Home > Kerry Caught in the Big Lie

Kerry Caught in the Big Lie

by Open-Publishing - Tuesday 12 October 2004
10 comments

The presidential debates are going nowhere. Why? Because both President George Bush and Senator John Kerry are encapsulated in a big lie.

The lie is too big to be acknowledged. Both candidates repeat the mantra that Saddam Hussein was dangerous to America and had to be removed. Both reaffirm that Saddam’s removal remains a good thing despite a plethora of official reports concluding that false reasons were given for his removal.

Kerry gets nowhere because he says he would do the same thing Bush did, only differently.

Bush reminds Kerry over and over that "you saw the same intelligence that I did" and voted for the war. Kerry’s criticism after the event, Bush says, just shows what a flip-flopper Kerry is.

For many Americans Bush’s answer is easier to follow than Kerry’s nuanced argument. For the second time in his life, Kerry is in the position of turning against a war after he had joined up.

Kerry has missed opportunity after opportunity to be candid with the American people. By speaking frankly, Kerry can deliver a knockout blow that would tear the debate wide open.

When Bush chides Kerry that "you saw the same intelligence that I did," why doesn’t Kerry reply:

"Yes, Mr. President, the same people who misled you, misled me, the House and the Senate and sent Colin Powell to New York to mislead the UN. So, Mr. President, why haven’t you fired them? Is there no accountability in your administration? How can you lead when you don’t hold people responsible for grievous errors that have led to the death and maiming of thousands of our troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis, shattered our alliances, and recruited thousands to the banners of terrorism?"

Bush would have no answer.

Saddam Hussein was no danger to the U.S. However, he was a potential check, with Syria, on Israel’s right-wing Likud Party’s desire to expel the Palestinians to Jordan and to seize Lebanon. The expulsion and the Lebanon grab may yet come to fruition, because it is supported by the neoconservatives who control the Bush administration.

Installing a puppet regime in Iraq and constructing a dozen or more permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, as the U.S. is doing, opens a field of conquest to Israel.

The neoconservative goal of conquest is no secret. Neoconservative godfather Norman Podhoretz, and others of his persuasion, have called in print on more than one occasion for the U.S. to launch World War IV against the Muslim Middle East.

The cause of Muslim terrorism is not opposition to U.S. democracy. The cause is opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East, especially U.S. support for Israel’s ghettoization of Palestine. Lacking military forces with which to oppose American might, Muslims resort to terror attacks. How can Americans be so naive as to think that Muslims will just sit there and take it?

The U.S. cannot put down terrorism with force alone - unless it intends genocide for Muslims. Saddam Hussein was not a popular ruler, but occupying Iraq has tied down 80% of our troops and is not succeeding.

Expanding this war, as neocons intend, requires resources that the U.S. does not have and would likely result in countries uniting against us.

It is a self-defeating policy that Bush is pursuing in the Middle East. Bush is not building democracy, but he is creating legions of insurgents and terrorists.

The U.S. can defeat insurgents in battles, but cannot successfully occupy the conquered territory. In his essays on Fourth Generation Warfare, William Lind has clarified the advantages insurgents have over conventional forces.

At this point, "staying the course" in Iraq is not an option. America’s only choices are to escalate or to withdraw.

According to the October 9 International Herald Tribune, the U.S. has plans to escalate by attacking 20 to 30 Iraqi towns and cities in hopes of regaining control:

"Pentagon planners and military commanders have identified roughly 20 to 30 towns and cities in Iraq that must be brought under control before elections can be held there in January."

Think about that. Twenty to thirty more Najafs and Fallujahs?! The U.S. doesn’t even control Baghdad 400 yards beyond the heavily fortified "Green Zone" where the "Iraqi government" and its U.S. overlords are forced to take refuge.

Imagine the numbers of women and children who will be blown to bits by U.S. "precision attacks" on 20 to 30 Iraqi towns and cities.

