Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (15124)	3/20/2003 5:17:14 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

their shorterm began in Sept 2001, 18 months ago / jw

To: lurqer who wrote (15124)	3/20/2003 6:28:12 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

How Bush Sold War to Americans by Antonia Zerbisias Published on Thursday, March 20, 2003 by the Toronto Star commondreams.org Remember how, when you were a kid, the toy you saw on TV never turned out to be as good as you had expected? It was then that you first learned a painful lesson about truth in advertising. Thanks to a consumer advocacy movement in the 1970s, one supported by "action hotlines" and investigative reporters, most advertisers have since cleaned up their acts. But not all. Now there's one marketing team that appears to have no qualms about lying, no hesitation about making false claims, no ethics at all when it comes to moving product: George W. Bush's White House. So where are the media watchdogs now? Consider the campaign to sell the war on Iraq. (Don't forget that, last September, just as Bush began to roll it out, White House chief of staff Andrew Card said, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'') The pitch is familiar, as made most recently Monday by the Huckster-In-Chief: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Iraq "has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda." "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security." "The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed." "Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war ... " A mind-boggling 73 million Americans watched that speech. But, had they spun the dial afterwards, or read the papers the next day, they would have seen precious little questioning of any of Bush's claims. No wonder polls show many Americans believe Saddam crashed the jets into the World Trade Center by remote control. The fact is, there is plenty of doubt about what weapons Iraq has. (Note that, as chief weapons inspector Hans Blix gave his final report yesterday, only BBC World gave him any live play.) The truth is, no unequivocal proof has yet linked Iraq to Al Qaeda. Not unless you count that student paper British Prime Minister Tony Blair apparently handed U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. If the U.S. has the "sovereign authority'' to bomb Iraq, why is there an international debate about the legal basis for a war? Not even Americans believe the terrorist threat "will be diminished'' with the obliteration of Saddam. Two, admittedly unscientific, polls, one for CNN and the other for Fox on Tuesday, showed a vast majority of respondents worry about repercussions. Finally, Bush lied about having taken "every measure ... to avoid war." If he had, the weapons inspectors would still be inspecting. But the biggest gap in the coverage was about the one thing Bush said that was probably true: "It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction." Only an inside story in The New York Times caught Bush's implication: There is no choice for Iraq between regime change or invasion. The U.S. is coming in no matter what. Well, wasn't that the plan all along? Which brings us back to the marketing campaign. The R&D on the war began years ago, in 1992 when deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, a Pentagon strategy guy in both Bush administrations, drafted the Defense Planning Guidance on the U.S.' military stance toward the world. It advocated pre-emptive strikes against unfriendly states. It can't be a coincidence how much that document resembles Bush's National Security Strategy of September, 2002 — or the principles outlined by the Project For The New American Century, a might-is-right organization headed by William Kristol, editor of the right-wing magazine Weekly Standard. An internet search has turned up precious few discussions of these connections in the mainstream American, or even Canadian, media. But here's the thing: On Sept. 11, 2001, Kristol was on PBS' Newshour With Jim Lehrer, where he said, linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, "We are basically looking at finishing the job we began in 1990 with Saddam Hussein." The product was designed. Only the ad campaign had to be created — and the suckers lined up to buy it. Those Vanilla Coke people could learn a thing or two from this, no? ___________________________________________ Antonia Zerbisias appears every Thursday. You can reach her at azerbis@thestar.ca. Copyright 1996-2003. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited ###