Body Pilot - Ths ones for YOU

[Genie 0]

http://www.counterpunch.org/brasch04252003.html


Playing Spin the Battle
by WALT BRASCH

More than half of all Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. According to an Associated Press poll conducted shortly after the conclusion of the successful invasion of Iraq, 53 percent of the nation pin the 9/11 murders on Saddam, something the CIA and most of the world intelligence gathering organizations have consistently discounted.

The fact that so many Americans believe this reveals the successful drum beating of the Bush administration along with a failure of both Congress and the media to adequately question the President's motives or to challenge the statements coming from the White House and Pentagon. President Bush and his horde of advisors have constantly said they never--ever--said that Saddam was the person behind the attacks. But, if the President could say "subliminal," that's what he, the vice-president, and their administration did to the Americans, with the complicity of the media who abrogated their responsibilities and made it seem that challenging anything the President said would be treason.

In message after message, the President referred to 9/11 and the war on terrorism. Then, as in the movies, he jump-cut to the evils of Saddam, letting the people think there was a smooth transition, while implanting those "hidden" meanings.

A month after 9/11, Americans believed Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible. Upon that basis, the President ordered an invasion of Afghanistan, one of several countries that harbored bin Laden and his terrorists, and overthrew the Taliban regime. At the time, finding anyone who thought Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 was as rare as finding a corporate executive who believed in unions.

Americans quickly learned that 15 of the 19 suicide/killers of 9/11 were Saudi. With a little more digging into buried news accounts, they might have also learned that 26 of al-Qaeda's top leadership at the time of 9/11, including bin Laden, were Egyptian, Saudi, or Yemini. Only one, a third level administrator, was an Iraqi. They might also have learned that eight of the top 10 financial contributors to al-Qaeda are Saudi. They might also have learned that Saddam and al-Qaeda had never been close, that as ruthless as Saddam was, he was relatively moderate in the world of terrorism except, of course, against his own people.

A year of Presidential drum beating and brow-bashing led to about a third of Americans becoming believers. A month before the invasion of Iraq, about 45 percent of Americans, according to the AP, believed the Iraqi dictator was personally involved.

The eight percent increase in the month after the invasion could be attributed not only to war-mongering rhetoric, but to the nation trying to justify why it sent more than 200,000 of its sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins to war.

By the time war had begun, the message wasn't that Iraq was behind 9/11, but that it was a potential enemy because it had weapons of mass destruction.

In the most recent State of the Union, President Bush had forcefully declared that Iraq had a weapons program that included at least 500 tons of chemical weapons, 38,000 liters of botulism, 25,000 liters of anthrax, as well as uncountable numbers of SCUDs. But, as in the telephone rumor game when a simple fact spread person to person eventually becomes a bloated urban myth, America's people and their news media escalated even those unproven numbers until the average working person may have been led to believe that Iraq actually posed a greater danger to America than did North Korea and Iran, both of which had nuclear capability to hit American targets, something Iraq did not have.

However, Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction, although none were nuclear. Between 1983 and 1992--the Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle era--the U.S. gave Iraq innumerable weapons, and issued about $2 billion in loans, most of which were used to buy even more weapons; the U.S. never expected full repayment. In addition, U.S. corporations provided Iraq with the means to manufacture chemical and biological weapons. The "point man" the Reagan administration sent to solidify U.S.-Iraqi relations-and who had personal knowledge that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran, and who helped remove the "terrorist" label against Iraq--was . . . Donald Rumsfeld.

But, slowly and reluctantly under a U.N. mandate, Iraq began to destroy its weapons. So far, 300,000 American and British combat forces, aided by numerous infiltrators and the best spy satellite system ever known to mankind, have been unable to locate any weapons of mass destruction--other than ones used by the Coalition forces. Maybe the Bush administration should send in Monk and Colombo.

The fact that the two-nation "coalition" of 300,000 overwhelmed and destroyed a country of 24 million quickly, and that Iraq's armies used only bullets, light artillery, and short-range, but legal, missiles in its defense, suggests that the defeated nation probably didn't have the weapons the U.S. claimed.

President Bush and his supporters kept saying the war wasn't about oil. But, the first thing the Coalition troops protected once they entered Baghdad weren't the hospitals or museums but the Oil Ministry. Maybe the Ministry was in an "historical district."

At the time President Bush was telling the U.N. and the American people that he had no plans to go to war with Iraq, his administration officials were meeting in secret with several industry giants with financial and political ties to the Administration to develop a plan for a post-war Iraq.

One of those giants was Bechtel, a multi-nation conglomerate with close financial ties to the White House. Another was a subsidiary of Haliburton, the multi-billion dollar oil company that once had Dick Cheney as its CEO.

