There were a couple of items in today's LA Times which apparently extended the trail of deceit that has seemingly permeated all things having to do with Iraq, and perhaps the entire Middle East turbulence.
In the first story, we have to go back two years, to the morning of June 22, 2004, when two U.S. California National Guard soldiers were killed on patrol, Spc. Patrick R. McCaffrey Sr., 34, of Tracy, and 1st Lt. Andre D. Tyson, 33, of Riverside.
The two soldiers were initially said to have been killed by insurgents near the town of Balad, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. However, both American and Iraqi witnesses reported immediately after the incident that the soldiers were not shot by insurgents, but rather by their allies, the very same Iraqis who they had trained to fight and who were accompanying them on the patrol. Within a day after the killings military investigators had developed a detailed profile of the chief suspect.
Yet it was over two years before the army admitted the true details that the soldiers' families had long suspected. During this ordeal, according to the Times, "McCaffrey's parents have become outspoken critics of the White House and continue to raise questions about the killings, and about whether the military attempted to suppress the truth because it could have further soured public opinion about the war."
A document just released revealed that American soldiers who rushed to the scene after the attack learned within hours that the assailants were wearing Iraqi uniforms.
Bob McCaffrey, father of Patrick McCaffrey, was quoted as saying: "You'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt. But it really makes one incredulous lie. They took a head count within an hour. They knew exactly who was responsible, who these damn guys were. Why would they then release a false report - and that's what it was - a false report - other than to save face and not put their public relations campaign in danger?"
My reading on this is that if a decision was made to alter the details of this incident, then it is likely that it was either a political decision, or a military decision based on guidelines issued from a political source.
The second article reported that "the U.S. Agency responsible for administering $1.4 billion in reconstruction funds in Iraq has sought to hide major cost overruns on high-profile projects from Congress by engaging in questionable accounting maneuvers, according to a federal audit released late Friday."
The article goes on to say that "the accounting issues are the latest in a series of problems, including fraud allegations and the soaring costs... that have beset the massive rebuilding effort in Iraq."
Ironically, one of the front page headline stories today also reports that President Bush wants us to believe that the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is really a struggle between the United States and Iran. One U.S. official said bluntly, the U.S. and Iran "are conducting a proxy war" through Israel and Hezbollah.
In making this point to reporters on Friday, President Bush said "I firmly believe (that Hezbollah) is backed by Iran and encouraged by Iran."
Meanwhile, the $64 billion dollar question that occurred to me is, "What are we to believe?" Has Karl Rove actually discovered how to enlarge the president's aura of being a wartime president without any direct involvement?
As far as the Iran/Hezbollah connection is concerned, I'm sure there is one. But the information that has been published on the matter would indicate a much stronger connection between Hezbollah and Syria. In fact, it was recently reported that it had been determined that the missiles and other weapons used by Hezbollah were provided by Syria, not Iran.
Given the long and tortuous trail of deceit that continues to be blazed under the auspices of this administration, and with all due respect to the office of the president, can we really accept any statement from George W. Bush that begins with the words...."I firmly believe?"
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 40
A better question is: how can we trust authors who ignore the obvious?
Hezbollah has an estimated 10,000 Katushka rockets; an inquiring mind might want to ponder where they came from and where the funds to manufacture, distribute and maintain them came from?
Frankly David, one has to question your motivation for the attempt to cover up the glaringly obvious hand of Syria and Iran by employing the weird device of doubts raised by an obscure event attributable to the typical butt-covering and bubbling of bureaucratic Washington.
Your motivations are as clear as they are pathological; but at least you get points for consistency.
You are attempting to clear the psychological landscape of all other variables but that of the focus of your internal rage: the current administration and the thing it symbolizes most, modern western capitalism. You have this strange compulsion to create a cartoon colored only in black and white with but a single focus.
You have done this before with an article that drew weird parallels between lines of text in an obscure papal speech that launched the crusades and modern events in the Middle-East. You did this without even acknowledging the long standing and quite successful Islamic crusade that had swept away half of Christianity and engulfed its holiest of lands.
I can only speculate that you focus on minutia to obscure from your own mind the mountain of facts that contradict your conclusions.
For remaining with your theme throughout the article, he accuses you thusly: "You are attempting to clear the psychological landscape of all other variables but that of the focus of your internal rage." Then he takes it a step further, beyond accusations of treason, to anti-capitalism and support for the forces that oppose Christianity.
