Lie Detector Test

Here is how to know if George Bush is lying: There is an assertion coming out of his mouth:

“This terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks.”

Now come the facts:

“The National Security Agency’s secret domestic spying hasn’t nabbed any Al Qaeda agents in the U.S. since the Sept. 11 attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress yesterday.Mueller told the Senate Intelligence Committee that his agents get “a number of leads from the NSA,” but he made it clear Osama Bin Laden’s henchmen weren’t at the end of the trail.”

This statement would seem to contradict the Leader, who has also claimed,

“If you’re at war, and you’re trying to stop an enemy from attacking you, why in the world would you want to tell the enemy what they’re doing to stop them, because they’ll adjust. (Applause.) So I’ve authorized NSA to listen to a phone call from outside the United States in, or inside the United States out. In other words, this is not a program where we’re listening to phone calls inside the United States. One of the people making the call has to be al Qaeda, suspected al Qaeda, and/or affiliate.

…We are safeguarding your liberties. (Applause.)”

Not that the NSA hasn’t been tapping us all for years, I just like to remind people that Bush enjoys lying straight to your face at least as much as the Mad Bomber Bill Clinton did.

Update: Read this.

Manufacturing Crisis and Leviathan

All libertarians know about Crisis and Leviathan – not just the great book by Robert Higgs, but the simple principle too: when bad things happen, government almost always benefits, and further, the “ratchet effect” makes it so that when government power grows it is nearly impossible to get the lost liberty and money back – nevermind the lives, death is pretty much permanent.

This principle applies not just to the domestic powers of government over us, but, of course, to the subjects of our foreign empire as well. Once you’ve expanded your military “footprint,” it is much easier to get away with getting involved in the next conflict in the region.

The trouble is, politicians have also figured this out, and they will sometimes go to great lengths to trigger the next crisis themselves in order to play the victim and get their dirty work done. Once the US Air Force occupied all those wonderful bases in Saudi Arabia from which to launch the continual “no-fly zone” bombings, it was only a matter of time before individuals working for the State would come up with a way to move some of those bases North.

Remember last summer when the first Downing Street memo came out? It was actually a couple of pages of notes from the debriefing of Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI-6, after a nice visit with his American counterparts here in the US in July 2002, where they discussed different options for tricking the people of the US-UK into supporting an aggressive invasion of Iraq. The main plan was to do what they eventually did: “fix” 500 tons of lies about fake Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, call the invasion enforcement of UN gun control laws, build up 150,000 troops and then mount a massive invasion from Kuwait (Turkey backed out – democratically).

Had that plan not worked out – like say for example, if Joe Wilson had gone public before the war – there was “[Option] B: Running Start“:

“Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier.”

“…initiated by an Iraqi casus belli.”

As in: Mexican soldiers “starting it” it the disputed territory, Ft. Sumpter, Remember the Maine!, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin and Saddam’s engraved invitation into Kuwait from US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie twelve years before Dearlove’s little holiday in DC.

Now check out this article from Channel 4 in merry old England, which has details from the new book Lawless World (Geez, wouldn’t that be nice? – editor) by British human rights attorney Philippe Sands.

“President Bush said that: “The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would ‘twist arms’ and ‘even threaten’. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.” Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: “solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam.” …

Mr. Sands’ book says that the meeting focused on the need to identify evidence that Saddam had committed a material breach of his obligations under the existing UN Resolution 1441. There was concern that insufficient evidence had been unearthed by the UN inspection team, led by Dr Hans Blix. Other options were considered.

President Bush said: “The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.”

Some of us remember reports of stepped up bombing before the war, and of course, we have the reporting of Jeremy Scahill and the testimony [.mp3] of Iraq Veteran Against the War, Tim Goodrich, to help seal the case that the air war began early.

It seemed to me at the time that this was mostly an attempt to provoke a response from Hussein which would have provided an excuse to invade, but as Rep. Ron Paul pointed out before the war began, Saddam hadn’t been able to shoot down a single one of our planes in 12 years of no-fly zone bombing.

In order to get them shot down, US planes would have to be ordered to fly below the deck as bait for Hussein’s anti-aircraft fire, and he had either prudently ordered his troops not to fire, or perhaps was too busy writing his novel about the Great Dictator and his resistance to care at all, because he never gave Bush/Blair their excuse.

Someone with some sense must have overruled the idea – after all, if Saddam couldn’t shoot down the typical US/British jet fighter, how the hell were we supposed to believe he hit a U2 spy plane at altitude?

Oh, I see the London Times article addresses this point:

“If the U2 idea was a serious proposal, it would have made sense only if the spy plane was ordered to fly at an altitude within range of Iraqi missiles. Mr Bush’s reference in the recorded conversation to the U2 being escorted by fighter aircraft indicates that that is what he had in mind. The U2, America’s most sophisticated aerial reconnaissance aircraft, can operate at 90,000ft, taking high-resolution photographs of targets. At this altitude, the U2 would have been beyond the range of Iraqi surface-to-air missiles.”

Very convincing, Mr. President. Now back to Channel 4:

“Mr. Sands said: “I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law.”

I don’t know what this guy’s so upset about. This is how war is done in America – we learned it from them.

And for the record:

“Also present at the meeting were President Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice and her deputy Dan Fried, and the President’s Chief of Staff, Andrew Card. The Prime Minister took with him his then security adviser Sir David Manning, his Foreign Policy aide Matthew Rycroft, and and his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell.”

Oh, yes, Rycroft – the Blair aid who drafted the Downing Street memo in the first place – very good. And Rice, the voice of reason and calm in the administration.

Now on to Iran! I hear the IAEA gives ’em a clean bill of health, let’s get in there before it’s too late!

Update: The other Scott Horton points out in his newsletter, “Not a single US newspaper carried the story.” Go ahead, double check.

Snake Oil

The best response to the SOTU I’ve read so far is Sheldon Richman’s. How any free-marketeer can stand behind that speech is beyond me. Leftists should pay attention, too: Richman’s insights on energy policy deserve serious consideration by those whose rhetoric Bush has co-opted. You think our oil “addiction” is the problem, and state subsidization of alternative fuels is the answer? The U.S. government isn’t immersed in the Middle East because American consumers are jonesing for petrol. Our so-called addiction is merely a pretext for intervention – economic and military, at home and abroad – with tidy profits for crony capitalists as a side “benefit.” And as long as the state’s talons are sunk in the energy market, we’ll be sending troops to “secure our access” to the fuel du jour, whatever and wherever it is.

Come to think of it, oil isn’t the only thing the Middle East has in abundance. I can already hear another U.S. president in the not-too-distant future explaining why we must stop some backwater from nationalizing its solar panel fields – in the name of national security and democracy, of course.

Cindy Sheehan Arrested

I can’t find a link yet, but Keith Olbermann just said on MSNBC that Cindy Sheehan has been arrested in Washington DC where she was to be a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey at tonight’s State of the Union.

Update: BradBlog is reporting that CNN says so too.

Update 2: The rest of the mass media has now caught up with Antiwar.com.

Update 3: The imperial stormtroopers removed her from the Capitol Chamber gallery just before the speech began. Brad Blog has the story.

Hey, I Didn’t Say It

Jim Henley:

    My rule of thumb: If Person A says “Israel” and Person B says, “You mean, the Jooooz! Neener Neener Neener!” *at most* Person A should spare the breath to say “F_ck off, Person B” and get back to whatever he or she was saying in the first place.

    But that’s more effort than the matter strictly *deserves*.