In a few months, Americans may be shocked that Iraq didn't help al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, that it didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and that there may have been collusion between the Administration and major corporations to reap financial rewards for rebuilding a country that the U.S. destroyed. We should be shocked--but we should also be in awe of how well the President and his administration spun their messages of war, and how dizzy the major media must have been to have accepted the words unchallenged.

Walt Brasch, a national award-winning reporter and editor, is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University. He is the author of 13 books, including The Press and the State, and the current book, The Joy of Sax: America During the Bill Clinton Era. You may contact him through his web-site www.walterbrasch.com.

He can be reached at: brasch@ptd.net

[diverdriver 6]

If you wanted Bodypilot only to read it why didn't you just PM him with it?

[Genie 0]

Well - good question by the way - i actually kinda wanted a discussion on it.
Body Pilot has been the most vehement at stating that the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11 - which is why i directed it specifically to him. That being said Body Pilot tends to ignore any questions i ask about his beliefs and i also hoped that by entitling the thread with his name that he may read it and comment on it.

that answer your q ?
Genie

[aufreefly 0]

We are all now dumber for having read that.

[Faber 0]

Quote

We are all now dumber for having read that.

well only if you actualy read it all...
Cant see the differens between this and some of the posts Bodypilot has made..(meaning this in a freindly manner while if there comes war nearby me,he promised be shelter for me and my kids)

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[Genie 0]

Well let me ask you - do YOU believe that Iraq was behind the events of 9/11 ? Do you feel the war in iraq was justified because of 9/11 ? Body pilot has made these claims on many occasions and trying to point out that the majority of 9/11 people were saudi had no affect other than " We will be going after Saudi next" Wrong call by the way, apparently its Syria that next on the agenda. onder what the justification for that will be?
Genie

[aufreefly 0]

I look at it like this.

People on the left(way left) will read this and see all of the things that they like to see. Bashing the current administration, they lied to us etc. They will go to counterpunch.org and read headlines like

Quote

What Would Gore Have Done?; The Rise of the Neocons; Israel's Proxy War Plan; Why Did It End So Quickly?; The Coming Occupation; Re-educating Iraqis, American-style;

This author is clearly very biased given his book about the "Clinton Sax years". This quote pretty much sums up how utterly stupid this author's book is.

Quote

If we can convince the people that the President [Bush]was the one responsible for curing AIDS," said Redux[A supposed bush advisor], "we'd be able to make people forget about Irangate, poverty, the health care crisis, crime, drugs, and even Dan Quayle. The President would be a shoo-in not just for re-election but for the Nobel Prize as well. He might even make more money than Millie this year!"

The people who are hard to the right will read this and be upset by the anti-administration statements that it makes. Instead of thinking through what is being said and either filing it away or researching it further they will simply be upset by it.

No mater what anyone writes the left will be against the current administration ALWAYS. The right will be for the current administration ALWAYS. Both are wrong.

The problem is that coverage has shifted away from being moderate to being either left or right. It has left me disgusted and I am tired of reading articles that are slanted to fit whatever party line the writer supports, with only moderate attention paid to the truth.

I recognize that Iraq was not directly responsible for 9/11. The US at times finds it convenient to leave in power "nice dictators", and those who don't cause too much trouble, like Saudi. They give us oil and a place to land our planes. I don't think that the Saudi government supported 9/11. I think the underlying problem is a deep seeded hatred of the US throughout radical Islamic religion.

But did this article inform us of anything new, any revolutionary ideas, any proof of the authors claims...no. It is a propaganda piece pure and simple.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But did this article inform us of anything new, any revolutionary ideas, any proof of the authors claims...no. It is a propaganda piece pure and simple.

I agree with you. However, I am surprised, very surprised that not more is being said in the media about the lack of WMDs in Iraq. The lack of scuds in Iraq. That the American people are not more upset that the US refuses to help Afghanistan build a strong and unified nation, that they still have not found Osama bin Laden and that they do not know where Saddam Hussain is.

[DivaSkyChick 0]

Thanks for posting that, Genie. I am pre-coffee but here's a quick thought / contribution to your discussion.

I am amazed at how Americans feel it is their patriotic duty to support the President in time of war. I personally believe it is our patriotic duty question the motivations of anyone in power. Power corrupts, it's a fact, we know it. I want to know WHY we do things and I cannot find out if the press is censored / censoring itself.

No one here can tell me why we went in to Iraq. At best some people may have a well thought out idea as to why, at worst, I see a lot of parroting of either party line. We all work and have our lives and do not have the luxury or ability in most cases to do the research. We dont' have access to the information.

