A River Volga Runs Through It
At a daily briefing session this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan made the following statements in response to questions about the extent of U.S. consultation with Afghan officials prior to military operations:
1. "No, I think it's consistent with what we do around the world when we have troops in sovereign countries. Afghanistan is a sovereign country. We're there at their invitation."
2. "No, I think that--I disagree with that characterization. And look at the joint declaration. It says that this is based on agreements and consultations with the government of Afghanistan. We are there at their invitation, and we are also there to help train and equip Afghan forces..."
3. "Well, it is a sovereign country, and they are a duly-elected government that represents the people of Afghanistan. We are there at their invitation."
And this, in reference to Iraq:
"Any time we are in a country that is sovereign, we are going to have agreements and consultations with the host government. And we are there at their invitation."
Remember when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and they responded to Western condemnation by claiming over and over that they were "invited" in? They also said the same thing for years about their various eastern European satellites.
Listen, invading Afghanistan certainly was justified. Iraq obviously was not. But for the White House to claim strenuously and tirelessly that we are in both countries "by invitation" betrays at best underlying lack of confidence in the mission and at worst dishonesty about our motivation and our intent. It is clumsy, ham-handed, amateurish propaganda that's either ignorant of or insensitive to history.
In other words, it's not particularly surprising, is it?
1. "No, I think it's consistent with what we do around the world when we have troops in sovereign countries. Afghanistan is a sovereign country. We're there at their invitation."
2. "No, I think that--I disagree with that characterization. And look at the joint declaration. It says that this is based on agreements and consultations with the government of Afghanistan. We are there at their invitation, and we are also there to help train and equip Afghan forces..."
3. "Well, it is a sovereign country, and they are a duly-elected government that represents the people of Afghanistan. We are there at their invitation."
And this, in reference to Iraq:
"Any time we are in a country that is sovereign, we are going to have agreements and consultations with the host government. And we are there at their invitation."
Remember when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and they responded to Western condemnation by claiming over and over that they were "invited" in? They also said the same thing for years about their various eastern European satellites.
Listen, invading Afghanistan certainly was justified. Iraq obviously was not. But for the White House to claim strenuously and tirelessly that we are in both countries "by invitation" betrays at best underlying lack of confidence in the mission and at worst dishonesty about our motivation and our intent. It is clumsy, ham-handed, amateurish propaganda that's either ignorant of or insensitive to history.
In other words, it's not particularly surprising, is it?
posted by The Cunning Realist at Wednesday, May 25, 2005
19 Comments:
A lifelong conservative? Sounds like a liberal wrote this one.
Well, I am a hardcore conservative, and I agree with this post. You sound like one of those blind, unthinking believers. Nasty habit.
Always nice to see a Bush-at-any-cost supporter (porchwise) get irritated by a true patriot's call for honesty and sanity.
great post.
Hell, I'm a liberal and I agree with what TCR has said. But the reality of the current administration and, unfortunately, republican party is that they will never accept reponsibility or blame for bad things. No, it is much more common for them to blame someone, anyone else. This has proved to be the case in EVERY INSTANCE w/ bush.
Do I hold it against all republicans? No, but I will sure respect them more when they sweep out their current leaders for ones with actual integrity.
Hell, I'd even vote for John McCain, maybe.
A lifelong conservative? Sounds like a liberal wrote this one.
When did honesty and respect for the memory and family of a fallen soldier stop being conservative values? I must have missed that memo.
when things like this are said it just makes the us look stupid to the rest of the world....but there is some rube in kentucky who believes it fully
I'm a lifetime liberal, too, and I can say that the hypey dishonesty and Soviet-style propaganda of the Bush administration reminds me of the quite similar public comments of the Johnson administration (domestically clearly the most liberal administrationof the post war era)... same fundamental disrespect for truth and the obligation not to lie to the people.
Nope, it is not particularly surprising.
If we are in Iraq at the government's invitation then will we leave if the government asks us to leave? That Scott McClellan hasn't resigned in disgrace for the bilge that excreted from his mouth in just the last 14 days is beyond me. One wonders if true conversatives will ever say "enough" and demand accoutability and a return to a healthy respect for law, order, individual liberties and a government that is premised upon the need for a strong military that is only used in immediate defense of the nation or its undeniable interest.
What helps political leaders and their administrations get away with telling us to our faces things we all know aren't true- like the statements that were were "invited" into Iraq and Afghanistan- is the willingness of the media to report news on the "he said" level.
If Scott McClellan says "the sun rose in the West this morning," the media reports it as a "he said it." And, as Bill Moyers recently pointed out, until someone in the government says it, it hasn't happened. (check out his speech at http://freepress.net/news/8120)
If Michael Moore comes along and says, "Hey, the sun rose in the East this morning," it's reported as "liberal activist" or "controversial Fahrenheit 9-11 director" Michael Moore said it.
The lazy reporter wouldn't dream of getting out of bed at 6:00 A.M. and seeing for himself which side of the sky the sun first appeared. That would constitute injecting himself into the story by actually looking for facts instead of repeating charges and countercharges (i.e. the flushed Koran story that Newsweek amazingly retracted even as the ACLU was producing government documents with the identical allegations which they had retrieved in a Freedom of Information Act Request).
The latest lie of the government on the Koran abuse story is to admit that there were reports in government documents of abuse of the holy Book but that we shouldn't believe a statement of an Al Qaida terrorist. I can only hope that an intrepid reporter asks the Pentagon spokesperson where and when the trial occurred in which the detainee was adjudicated guilty of being in Al Qaida, of committing a terrorist act, and asks for details about the act the detaine was convicted of committing.
British Member of Parliament George Galloway, testifying before a U.S. Senate committee to refute charges of corruption in connection to the Iraq oil-for-food program:
"I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr. Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the
country...."
We giveth and taketh away whether invited or not.
...As I said last week, I don't think the American PRINT media is nearly as incompetent as those on hard left and right like to claim. ...
Mark Twain said, "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."
Media bashing seems to be vogue no matter the century.
I am a moderate liberal and proud of it. There is a splintering of the Republican Party that is coming because it is nearly impossible to reconcile the views of the Neocons, social conservatives, and traditional fiscal conservatives.
The "Bushie" who called you a liberal is just so typical of either a neocon or an ignorant fool who does not want to actually think for him/herself.
Bush-at-any-cost? I think not.
Best regards from NY! adderall xr Futurebird fat loss spreadsheet
Great article! Thanks.
Thanks for interesting article.
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
Post a Comment
<< Home