What's Really Important The War on Truth
What’s really important to me is to figure out why “…telling the truth is a revolutionary act� as George Orwell so aptly stated. Perhaps it becomes more obvious when we look at the first part of that quotation – “In a time of universal deceit…� Our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, is a perfect example. Every so often he comes out of hiding and appears in public, makes statements that once again have people screaming for his resignation, and then disappears.
Rummy has again resorted to misinformation and hyperbole in an attempt to make all those disagreeing with this administration over “their� war in Iraq feel guilty and shameful about having the audacity to dissent. This time he accused Iraq dissenters of being no better than Hitler appeasers in the 1930s. Keith Olbermann was not very amused. I’m not sure which is more contemptible, Rummy’s repeated comparisons between the debacle in Iraq and World War II, or his continual attempts to label people as unpatriotic or fascist/terrorist supporters because they disagree with the continual mistakes made by him and his administration.
No doubt the idea of liberty, freedom and the American way for many of those presently in American leadership positions is to have carte blanche to do whatever they wish, regardless of the thoughts of the people. Ironically I’d always thought it was the American way to dissent and speak out when one disagreed with those in power. Teddy Roosevelt said it so eloquently -- "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
Although Rummy and his partners in power keep trying to label our enemies abroad as fascists, coining the phrase “Islamofascism,� it is they themselves who violently lash out at negative feedback in the form of public opinion. How often have we heard them label people in America unpatriotic for not agreeing with their inclusion of Iraq as part of the so-called “war on terrorism?� How often have they come up with bills to consolidate their power: the Patriot Act; NSA warrantless wire tapping (declared unconstitutional by a Federal District Court in Michigan); and the classification of more and more information so that it becomes obscured in secrecy, flying in the face of the Freedom of Information Act.
While we continue to be inundated with warnings about terrorists, radical Islamists, now Islamofascists (the label constantly changes), and told how this is making America safer –- on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 the ports remain unsecured (cargoes go unchecked), the borders are wide open and first responders around the nation still don’t have the tools and training they require.
How did the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq morph from Operation Iraqi Freedom to “Better to fight them there than here?� No doubt the Iraqis certainly appreciate this sentiment so un-adroitly voiced by our President. I can just imagine the Iraqis on the street telling themselves “Oh well, our nation is a mess, we are on the verge of a major civil war, scores of us die each day, the infrastructure remains in ruins, but we have the honor of dying here so that America will not have to fight at home.� Are they really better off now than with Saddam Hussein? He at least would not have tolerated insurgents in his country, and could control the various sectarian factions. Perhaps there is a reason Iraq appears not yet ready for a representative form of government?
And where did this idea of Islamofascism Rummy and the administration talk about come from? Fascism is tradionally state sponsored, and Bush et al have constantly reminded us that these “terrorists� have no loyalty to any nation? If you want to uncover fascism look to see what governments speak over those disagreeing with their policies, and actively and systematically bash or attack any dissension.
Contrary to the rosy scenarios we get from Rummy and his partner in disinformation, Dick “the insurgence is in its death throes� Cheney, the situation in Iraq continues to degrade. According to a recent Pentagon study “sectarian violence is gradually expanding north.� The average weekly attacks between May 20th and August 11th were 800, and the average daily casualties 120. This is up from the same period last year when these figures were approximately 120 and 60 respectively. According to a front page headline in the New York Times on September 2nd, “Iraqi Casualties Have Risen 51%…�
So why does anyone accept any assessment of the situation from Rummy seriously, and why does anyone still want him in charge of our troops? How often do we have to listen to the smarmy and condescending answers given by this man with a much less than successful track record? Anyone who has not yet seen the questioning of Rumsfeld at a news conference by former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, should go check it out: Rumsfeld questioned Finally Rummy spoke out before an audience that included a person who remembered the facts and could refute the lies.
