Bush's worst lie
HHW
Bush's Worst Lie
Bush knew Iraq had zero to do with the security of the United States.
And Bush also knew that a quick kill in Iraq would trick huge numbers
of uninformed voters into thinking he had saved them and saved the
USA, says Jay Diamond.
Jimmy Carter has written a post on the Washington Post's "On Faith"
blog entitled "Presidents Should Not be Liars."
Carter states: “I do not think the President of the United States
should be a liar, and believe that the overwhelming majority of US
citizens agree with me. For security reasons, the whole truth cannot
always be revealed, but it is quite obvious that lies are seldom made
to protect our nation. Almost invariably, the political fortunes of
the prevaricator are at stake.”
While Carter doesn’t mention any recent names or examples, some
obviously come to mind. The most glaring, destructive and disgusting
lie invented and maintained by the handlers of George W. Bush is their
manifestly false insistence that the attack on and occupation of Iraq
is of material importance to the security of the United States.
As in every other instance with this administration, the prime
consideration ... or the ONLY consideration with respect to policy has
been the calculation of the political potential in any situation.
Why this is not written or spoken about more in the press and on radio
and television is an enduring mystery and a monumental failure of
"commentators."
Mark me well, Bush et al did Iraq for no other reason than to bring
about an historic 2004 landslide for Dubya.
They DID think it would be easy and that it would be over in three
weeks, and they DID think that all the American soldiers would be home
by Christmas 2003.
None other than Sean Hannity indicated this to me in a phone
conversation in February 2003. In answer to my skepticism about the
impending attack, he said that he was regularly in touch with people
"at the top" (likely Rove, since Hannity's program is a reliable
transcript of Rove "information") and that they assured him that it
was a done deal, that the main fighting would be all over before three
weeks, and that the troops would be back by Christmas that year.
This is a fact, though Hannity will likely deny it. It is, however,
the blunt truth.
But even if this corroboration had not taken place, it is clear to me
that Bush's political wing, which had sway over everything he did,
also was pre-eminent in the planning of the attack and occupation of
Iraq.
The point was to bulldoze low-information voters into seeing Bush as
having avenged 9/11, and thereby to bring about an historic landslide
in 2004 which would have given Bush the "political capital" to truly
advance his domestic agenda of rolling back the New Deal.
Bear in mind, his first initiative after "re-election" was to vainly
attempt to “privatize,” i.e., END, Social Security.
Well, if he had actually had the "political capital" he bragged about
after barely squeaking by on election day 2004 by less than two
percent (the lowest re-election percentage by any president since
Woodrow Wilson in 1916), he probably would have succeeded in
castrating Social Security, and would have gone into Republican
history (as opposed to actual history) as the man who redressed the
"evil socialist" New Deal, and thereby restored "freedom" to America.
Bottom line: Bush knew Iraq had zero to do with the security of the
United States. And Bush also knew that a quick kill in Iraq would
trick huge numbers of uninformed voters into thinking he had saved
them and saved the USA.
EVERY single US soldier AND every single Iraqi civilian who has been
killed since March 20, 2003, died because they were sacrificed to Karl
Rove's "re-election" strategy for Bush in 2004.
Nothing else.
So God Bless Jimmy Carter.
And for that matter, I leave Bush to heaven and the merciful
providence he purports to believe in.
Jay Diamond is a progressive activist and radio commentator, based in
New York.
ConsortiumNews