His facts are valid (except the part about "swept away half of Christianity" which he fails to acknowledge as a failure of Christianity), such as they are. What he does with them--opinions he also calls facts--is a symptom of mental illness.
He expresses opinions as facts, virtually exclusively, then accuses you of doing the same (which you have not). It's a common wartime practise to accuse your enemy of the same sin which you practice as a way of life. There's a word for that, but I can't remember what it is.
Greg is a slowly dwindling breed in the west, someone who will fight without question or reason for a dying cause. Yhough his leader be proven a liar, a murderer on the scale of genocide and a war criminal the likes of which have not been seen for half a century, he will go down with his leader's name on his lips.
He will accuse you of anything (there wasn't much he left out this time) to discredit the argument you present. He uses another tactic which is a sign of a supporter of a losing cause, he attacks the writer rather than the argument presented by the writer.
Greg has given all readers of this article a peek into the mind of the kind of person who supports the present US Administration.
Really?
Bill, show me exactly how David connected the dots betwen this obscure event in Iraq and statements by the administration regarding Iran's involvement with Hezbollah.
A rational person would require something more as proof from David to support a sweeping condemnation of the administration than the statement.
The next connection of dots falls flat on its face by contradicting its own assertion.
And where is the evidense to suggest that the administration is being deceitful?
Where is the source for this?
Bill, I would hardly characterize the military losses of the Christians in the Levant, Eastern Turkey, North Africa and Spain as a failure of Christianity.
The simple fact of the matter is that Arabs used the religion of Islam to justify and motivate the creation of an Arab empire for the benefit of Arabs across the Levant and North Africa.
The matter of the Seljuk Turks was slightly different.
These are the facts of history; to ignore and belittle these obvious and readily available facts to bolster a bizarre interpretation on modern events smacks more of pathology than history.
If you or David wants to be critical of the Bush Administration then by all means do so; all I ask is that you do it rationally.
As for my loyalties, I prefer reason above all.
The first deals with US Trained Iraqi's killing two American soldiers.
The second topic deals with over-runs with reconstruction funds of US companies.
The third topic deal with the Iran - Hezbollah tie in. And the poor Shea folks in the south of Lebanon that found pride in Hezbollah as Hezbollah gave them ideas they never thought possible and taught their kids how to be militia boys at the age of four. And the wonderful idea of suicide bombers.
Each of these topics deserves it's own discussion and can not be tied to the incompetence or competence of any US administration at all.
Of course the thought of applying the same measures to yourself never has and never will enter your mind.
I personally do not care what you believe, what I am interested in is how you came by your beliefs.
This article and Bill Allin's response to my comments exemplify what is known in psychology as The Black Dot Phenomena. Essentially, if one views a white sheet of paper with a black dot in the middle, the human mind will focus on the dot to the exclusion of the surrounding white.
David and Bill are hopelessly focused on the black dot of The Bush Administration, all else become invisible.
What I would like to see from them and you, Cena, is a little color and a little nuance - - and above all else a little more reason and a little less blind faith.
But of course, there are those who will be standing up cheering joyfully all along the way, simply because they haven't the capacity to question their "wonderfully infailable" leader. John Dean speaks of this personality characteristic in his latest book, and points out that, historically, even though these people are drastically wrong, they are forceful enough, condemning enough, intolerant enough, and loud enough to destroy a democracy from within.
Witness how these folks defend the indefensible and demonize anyone who dares speak out against the wicked nature of the administration and their illegal warmongering.
It doesn't matter to them that we were misled into Iraq on a bed of outright lies.
It doesn't matter that we are now an agressor nation that attacks soverign nations without just cause.
It doesn't matter to them that we now incarcerate US citizens without reason or legal representation, nor does it matter that we torture, rape, abuse, and even murder innocent detainees, including women and even children.
It doesn't matter to them that the world is no longer on our side at all like it was prior to our illegal war in Iraq, nor does it concern them that we are not only not respected and admired in the world, but that we are actually despised.
It doesn't matter to them that terror attacks have increased exponentially worldwide since 9/11.
It doesn't matter that our government now illegally spies on US citizens.
Why? Because, to these people, this 25 percent minority, nothing matters except that their "Daddy" government has offered them a false sense of security, and they'll do, say, believe, and accept ANYTHING in order to maintain that blanket, regardless of how fraudulant and transparent it is.