I’m baffled that Donald Rumsfeld still holds the office of Secretary of Defense and continues to have the confidence of George Bush and all too many Americans. The President perhaps I can understand, as a person who doesn’t quite get the “fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you� concept clearly. This does not explain the lack of diligence on the part of the American people. Every day we are reminded of a war on this and a war on that, yet how many are cognizant, or care, about the un-going war on truth?
Comments
Great piece, Stephen, and not just because I happen to agree with it word for word. Rumsfeld is at the heart of the disaster, and you've said it as well as anyone I've read.
Posted by: Jaime O'Neill | September 4, 2006 09:29 AM
And you think this administration isn't a carefully scripted manuscript?
Basically, this one-act play is brilliant in its orchestration and timing. It is about the world as seen through George Bush's eyes, narrated by and visible through the lens of the media against the backdrop of various scenarios. We see the opening scene as 9/11. This provides the rationale for the rest of the play. The cast of characters are brought out one at a time to add interest or sympathy. Need an authoritative but "vulnerable" father type (if we stay the course he won't have a heart attack)? Enter Dick Cheney. Need the sincerity of a mother who dutifully goes to battle for her children, warning off those who might confront her family? Enter Condi. Rumsfeld is brought out when the script calls for the sibling who acts out, whose distracting antics make the audience feel sorry for the rest of the family by comparison. George W. Bush? Why, he is the born-again televangelist son, who wins the hearts of his followers while screwing them and robbing them blind behind the scenes.
The Presidential administration offers roles of a lifetime. There is a captive audience, world recognition, always being in the spotlight, and even though you may be a really bad actor, you have a nice long run.
Tomatoes, anyone?
Posted by: AL | September 4, 2006 10:54 AM
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
Stephen, this is such an excellent quote. Along with Orwell's, you have chosen well. As Jaime says, it is enjoyable to read someone who expresses exactly what one feels. Thank you. I only hope the American people vote in the next elections and change the right wing power base in our country.
Posted by: Sharon Bloomingcamp | September 4, 2006 01:32 PM
Al, I think you've hit the nail on the head. One would suspect this administration is very stupid or very clever. I think the truth lies somewhere inbetween. The great shame is that so many Americans readably fall prey to such blatant transparency.
It’s not really cleverness at all; it only need play to a very naïve and/or self-serving audience. John Dean suggested the other day this administration believes the American people are stupid. Let’s hope its ignorance and not stupidity. Ignorance can be corrected.
******
Thanks for the feedback Sharon. I'm with you in hoping the American people wake up and vote for NOT "staying the course" in November. I also hope elections can be trusted.
Posted by: Stephen Rose | September 4, 2006 02:11 PM
Stephen,
Turning the bums out of office in November is a worthy goal. What to do with the *new* bums? Perhaps I'm being too harsh on bums who are on the whole, at least harmless. The 'beast' (standing for pretty much what you want it to be) *can* be resisted, even, in instances, defeated. It *will* retreat when pressed hard, but it *never* gives up. Shall we, this time, give up?
Posted by: Mark Boldi | September 4, 2006 04:21 PM
I saw Mr. Olbermann's piece on video. Hearing him speak those words with such conviction was a bit heartening in what seems a very heartless world. I wonder if it is useless to play on the field of the likes of Rummy, Cheney et al with the politcal arena no more than a subsidiary of GE,Exxon,etc. The Democrats seem tied to the same trough of distortion, pandering and truth massaging as the lying liars without a plan in control now. Are 'we the people' stupid or overwhelmed? Or terribly, beyond our control, afraid?
The facts, as you so clearly list in your well stated post, seem clear. Our identity as a nation has melted into some distortion of what it means to be patriotic and discards those facts in favor of the lies which repeated enough, become a sick comforting tribal truth. Maybe Einstein's quote about the same method to prepare for war not being the same method to stop it applies here.
Posted by: beanie | September 4, 2006 09:05 PM
Mark I think I get what you are saying. "We've met the enemy and they are us." Shall we indeed "this time, give up?"
Posted by: Stephen Rose | September 5, 2006 02:09 AM
Excellent thread! Nice job of framing a number of topical issues in the context of your title, Stephen. Thanks for doing what you've done here.
