How To Distort Reality (Without Really Trying)
Vol: 27 Issue: 17 Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Maybe you already heard of Representative Jim McDermott of Washington State. In the weeks leading up to war with Iraq, McDermott and former Rep. David Bonior gave an interview from Baghdad to (who else?) Peter Jennings on ABC’s World News Tonight in which they defended Saddam Hussein against the impending ‘unjustified’ coalition invasion.
Back then, McDermott sided with Saddam in opposing what McDermott calls the “coercive stuff” — meaning UN inspections backed by force.
Bonior’s contribution from Baghdad was to charge that “a horrendous, barbaric, horrific” number of cases of childhood leukemia and lymphomas have been caused by “uranium that has been part of our weapons system that was dropped here during the last war.” These weapons “are coated with uranium that atomize and cause these serious health problems.”
Trying to “one-up” Bonior, McDermott told a sympathetic Peter Jennings that he believed the president–presumably with Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice and others as accomplices–would use deceit to satisfy his craving to send young Americans into an unnecessary war.
Now that the war is over, we know that the “horrendous, barbaric, horrific” damage done by Gulf War I was NOTHING compared to what Saddam did to his own people as a matter of routine.
One would think that McDermott, et al; having had an opportunity to rethink his position, together with the undeniable character of the tyrant he defended, would have changed his tune. One would think. . .
But Jim McDermott told a Seattle radio station over the weekend that he believed Saddam’s capture was carefully timed, and that the administration could have captured him months ago — had it chosen to do so.
When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: “I don’t know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they’ve been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they’d find him.
“It’s funny,” McDermott added, “when they’re having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something.” In a later interview with the AP, McDermott called Saddam’s capture a “Christmas gift” to the administration.
Not to be outdone, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright mused aloud in a conversation with Mort Kondracke of Fox News that the Bush administration might have already captured Osama bin-Laden and was keeping his capture under wraps until Bush needed to use him to advance his political fortunes.
I’m not making this up — you CAN’T make stuff like this up.
There is even a name for this kind of political dishonesty. It’s called a Nixonian transparency. That is to say, being transparent, it tricks nobody — but it gives legs to any subsequent claims, as people say, “Didn’t I hear this somewhere before?”
The cumulative repetition of a lie eventually makes it sound feasible, as Adolf Hitler clearly explained in his political manifesto on the art of propaganda, Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”).
Everybody on the Left from Al Gore to Madeline Allbright to both McDermott and former Rep. Bonior were members of, or supported the Clinton administration. They were ALL behind the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act signed by the former president.
It was President Clinton who first outlined America’s official policy of ‘regime change’ in Iraq, to the wild cheers of the Democrats who were desperate to misdirect attention away from Clinton’s impending impeachment.
Indeed, immediately after signing the Act, Clinton launched “Operation Desert Fox” a four-day intensive bombing campaign against Iraq that received widespread partisan support.
In spite of what came to be called the “Wag the Dog Effect” later, nobody was arguing that Saddam should stay in power. Especially not the Democrats — then in power. That is a significant point — it underscores the lies now being told by those same politicians.
It is a case in which the left favors the end, provided no realistic means are employed to bring it about. Consider the battle over the tax cuts that turned the economy around. The left, from Tom Daschle to Howard Dean, continue to call them ‘calamitous’ but not one of them would dare rescind them.
The reason? They are ‘calamitous’ — not for America, but for the Democrats because they knew they would work as advertised. Just like they worked in the 1980’s under Reagan.
No politician will admit that they WANTED to see the economy tank, but no thinking person can interpret the left’s rhetoric and reaction to the good economic news any other way.
The left gives the benefit of the doubt to America’s enemies. There is no accusation against the sitting administration too heinous, no motivation above reproach.
Saddam’s capture? Merely political machinations by the Bush administration to garner votes — not the result of eight months of hard work by US forces on the battlefield.
To buy this lie, the whole military machine has to be in on the conspiracy, but that doesn’t matter. They condemn our troops by damning them with faint praise, simultaneously arguing that only their candidates are fit to lead those same troops in battle.
When Hillary went to Iraq on Thanksgiving, she did the same thing. Later, it was revealed that her trip was so unpopular that troops had to be DETAILED to meet with her.
One would hope that eventually, the American people will see through the lies and the manipulation and the cynicism.
For years, liberals condemned ‘conservative isolationism’ as the notion that America is too good for the world. Instead, they now call for a new kind of ‘liberal isolationism’ — in which view, the world is too good for America.
In that view, everything America does is suspect, while the globalists and UN diplomats are above reproach.
And its working. Anything negative about America makes global headlines. Even when the news is good, its bad.
A senior Vatican official reproached the United States for jerking Saddam out of his hole ‘like a cow’, saying, “I felt pity to see this man destroyed.” The remark, made by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Vatican Council for Justice and Peace, was characterized by the New York Times as “expressing compassion.”
Kofi Annan joined the Vatican and the Europeans in condemning any trial of Saddam Hussein in which the death penalty is on the table. Annan went further, saying that Saddam’s capture will have no effect on the violence in Iraq.
The terror, explained the Secretary General, will only stop when the coalition occupation is ended. His remarks were dutifully carried without comment by the liberal media and echoed by the left.
In other words, we can’t defeat the terrorists without giving into their goals. Or, put into even fewer words, we can’t defeat the terrorists.
Because if the terrorists achieve their goals, their success will embolden them to commit more acts of terror to achieve their next set of goals. Does this obvious fact elude the brilliant minds of the world’s leaders?
There can only be two interpretations. The first is that, from Kofi Annan on down, they are so incredibly stupid they shouldn’t be allowed to operate machinery or drive a motor vehicle. Or eat using anything sharper than plastic spoons.
Or — they know exactly what they are saying, and would be only too pleased to see the United States whittled away at, perhaps to the point of collapse, so that they could take their rightful place as the agenda-setters of the New World Order.
If there is a third interpretion, please post it in the forums so we can discuss it. I would be fascinated to do so.
The Bible says that in the last days, there will be a sort of global New World Order. The Bible also divides the world in the last days into four spheres of global power. The Kings of the East, the Kings of the South, the Gog Magog Alliance and the Revived Roman Empire. No mention of America.
In describing the world as it will be at that time, Jesus opened with the words, “take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matthew 24)
Paul wrote that in the last days’ perilous times would come. He went on to warn of a world having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof, saying ‘evil men and seducers would wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived’. (2Timothy 3)
And, despite the unfolding of prophecies put to paper thousands of years in advance, Peter tells us that, “there shall come in the last days, scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying; ‘where is the promise of His coming?’ (2Peter 3)
Paul tells us that, in concert with the introduction of the man of sin to the world, (that ‘Wicked’ which the KJV capitalizes as a proper pronoun), “for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” (2Thessalonians)
It was the Lord of Glory Himself Whose warning to believers came down through the ages to this generation: “And when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)
If these are NOT the last days as foretold by Scripture, then, please, what would the last days look like?