Yes, we have become immersed in a trail of deceit, not just with elements of the fraudulant, highly corrupt war in Iraq, but with every aspect of this government, our media, and society.
Our president and his administration lie so routinely and so brazenly that few even pay much attention to it. Our media has chosen the path of the war profiteers, quickly and willingly burying any facts that get in the way of, or may hinder the reaping of their ill-gotten gains. Our religious "leaders" condemn peacemakers while calling out for acts of murder against other humans. Dissent is viewed as "UnAmerican."
In short, we're in big trouble as a democracy and as a society, if the 75% who remain rational and clear-thinking don't begin to realize that the 25% are going to destroy us all, if we don't act to stop them.
Thank you for so aptly illustrating my point about The Black Dot Phenomena. The article is ostemisibly about a thread that connects an incident in Iraq with the Administration pointing a finger of accusal at Iran. Instead you choose to narrow your focus to the single issue of Iraq and ignore the whole pallette of other colors and issue involved in the Middle-East.
I find it psychologically interesting that you require that Iraq be the single greatest foreign policy debacle; talk about a narrowing of focus!!!
Why are you not content with it just being maybe a mistake, what is this psychological requirement that it be the single greatest mistake?
I think what you are trying to say is that you are very emotional about this, and very upset. That is okay to think that, but let us have a little perspective, shall we?
Now as to Iran.
It's all connected, genius. Read the PNAC website, read the neocon article entitled "Clean Break," and learn. This has all been planned for years.
"I find it psychologically interesting that you require that Iraq be the single greatest foreign policy debacle; talk about a narrowing of focus!!!"
It wasn't I who instructed the neocons to use Iraq as a launching pad for their plans to recreate the middle east. I just happened to have read their plans, so I happen to know that it was planned for Iraq to be the central focus.
""Why are you not content with it just being maybe a mistake, what is this psychological requirement that it be the single greatest mistake?"
Because the ramifications for what lie ahead could be a war unlike that which the world has ever seen before. I'd call that a pretty signficant mistake, far beyond your average mistake, wouldn't you?
"I think what you are trying to say is that you are very emotional about this, and very upset. That is okay to think that, but let us have a little perspective, shall we?"
As should we all. Anytime a "free" and "democratic" nation is misled into a costly, bloody, endless war based upon lies and manipulation, and that endless war is wrought with rampant corruption, fraud, and cronyism, the public should rise up and physically remove those responsible from their positions of power, and see to it that they are never again allowed to hold any public office.
"Now as to Iran. "
It's all connected. Read and learn.
(Groan)......... yet another stupid conspiracy theory to excite the very young and very naive
you're making this way too complicated. The US Army was caught again in an obvious lie. The lies of the Bush administration about Iraq alone have been accumulating since before the invasion.
Americans have the duty and the right to demand accountablity from their commander in chief!
greg, the bottom line here is the Bush administration's polcy is a total failure in the whole Middle east. It has been based on lie after lie for a while now and funny thing here is Israel has been plyed like a fiddle by GW Bush. The world opinion of Israel has been reduced to barely above terrorism by their actions in Lebanon.
The amount of deception out of the Bush White House is staggering and the number of lives lost is criminal...
David's point is that everything has been twisted to justify things that are unthinkable otherwise under this President.
Wow, what a concept, a bureacracy telling a lie.
Obviously we should be eliminating government at all levels since we cannot trust it.
Odd, how that opinion works.
Let's see,....we have Israel vacating Gaza, on track to vacate 90% of the West Bank to establish a Palestinian State.
Then Hamas attacks a retreating army and kidnaps a soldier, then Hezbollah attacks a retreating army, kills a few soldiers and kidnaps two more.
Israel responds with airstrikes and Hezbollah responds by launching rockets against Israeli cities from the cover of Lebonese civilian neighborhoods.
Hmmmmm......who could be the bad guy here?
Why George Bush............ of course.
Excuse me, but the conspiracy theory is that we invaded and attacked Iraq because of 9/11, in order to save us from the new, big, bad boogieman, "al Qaeda."
Read the material. Then, perhaps you can be the self-appointed expert that you seem to think you are.