My compliments for your relevant quotations and links. Keith Olbermann is becoming a hero for me, one of the few journalists who are actively challenging the BS coming from this administration, speaking with a clear, decisive voice. And what a spot on way to introduce this discussion, with the Orwell quotation. It's been a while since I've read 1984, but one line has stuck with me always: "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." Here's the snippet from the book, where that line comes from:
----------------------
The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'.
'Stand easy!' barked the instructress, a little more genially.
Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.
-------------------------
Reality control, Newspeak, doublethink, laying claim to morality, logic against logic. It's all out there. Incessant drumming of lies and misrepresentations into minds that are unwilling or incapable of seeing past the subterfuge. A mass hypnosis that buries the Truth.
Taking Al's idea of the one-act play, it seems likely to me that it's really a puppet play. George Bush et al are starring characters, playing in the spotlight, but who's behind the curtain pulling the strings? It's a production that's 40+ years in the making, building a very effective network that can pull off the orchestration and timing that Al mentions. It did the improbable, placing an idiot like George Bush in the White House in 2000, and followed it with the unimaginable in 2004, getting him re-elected after a horrendous first term. Is the magic in the cast or is it the script? I have to believe that if weren't for Billy Clinton's inability to keep his zipper closed or the events of 9/11, neither one of those elections would have had the same outcome. So, there's got to be hope.
There really is a War on Truth being waged, and if there is no change, one casualty will likely be our Democracy, as we have come to know it. Another may be our World, as we have come to know it. The secret assailing of our freedoms, that you've detailied nicely, and the not so secret disregard for the environment and global warming are malicious acts. I believe that Truth is absolute, perhaps misrepresented, or misinterpreted by the ignorant and uninformed, but absolute nonetheless. The challenge is to let the Truth be known, to turn this into a War of Truth. A great hope I'm holding is that the Democrats gain control of either the Senate of the House. At the very least, there will be "official" inquiries into the goings on in the Bush White House. Truth will free us.
As a footnote, I add this link to a transcript of Keith Olbermann's comments this evening on MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/
If anyone has any doubt that we're seeing a concerted effort to link dissent to Al-Qaeda and fascism, and to conjure up reactionary fear, then you must read what George Bush uttered today. Olbermann's piece dovetails this discussion with your last post Stephen.
Thanks again, and blessings.
dougt
Posted by: dougt | September 5, 2006 06:01 PM
Stephen, I am so glad you brought up this subject in your blog. As you know, I often go to a political chat room, and am often accused of being unpatriotic and making false claims concerning our President.
I have done some research, and thought you and your other bloggers would like to read this. It's long but well worth it.
I recently mentioned a few of Pres. Bush's lies, and was told that Pres. Bush hasn't lied about Iraq or why we went to war. And could I provide proof. Here it is, and he DID LIE! I hope everyone has heard the recent report concerning the "supposed" link from Suddam to Al Qaeda.
In his Fall 2002 multi-state campaign to drum up support for the Iraq war during October and November, 2002, the president worked to link Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. See dates below..:
October 28, 2002, "Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome;" "This [Hussein] is a person who can't stand America. This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda"
October 28, 2002, "Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome;" "He's a threat to America and he's a threat to our friends. He's even more of a threat now that we've learned that he's anxious to have, once again, to develop a nuclear weapon. He's got connections with al Qaeda"
October 31, 2002, "Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome;" "This is a man who cannot stand what we stand for. He hates the fact, like al Qaeda does, that we love freedom. See, they can't stand that. This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks."
November 1, 2002, "Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome;" "That's the nature of this man. We know he's got ties with al Qaeda."
November 2, 2002, "Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome;" "We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda."
November 3, 2002, "Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome;" "This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda. This is a man who poses a serious threat in many forms, but catch this form: He's the kind of guy that would love nothing more than to train terrorists and provide arms to terrorists so they could attack his worst enemy and leave no fingerprints. This guy is a threat to the world."