It is a war crime to attack civilians. The already low ratio of killed insurgents to killed Iraqi civilians means that it is the insurgents, not the civilians, who are the "collateral damage."

If Bush goes through with this madness, the U.S. military will become known as the reincarnation of the SS.

No American politician can talk sense when ensnared by the big lie that the war with Iraq was necessary. It was not necessary. It was a strategic blunder. It has started something that may already be out of anyone’s control.

In military matters, pretense and delusion lead to disaster. A deluded superpower is most dangerous to itself.

Please candidate Kerry, in the final debate, do come to the point, speak the truth, and show the leadership required if America is to recover from the strategic blunder of invading Iraq.

Forum posts

  • The good people of Iraqi never attacked us, yet we are killing innocents daily because ’the insurgents’ refuse to accept our puppet gov’t, the theft of their oil, or our 14 ’enduring bases’ in their country.

    Isn’t it obvious? We are bombing innocent people... and everybody says it must continue- wtf?! Of course Bush is going to say this, but why is his ’opposition’ taking the same line? Check out these quotes from Kerry:

    at the first debate
    "I’m not talking about leaving. I’m talking about winning"
    "It was a threat. That’s not the issue."

    from his convention speech
    "But we had no choice, we had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent."

    Doesn’t he seem confused on the facts? First off, how was Saddam "a threat that was real and imminent"? Secondly, why is winning the only option? What is Kerry talking about? Are we going to stay in Iraq until they submit to our military might? Kerry seems to be missing the point, which is: US troops are the problem, not the solution.

    Further proof that both Bush and Kerry are lying on Iraq.
    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/01/1421206

    Robert Fisk- over the last year he’s been in Iraq as much as any western journalist, he knows what he is talking about. This is from his take on the 1st debate:

    "Both Kerry and Bush have completely missed the point. I think if they’re not willfully doing so, they are certainly misleading American people"

    "Most of Iraq is outside of the control of the United States forces or British forces and certainly not government forces. The Iraqi government itself now has less power than the mayor of Baghdad and doesn’t even control all of Baghdad. The situation – the disastrous situation in Iraq is now so grave that I don’t think it could ever be turned around, not while western troops are there."

    "I think by and large, with the exception of a few newspapers and small television and radio programs, yours for example, by and large, major American news organizations are neutered. They have neutered themselves. They will not monitor the centers of power. They will not challenge authority, and that leads to a situation in which the major issues which should be discussed, and which American people are quite capable of discussing, and would like to discuss, do not get mentioned. "

    • Are you suggesting that it’s ok to just sit back and let Saddam kill his own people? You profess to care so much wether these innocents die or not, but when they are brutally suppressed by their own leader, what do you suggest we do? Sanctions? I laugh at you.

    • remember the prime directive in star trek (go ahead and laugh at me, but it proves a point)?
      ’not allowed to interfere with cultures that aren’t ready for it.’
      well...we can’t go around the world and say that someone/country is ready for ’freedom’/’democracy’ (yea i put those in quotes, so what?). we should be all over africa, b/c there is certainly none of our western freedom there. but why don’t we??? there aren’t enough economic incentives there...duh...
      we need to leave countries the frick alone and stop meddling in business taht’s not ours.
      the culture of ’ours’ is not the be all and end all of cultures. we have much work to do to make it better, and realizing that this is the best we have at the moment, is key-but we mustn’t stop bettering ourselves. i’m an american, and my culture (and most western culture) disgusts me!! commercialism and consumerism forced down our throats...i don’t want it...and i don’t blame the good denizens of mother earth for not wanting it, either.