The press do / does / ought to be doing so. The press in America has let us down.

Now, to coffee.

---
www.facebook.com/mandyhamptonfitch

[MC208B 0]

Man, that was one long, boring post.....

It would be refreshing to not see anymore political horseshit on DZ.com, but of course, that won't happen. Hell, I've even posted political horseshit here

One thing for sure tho, these political posts are not going to change anyones personal views on things.

And oh yeah, Saddam was an asshole

[Genie 0]

[No mater what anyone writes the left will be against the current administration ALWAYS. The right will be for the current administration ALWAYS. Both are wrong.

Quote

I agree completely

The problem is that coverage has shifted away from being moderate to being either left or right. It has left me disgusted and I am tired of reading articles that are slanted to fit whatever party line the writer supports, with only moderate attention paid to the truth.

Quote

I agree with that too - the reason i posted this and directed it to bodypilot is that he is very good at posting the other side and repeating the inaccuracies obsessively - re the iraqid being responsible for 9/11 specifically

But did this article inform us of anything new, any revolutionary ideas, any proof of the authors claims...no. It is a propaganda piece pure and simple.

[Genie 0]

Quote

Thanks for posting that, Genie. I am pre-coffee but here's a quick thought / contribution to your discussion.

Quote

Thank you - especially pre coffee!

I am amazed at how Americans feel it is their patriotic duty to support the President in time of war. I personally believe it is our patriotic duty question the motivations of anyone in power. Power corrupts, it's a fact, we know it. I want to know WHY we do things and I cannot find out if the press is censored / censoring itself.

No one here can tell me why we went in to Iraq. At best some people may have a well thought out idea as to why, at worst, I see a lot of parroting of either party line. We all work and have our lives and do not have the luxury or ability in most cases to do the research. We dont' have access to the information.

Quote

I agree and thats another reason i posted the article. Yes it is a propaganda piece i guess, but it confronts those who are 'parroting' the line. I would like to know what they think about it - and i do want to know what THEY think.

***The press do / does / ought to be doing so. The press in America has let us down.

It does seem that way. Does anyone here know what the story with counterpunch.org is? It seems to be fairly well researched, draws info from a lot of different and indeed impressive sources, including John Brown an ex US diplomat due to his resignation over the US admin foreign policies, - just wondering if it would be considered a good resource to see the other side, or is it more conspiracy theories like some ive come across?
Genie

Now, to coffee.

[Genie 0]

Quote

I agree with you. However, I am surprised, very surprised that not more is being said in the media about the lack of WMDs in Iraq. The lack of scuds in Iraq. That the American people are not more upset that the US refuses to help Afghanistan build a strong and unified nation, that they still have not found Osama bin Laden and that they do not know where Saddam Hussain is.

[Skyrad 0]

yep, it was all a crock.........i can see what America get out of this but what the hell was Tony Blair thinking?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[BBKid 0]

Whoa, people, whoa there!!!

The war's over, we're not going to change that it happened. I too have posted much political bollocks here, but it takes over your life and gets to the point where you feel like you need to justify everything you say with evidence from 5 different sources of 12 different nationalities! This is just a pre-emptive warning so I can say "I told you so" when people complain about the tempers running high.*

*And, when I do that, I will be able to post whore sooooo much more - tee hee!

Nick
---------------------------
"I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!"

[billvon 3,071]

>I am surprised that the american public is giving up its rights so easily -

Great newspaper headline recently - U.S. says Canada cares too much about liberties. Foolish Canadians - giving people rights instead of police!

[billvon 3,071]

>No one here can tell me why we went in to Iraq.

I'd recommend "the threatening storm" by K Pollack. A good summary of the case for war with Iraq. His position is that it was primarily because he was a destabilizing influence in the middle east and had to be deposed to bring stability to the region. You can agree or not but it's a good look into what our government thought of the issue (he was on the National Security Council for a while and was heavily involved in the Middle East.)

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

It is a propaganda piece pure and simple.

Perhaps, but it contains "information" ... and the reader should gather as much information as possible about any situation in order to be informed, and draq your own conclusions ... If you gather enough information about the American war in Iraq, you begin to see that it is merely a vehicle for reaching a goal -- military and economic domination of the middle-east in the post Soviet Union era. Do a bit of studying about Paul Wolfowitz ... then you will have a better understanding of America's foreign and military policies.

[VectorBoy 0]

Don't assume that the government had to lie or twist the arms of all its citizens to get " behind" the administrations reason for going to war. There are many in this country that think its overdue. And MANY more that believe this is just a start. We will agress any RADICAL islamic anti- US activities anywhere in the world 9/11 put that card into play and this nation is gonna call! Glen