November 4, 2002, "Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome;" "This is a man who can't stand America and what we believe in. This is a man who hates some of our closest allies. This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections."
November 4, 2002, "Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome;" "This is the kind of guy we're dealing with. This is a man who hates America, he hates our friends, he can't stand what we believe in. He's had contacts with al Qaeda."
November 4, 2002, "Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome" "This is a man who cannot stand America, he cannot stand what we stand for, he can't stand some of our closest friends and allies. This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda."
Just in case we missed the point, Bush continued to hammer it home in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Suddam Hussein aids and protects terrorist, including members of al Qaeda" Bush INSISTED!
If you are wondering where I found these remarks by President Bush.. you can find them too, at the official White House Web site... www.whitehouse.gov
Hard to keep all the lies hidden when some dayum minion is writing everything down lmao...
These are just ONE of the long list of lies that Bush has said to get his war and anything else he wants. Try looking it up and not just listening to some news channel! And today,. it has been proven that all these things Bush said was a LIE!
There were no WMD's, There was NO tie to Saddam Hussein, it has been one lie after another. Is a lie worth your loved one dying for?? And finally, why hasn't Pres. Bush been IMPEACHED?
Love y'all and God Bless
Kate
Posted by: Katerina | September 8, 2006 09:05 PM
Have you been following the controversy over ABC's "Path to 9/11" docudrama? No? Well wake up! Take a few minutes to browse thru the links you find at this Open Letter to ABC site, including Max Blumenthal's post about the secretive right-wing Film Institute. Learn how the promotional materials are plastered with images of the 9/11 Report, despite the fact that the movie contradicts that report. Learn how co-chairman Tom Kean not only lends his support, but played a larger role as a contibutor to the production. This is serious business! ABC intends to send letters to 100,000 high school teachers, asking them to promote the series to their students. More right-wing propaganda, designed to distort the truth.
Another informative post is Arianna Huffington's Becoming Fearless, with some more excellent links.
~~ dougt
Posted by: dougt | September 9, 2006 09:48 AM
Katerina thanks for your very timely and informative comment. It is indeed amazing people exist out there who still ask what lies this President or Administration have told. I hear that finally Dick Cheney caved and told Tim Russet there was no 9/11-Iraq connection on Meet the Press. He was practically the poster boy for the lie. Even the President admitted many weeks ago that there was no connection.
There is no further debate over a Hussein/Al Qaeda connection. It didn’t exist.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, including two Republicans, recently determined the Bush White House “seemingly dismissed� critical intelligence reports in order to convince the American people to invade Iraq. I have to wonder if there are still a whole lot of people out there thinking we are safer with leadership that lies about war, compared to a lie about having an affair?
I had to grimace tonight during the President's speech when he made mention of Bin Laden saying this was WW III. The first time I heard anyone make the claim that we were in WW III, it had come out of the mouth of Newt Ginrich on Meet the Press several weeks ago, and it was echoed by a few other republicans.
Tsk tsk!
***********
Douglas pursuant to one of your comments I sure wish that a lot of people would either read or re-read 1984 by George Orwell. I also hope that some will read my Herman Goering quote in a comment I made on the "A Time To Question" blog post.
I sometimes suspect both Orwell and Goering might have been idols of Carl Rove. He certainly seems familiar with their tactics!
Thanks for you comment about the Path to 9/11 Docu-DRAMA. I did read the links you mentioned and found them quite interesting. I did enjoy seeing the ABC disclaimer several times during the show. I wonder how many will read it, and if they do, understand what they are being told.
One question I have Doug is this. How is it that suddenly ABC is willing to broadcast a 5 hour docu-DRAMA without any commercial revenue??? Who is paying the bills, why do they feel inclined to not make money on quite an expensive production and why are they making it so easy for the viewer to watch? Interesting questions don't you think? I suspect it has something to do with an extreme bias and an upcoming election, but that's just me.
Thanks Katerina and Douglas for your continual interest in this blog!!!
Posted by: Stephen Rose | September 11, 2006 07:14 PM