      GGGaRy UnIt

    • duh- the sanctions killed 2 million- 500,000 of which were children- all because we wouldn’t allow Saddam to have bleach (major wmd). this illegal war has killed 10,000-30,000 innocent civilians.

      this means the USA has killed many more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

      your dittohead argument is doesn’t hold water. remember- saddam was a threat, we couldn’t wait for the smoking gun, which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. wtf happened to that?

      it was a lie you stupid freeper. pull the blinders off and cry- because you’re beloved leaders are war criminals. If they really wanted to help the Iraqi people, they would not have used cluster bombs and depleted uranium. think about it- radioactive waste litters the countryside, because du is FREE for the f#cking weapons makers. That is sick. we could have used plain old bullets... but no, DU is free which means bigger profits. that’s all that matters to you right?

      Our own troops are poisoned with DU as well... do you care about our troops? wake up - have a good long cry - then start to work to end the perpetual war you’ve been sold. it’s not about keeping you safer moron... haven’t you heard of orwell’s 1984- it’s like bush is following the playbook. bush will go down in the history books as the next hitler- are you proud to be one of the ’good germans’?

      what makes me really sick is that many freepers and dittoheads like this poster claim to be ’christian’. So if Jesus were alive today... he would agree with dubya- ’we must remain on the offensive’ ? sure.

    • why pick on Saddam? there were dozens of other brutal dictators in the world at the time. it is clear now that bush had a bone in his throat for saddam. Because of the trumped up lies he gave to go to war we all went along. as a result we have lost well over 1000 lives because of a vindeta by bush. bush should be impeached, prosecuted and sent to levenworth KS for life. he is a lying war criminal.

  • Saddam should have been taken out, and yes, Bush did it for the wrong reasons and in a terrible way that has caused many deaths and probably countless more in the future. But whoever wrote this article is ignorant and needs to wake up to the fact that Saddam himself was a brutal killer. Kerry is not a liar, the author of this is simply ignorant of the facts.

    • I would suggest that before you call the author of the article ignorant of the facts, that you spend one hour doing google searches. Start with "Pentagon Office of Special Plans". Read 5 or 6 articles on this. While you are reading, cut and paste all the names you see in the articles to a text file. Then google search each of those names. While researching these people, cut and paste all of the think tanks names they are associated with to a text file. Google search the think tanks.

      I think after an hour of this you will have a completely different view of the war.

  • PAUL...MARVELOUS ARTICLE...I ONLY HOPE THAT kERRY READS AND ABSORBES YOUR THOUGHTS....BUT YOU KNOW WHAT PAUL I AM A SENIOR CITIZEN AND I OPPOSED THE WAR FROM THE VERY BEGINNING ..... I’M SURE kERRY MUST HAVE SEEN THROUGH THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS...I CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHY HE IS NOT COMING OUT FORCEFULLY AND DENOUNCING THE WAR ..if it wasn’t so serious it would be laughable to thinK that the CIA who probably knew when Saddam went to the toilet could have possible been serious about his capability to strike the greatest power in the world with the remnants of his republican guard and under containment that was working very well.....Thanks for wonderful websites that tell facts like Bella Ciao..... sincerely,,,,, Mary Timmons PS Kerry has got to WIN horror !!! horror !!! for the world if the RWR spin somehow gives him THE BONEHEAD another four years to carry on his crucade of religious hypocrisy

  • Yes, invading Iraq was a mistake. It was also topic A Item 1. on the presidents agenda from day one of this administration. Lets not forget What Secretary Paul O’Neill (fired from his job as George Bush’s Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president’s policy on tax cuts) said in his book ,"The Price of Loyalty". He describes what happened at President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting and it is one of Secretary O’Neill’s most startling revelations.

    "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

    "From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

    As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

    "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

    And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

    He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. This was four months before a presidential daily briefing entitled: Bin Laden determined to strike in US crossed the Presidents desk.

  • There’s a simple reason that Kerry never blasted Bush for not firing CIA Director George Tenet, who was a Clinton holdover, and judging from the actions of Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Burger, apparently Clinton’s intelligence people really sucked, might explain why Clinton never tried to deal with al-Qaeda militarily. The reason is that CIA Director George Tenet was "fired" or at least was allowed to resign with dignity. Bush did do the right thing, and Kerry knows it.