"But the world isn't like that"

[pynchonoid]

I'm just doing what I can to stop another war in which
too many people will be killed unnecessarily, by
organizing and demonstrating, and by countering Bush
Administration propaganda, where I encounter it, with
facts and alternate views (from mainstream and
alternative media sources) -- here on Pynchon-L, in
conversations I have elsewhere (the local discussion
groups we're organizing through the church I attend,
etc.).  I don't know what you're trying to do,
although the effect of spreading pro-war propaganda
will be, I'm afraid, war and the suffering that war
entails.  

--- MalignD at aol.com wrote:
[...]

David Corn, writing in The Nation:



Can George W. Bush be trusted as he further heats up
the rhetoric on Iraq? 

Two days after a horrific bomb blast in Bali,
Indonesia, killed over 180 people--including at least
two Americans--Bush, appearing at a Republican
campaign rally in Michigan, cited the assault as yet
another reason for vigorous prosecution of the war on
terrorism. But as he rallied the GOP loyalists, he
focused less on al Qaeda (which, naturally, is
suspected of being associated with the Bali attack)
and more on Saddam Hussein. Bush maintained that the
Iraqi dictator hopes to deploy al Qaeda as his own
"forward army" against the West, that "we need to
think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his
dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind," and
that "this is a man who we know has had connections
with al Qaeda." 

Bush and his administration have offered no proof of
any of this. In fact, less than a week before the
Michigan event, the CIA had released a letter noting
that it had no evidence that Saddam intends to commit
terrorism against the United States, absent a US
strike against him. (Did the President miss the
newspapers that day?) The Agency's conclusion is
hardly consistent with Bush's claim that Saddam is
actively engaged in turning Osama bin Laden's
terrorist network into his own private force. And
while the CIA, in that same letter,
noted--vaguely--that it possesses "solid reporting of
senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going
back a decade," that, too, is a far cry from Bush's
assertion that Saddam has had direct ties with al
Qaeda. [For more on the CIA letter, click on the link
for the previous column at the end of this posting.
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=119]


Why doesn't Bush make it easy for himself? If he can
show that Saddam has a working relationship with al
Qaeda, he could do whatever he wants in Iraq, with or
without the blessing of that pesky United Nations
Security Council--especially if al Qaeda is stepping
up operations, with attacks in Indonesia, Kuwait,
Yemen, Morocco, Europe and elsewhere. Forget diddling
around about weapons inspection or pretending to be
motivated by the need to locate and disarm Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction. Bush could go straight to
regime-change war--and he might be justified in doing
so--if he could demonstrate that his claims about
Saddam are accurate. If it turns out al Qaeda is
blowing up nightclubs around the world and receiving
current assistance from Iraq, Bush could resubmit to
Congress the blank-check use-of-force resolution and
receive unanimous backing--not just the three-quarters
support it drew last week. Proof of an operational
link between Saddam and bin Laden would blow away the
modest-sized antiwar sentiment that now exists. The
nation and the international community would unify
underneath the White House's get-Saddam banner. Maybe
such woolly-headed peaceniks as Bush I national
security adviser Brent Scowcroft and retired generals
Wesley Clark, Anthony Zinni, Joseph Hoar, and John
Shalikashvili--who have all expressed skepticism about
W's Gulf War sequel--would finally jump on board. 

So why doesn't Bush? The obvious answer is, he can't.
And the public should not fall for any attempt on the
administration's part to play the
if-you-only-knew-what-we-know card. The CIA has
already presented the best case it can make (or
manufacture) out of the classified evidence available
to it. Moreover, as The Los Angeles Times, reported a
few days ago, those CIA conclusions where produced in
an environment in which "senior Bush administration
officials are pressuring CIA analysts to tailor their
assessments of the Iraqi threat to help build a case
against Saddam Hussein. 

The L.A. Times piece, which cited "intelligence and
congressional sources," was a blockbuster of a story.
(Click here 
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-na-cia11oct11.story
 to read it.) The paper reported, "In what sources
described as an escalating 'war,' top officials at the
Pentagon and elsewhere have bombarded CIA analysts
with criticism and calls for revisions on such key
questions as whether Iraq has ties to the al Qaeda
terrorist network....The sources stressed that CIA
analysts--who are supposed to be impartial--are
fighting to resist the pressure. But they said
analysts are increasingly resentful of what they
perceive as efforts to contaminate the intelligence
process." The paper's sources wagged an accusing
finger at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. 

If there is the slightest truth to this report, it
ought to trigger an outcry and a scandal. Imagine
rigging intelligence to shape the outcome of a debate
that determines whether American lives are lost (and
Iraqi lives are taken) overseas. How foul and sinister
can a bureaucrat get? An article of this sort should
cause members of the House and Senate to rush before
microphones and declare they will not rest until they
determine if the allegations hold up. Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz should be fired if they are unduly leaning
on nothing-but-the-facts analysts. But, as of yet, the
Times story has caused no public ripples. I called
both the House and Senate intelligence committees and
inquired if either intended to investigate whether
Bush officials have attempted to doctor intelligence
to improve the administration's case for hitting
Saddam. Neither responded. 

Bush's bluff--if that is what it is--should be called.
Nearly two hundred people are killed in a car bombing,
and he uses the occasion to whip up support for his
war against Saddam. Either he can prove what he said
about the Iraqi regime being in league with al Qaeda
or he cannot. If he is misleading the public about the
threat, he should not be followed into war. Yet
Congress has already ceded Bush the power to declare
war--perhaps a unilateral war--as he sees fit, and the
Democrats' leaders are now saying it is time to move
on...to pension reform and small business tax
cuts--that is, anything the Democrats can talk about,
besides war against Iraq, in the three weeks left
before the congressional elections. 

It's like Scrabble. If no one challenges Bush's
words--false they may be--they still count as if they
were real. "

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=124






__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com