SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (503278)12/3/2003 11:24:43 PM
From: Skywatcher  Respond to of 769667
 
Bush continues THE LIES...just like the AFOne lies after the attack of 9/11.....it's ALL LIES
misleader.org

As White House Changes Story, British Airways Refutes Bush Story of Pilot
Sighting

In his trip to Baghdad, President Bush said he would have immediately turned
around had his cover been blown. In trying to play up the secrecy and dangerous
nature of the trip, Bush's aides said that a British Airways pilot spotted the
president's plane, radioing, "Did I just see Air Force One?" The White House
said Air Force One responded: "Gulfstream 5" - a code word to disguise the
plane - and the British Airways pilot "seemed to sense he was in on a secret and
replied 'Oh.'"1

But now it appears the story was a complete fabrication, designed only to hype
the story. According to Reuters, "British Airways said yesterday that none of its
pilots made contact with President Bush's plane during its secret flight to Baghdad
on Thanksgiving, contradicting White House reports of a midair exchange that
nearly prompted Bush to call off his trip."2

Making things worse, the White House revised its story after revelations of the
distortion. The White House now says "it had left the wrong impression" and that
actually the conversation took place between Air Force One and the airport
tower in London.3 But again, British Airways refuted this tale, with a spokesman
for the company telling media "that none of its pilots has come forward to
acknowledge either making or overhearing the purported conversation."4



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (503278)12/3/2003 11:40:01 PM
From: Selectric II  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
Look who's behind the anti-war movement.
wsws.org
Just substitute "Bush" for "Clinton."

The truth behind the White House lies
18 February 1998


By the Editorial Board

The Clinton administration is preparing a cowardly attack on the people of Iraq in which countless innocent lives will be sacrificed to further the interests of American big business. This is the reality behind the efforts of the president and his top advisers to create the illusion of a popular consensus for savaging an already shattered nation.

The onslaught against Iraq was decided long ago behind the backs of the American people, and a massive military strike force has already been assembled to carry it out. The White House and the military are counting on the lack of opposition in Congress, the subservience of the media and the distracted and politically disoriented state of mind of a misinformed public to block the emergence of any organized opposition.

Clinton's February 17th speech defending his war policy was delivered not to a prime time television audience, nor from the traditional setting for a major address to the nation, the Oval Office. Rather it took the form of a midday speech to the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. Vice President Gore made a point of introducing Clinton as the Commander In Chief.

The choice of venue was no accident. It underscored the determination of the US to ride roughshod over diplomatic conventions and use its military might to bully and intimidate not only Iraq, but any nation that might in the future stand in the way of American imperialist aims.

It reflected, moreover, the concern of the administration over the president's poor standing among the Pentagon brass, and its efforts to assuage doubts within the military over the efficacy of Clinton's policy in the Persian Gulf. The fact that the speech would be seen by a relative handful of people was considered of little consequence.

It is a measure of the contempt for democratic processes that this address, given primarily for the benefit of the officer corps, the corporate and political elite, and the media, was passed off as the high point of the public "debate" over whether the country should launch a full-scale air war.

In so far as the address was an attempt to justify the impending assault on Iraq, it consisted of a series of half-truths and outright lies. It began with a fantastic depiction of America and the world on the eve of the 21st century. The cold war was over, democracy was on the rise, peace and prosperity for all were around the corner. Only one obstacle stood in the way--what Clinton called "outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals."

He continued: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Reality at the end of the 20th century is, of course, a far cry from the idyllic picture painted by Clinton. Aside from the very small fraction of the American people who have reaped unprecedented wealth from the boom in share values and corporate profits, the bulk of the population enters the 21st century burdened by falling living standards, worsening economic insecurity and all of the scourges of a society in decline--crime, poverty, homelessness, disease. The growth of social inequality is, moreover, not simply an American, but rather an international phenomenon.

No less implausible is the attempt to blame the ills of the world on a conspiracy of evil tyrants and terrorists. This tactic of creating a political bogeyman to justify US aggression is nothing new. The same device has been used in advance of every military intervention of the past fifteen years--from Grenada, to Panama, to Somalia to Iraq.

But there was something particularly sinister in Clinton's opening remarks last Tuesday. He did more than present a rationalization for attacking Iraq. He presented a brief for a Pax Americana in the next century, to be policed by a US military machine that assumes the right to attack any nation that interferes with Wall Street's definition of America's "national interest" and international "law and order."

When Clinton declared Saddam Hussein's Iraq to be an example of the "rogue states" that must be isolated and crushed, he was making the case for a whole series of military interventions in the coming months and years, which must inevitably lead to full-scale wars, military occupations and, ultimately, a new global conflagration.

The secret behind Washington's hostility to any diplomatic settlement is precisely its desire to set a precedent that will be used to intimidate both its enemies and its current allies abroad, and to inure the American people to acts of mass murder carried out in their name.

While Clinton declared that he was acting in defense of the US "national interest," nowhere in his speech did he explain the meaning of this phrase. But National Security Adviser Samuel Berger spelled it out in a speech February 13. Washington was intervening in the Gulf, he said, "to protect the free flow of oil."