"Obviously we should be eliminating government at all levels since we cannot trust it. "
It would be nice if the "conservatives" would at least refrain from expanding it by 25%. What is it with you types and massive government? Can't get enough of it, can you? Whatever happened to that "smaller government" BS that you used to cart around?
"Hmmmmm......who could be the bad guy here?
Why George Bush............ of course. "
Read the PNAC information, and you'll learn an awful lot. Or, ignore it, mock those who have read it, and remain blissfully ignorant. What's happening over there is not an accident.
If I were looking for a cabal of conspiracy why go further than the Anti-War/Anti-Iraq movement being motivated and organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. (The World Workers Party) and other Marxist extremists groups who were on Saddam's payroll?
I find the same interesting Trail of Deceit running through a half century of terrorism and leftist politics.
But that is where nuance and color come in, and Clark, that is also where political and personal maturity comes to play.
If the administration says it's Iran, then it's probably Syria, because, like Sadam, Iran's leader is "vulnerable," whereas they haven't really launched a campaign against the leader of Syria yet....
If the administration says the conflict in Lebanon should continue so as to eliminate Hezbollah, then we should probably interpret that to mean the conflict should continue so as to get closer to the elections.....
Meanwhile, as pointed out above, our standing in the world is sinking like a rock. Our government has lost its credibility at home and abroad.
You have proved nothing but then you never do.
You speculated about the tragic death of some soldiers, then smeared the pentagon then extended the smear to the Adminstration.
Once way out on that limb, you use the fact that you are on a limb to wildly speculate about Iran and Syria.
I am sure David, that sort of thing flies among your social set and with naive kids on the internet, but as an adult I would expect more.
Anyone who has a familiarity with current events understands that Iraqi terrorists have on several occaisons infiltrated the Iraqi military.
Spinning this commonly known fact into the deceit of "the soldiers were not shot by insurgents, but rather by their allies" is, well, what we have grown to expect from David McGill.
What a shocker. Therefore, you have negated yourself from any serious discussion of the topic at hand. Anyone who proudly proclaims ignorance can hardly annoint himself the expert that you seem to think you are, wouldn't you agree?
"If I were looking for a cabal of conspiracy why go further than the Anti-War/Anti-Iraq movement being motivated and organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. (The World Workers Party) and other Marxist extremists groups who were on Saddam's payroll?"
I didn't write the PNAC material, btw. It was penned by YOUR pals in the white house. The only extremists involved in the material that I pointed you to are the nutbags that are currently running this nation into the toilet.
"I find the same interesting Trail of Deceit running through a half century of terrorism and leftist politics."
Nice brush-stroking hyperbole. That'll get you far in convincing others of your views.
"But that is where nuance and color come in, and Clark, that is also where political and personal maturity comes to play. "
Yes, Mr. Nuance/Maturity. You are my idol, indeed. Gosh, if only everybody could be as self-annointedly perfect and learned as you.
"You have proved nothing but then you never do."
But you do? When, pray tell? I see an awful lot of self-inflated bloviating and arrogant (while admittedly ignorant) opinionating, but very little of what I would call "proof" in anything that you've said at any time.
"You speculated about the tragic death of some soldiers, then smeared the pentagon then extended the smear to the Adminstration."
The "speculation" appears to be based upon firsthand reports, reporting allegations of coverups and fact manipulation by government entities does not equate to "smearing," and the administration has earned every bit of damning condemnation that we, as a collective society, can possibly throw upon them.
"Once way out on that limb, you use the fact that you are on a limb to wildly speculate about Iran and Syria."
It's hardly wild speculation that the neocons have Syria and Iran firmly in their sights, nor is it any wild accusation that the neocons are working feverishly to draw the US into this conflict. All it takes is some casual observance to see and hear the neocon drums of war beating once again.
"I am sure David, that sort of thing flies among your social set and with naive kids on the internet, but as an adult I would expect more. "
For someone who openly admits ignorance, you sure seem to sport a tremendous amount of condescending arrogance, don't you?
"Anyone who has a familiarity with current events understands that Iraqi terrorists have on several occaisons infiltrated the Iraqi military."
As if fragging has never before occured in the US military. Please. And, what evidence do you have that this was "Iraqi terrorists," rather than insurgents? Do you happen to know what the difference is, or will you plead ignorance on this as well?
