even here on DU where we are determined to find the truth it was very painful, and it took us a while to admit that things like the media sellout and the lies were deliberate. Waking up to the truth is a process, and it entails steps, like the five stages of grief. Too much at once will just shut people down and they will refuse to listen.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... can't tell the difference between Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran.
... think everyone in the middle east (except Israel) is an Arab fundamentalist Islamic terrorist.
... can't name the current Vice President, and sure as hell can't recall who Condi Rice was, or what her role was.
... no idea who Fieth, Rumsfeld, Wilkerson were.
... PNAC? What's that, the name of the financial institution that owns the stadium in Charlotte?
Before you can explain the many, many details of the story, you need to get people to understand the broader outline.
And you can't do much more than that in 1 hour.