In other words, the US is going to war to reaffirm the domination of corporate America over a region which accounts for 75 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, on which Washington's economic rivals in Western Europe and Japan depend. A permanent military presence in this region provides US imperialism with a vital strategic advantage.

Clinton boasted that the continuing economic embargo has cost Iraq $110 billion in oil revenues over the past seven years. This exultation over the economic havoc wreaked by the sanctions gives the lie to US claims that its policies are directed against Saddam Hussein and not the Iraqi people. What does $110 billion mean in human terms? It translates into food, medical supplies, drinkable water, access to electrical power--the rudiments of civilized life for 23 million people.

The impending bombing raids will likewise target the entire population of Iraq. All those familiar with US war plans predict massive civilian casualties. Only a few hours after Clinton's speech, NBC News suggested that Saddam Hussein might move kindergarten classes into his biological weapons factories--an attempt to prepare the American public for the sight of hundreds of Iraqi children murdered by American bombs. The same news broadcast reported that targets will include dairies, pharmaceutical plants and breweries situated in densely populated urban areas. ABC News reported that the initial bombing raids will last anywhere from four days to several weeks.

As Clinton made clear in his speech, these attacks may be only the beginning. "We will be prepared to strike him again," he declared.

In concluding his remarks, Clinton said, "Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st."

What, indeed, does the 20th century have to teach us? Twice the world was plunged into global wars which cost the lives of millions. In the five decades since the end of the Second World War, millions more have died in innumerable conflicts, most notably in Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East. These wars have been launched, not by "the people," but by rival cliques of capitalist rulers seeking to gain strategic and territorial advantages and control of raw materials and markets.

We call on workers throughout the world, and first of all in the United States, to oppose this brutal aggression against a defenseless people.

The Iraqi people are not your enemy. They are not responsible for the downsizing, wage-cutting and gutting of social programs that have slashed your living standards. They have not made profits off of the social distress of working people.

The entire working class must take a warning from the brutality of American capitalism. Only the independent struggle of the international working class against the profit system can put an end to militarism and war.

See Also:
A litany of deception
[18 February 1998]

Top of page

Readers: The WSWS invites your comments. Please send e-mail.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 1998-2003
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (503278)12/3/2003 11:46:02 PM
From: Selectric II  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
defenselink.mil

Clinton States U.S. Objectives, Goals in Iraq

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON -- U.S. forces will act unless Iraq's Saddam Hussein
allows U.N. inspectors free and unfettered access to suspected weapons
sites, President Clinton said during a Pentagon speech Feb. 17.
Clinton also said any U.S. attack can be blamed on Saddam
Hussein. "Saddam Hussein could end this tomorrow simply by letting the
weapons inspectors complete their mission," he said.
Clinton said he still prefers a diplomatic solution. "But to be a
genuine solution, ... a diplomatic solution must include or meet a
clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard: Iraq must agree -- and
soon -- to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in
the country," he said.
U.S. objectives are to seriously diminish the threat posed by
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and to reduce Hussein's capacity to
threaten his neighbors. "I am quite confident,... that we can achieve
the objective and secure our vital security interests," Clinton said.
He said U.S. forces are ready and that he has complete confidence
in service members who would be called upon to make any attack.
Clinton called U.S. service members the best-led, best-equipped, best-
prepared armed force in the world.
"Should it prove necessary for me to exercise the option of
force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect the
safety of all the men and women under their commands," Clinton said.
"No military action, however, is risk free. I know that the people we
may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be
ready as well."
Clinton detailed Hussein's lies and evasions since the end of the
Gulf War. Under the agreement ending the war, Hussein had 15 days to
report about his nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal. "Iraq has
repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
in its possession after the Gulf War," Clinton said.
U.N. inspectors have found proof time and again that Iraq lied
about its nuclear program, Clinton said. The Iraqis simply amended
their declaration to incorporate the discoveries.
"[Iraq] has submitted six different biological warfare
declarations, each of which has been rejected by [the U.N. Special
Commission]," he said.
Clinton said Hussein has the means and the will to use these
weapons and proved it many times in Iraq's decade-long war with Iran.
"He used chemical weapons against combatants, against civilians,
against a foreign adversary and even against his own people," Clinton
said.
The Iraqi dictator also has the means to deliver these weapons in
Scud missiles, which he previously launched against Bahrain, Saudi
Arabia and Israel.
Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan in 1995 and, Clinton said,
revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and
the capacity to build more. After the defection, Iraq admitted to
having an offensive biological warfare capability, including 5,000
gallons of botulinum, 2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 Scud warheads
filled with biological agents and 157 aerial bombs.
"I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually
greatly understated its production," the president said.
Clinton praised the inspectors for their work in the face of
Iraqi lies, deceptions and actions. "[The inspectors], the eyes and
ears of the civilized world, have uncovered and destroyed more weapons
of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War,"
he said.
Clinton said the biggest failure would be to do nothing. "If we
fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow.
"But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a
clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist, that the
international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way
to protect peace and security in a new era."