"Spinning this commonly known fact into the deceit of "the soldiers were not shot by insurgents, but rather by their allies" is, well, what we have grown to expect from David McGill. "
Really? If the GI's were shot by soldiers that we trained, and whom are part of the "new Iraqi forces," wouldn't they be generally considered "allies," and if not, why the hell were they made a part of the Iraqi forces?
From what I have seen it is incurable. What I would hope is that after 2008 when Bush is no longer in office that those who suffered from BDS would gradually come to the realization that the sky is still happily blue above them and that life can be peacefull and pleasent when one is not consumed with inner-rage.
Hezbollah started the kidnapping and rocket attacks after Israel beseiged Gaza in response to Hamas kidnapping a soldier. Now, Israel is tied up in the south and treading water in the north, and there's nothing the U.S. can do about it.
And it gets worse. While most of the world wants an immediate cease-fire for humanitarian reasons, Bush doesn't. This will only further radicalize the Arab and Islamic world.
By the way, I'm not a Marxist. I'm not anti-capitalist, either.
From reading this thread it appears you see yourself as capable of detecting bias and malice in everything presented by anyone that thinks the administration has erred. Is it not possible that such a uniform response to anything critical of such an obviously questionable endeavor as the Iraq War, may be reflecting your own bias and malice?
Surely it is reasonable at SOME point to think there are flaws in a mission so fraught with setbacks and surprises. How are we to believe that you are possessed of ultimate truth if you treat each point of contention as a 'conspiracy theory' ?
As for Iran/Syria...who cares which one the Bush Administration labels as the backer of Hezbollah. Either way, this administration is on a slippery slope towards committing more American lives to a struggle we would do well not be involved in.
We do not live in a bi-polar world in which everything oscillates between two extremes. To suggest that Mr. McGill's phantasmagora is irrational is not the same as suggesting that everything George Bush does resonates perfectly with truth, justice and the American way.
I have plenty of criticism of George Bush but not in this forum, for here there is a poisoned atmosphere of paranoia and irrationality that borders on public psychosis.
I have discussed Mr. McGill's self-loathing with the west and his weird and stilted view of reality in other threads as well.
I suppose the thing that bothers me the most about Gather.Com is that any idiot can weave the weirdest threads of illogic and fully expect to be applauded for the effort as long as it somehow opposes this Administration.
Sadly, I attribute this pathetic state of affairs to close association between Gather and Public Radio, a radio service that is definitly not for "the public".
Try as one might to blame gather.com, somehow I don't think it's really about the forum. The country as a whole doesn't approve of Bush's Presidency.
I think Bush's low approval has much more to do with an unpopular war, more wars on the way, $3 per gallon gas, rising deficits, corruption of the ruling party, and a President who is a national embarassment.
Or it could just be liberal media bias!
Actually, what we have here is a clear case of "BWS," or "Bush Worship Syndrome." This is a terribly degenerative mental disease that cripples the ability for one to reason, think clearly, or even carry on remotely intelligent conversations, because they see everything backwards and inside out. Bad becomes good, up becomes down, in becomes out, and of course, Bush can do no wrong. Regardless of the obvious signs of failure and corruption from this failed president, those suffering from BWS cannot put simple facts together and accept reality, therefore are forced to meander through life in a sort of hazy fog.
Fortunately, this disease, which once infected some 90% of Americans, is subsiding drastically, and the only ones who now are riddled with it are those that will likely be afflicted for the rest of their lives, as more and more of their friends and acquaintances abandon their extremist positions and take a stance of rational thoughts.
Best of luck to you with this ailment.
"I have plenty of criticism of George Bush but not in this forum, for here there is a poisoned atmosphere of paranoia and irrationality that borders on public psychosis."
Pot, meet kettle.
Let's hope that Israel has the will to force the Lebanese to stop attacking them and to likewise force the Palestinians to stop. We had to drop two atom bombs on Japan to get them to surrender. I wonder what it will take in Lebanon and if Israel has the will to do whatever it takes.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Great job debating. It appears you were ganged upon by at least 5 different people and you handled yourself well.
yep, quite the patriot.
Ben, are you advocating a nuclear war in the Middle East?
A nuclear "war" is not possible in this conflict, Ben might however be advocating the nuclear annihilation of bothersome neighbors.
He sure did on the old mpr.org web forum. His idea that LBJ's war on poverty killed over 4.8 million Americans was a classic.