Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bush Retreats Back to Crawford -- the 2007 Edition

By Frank Rich, The New York Times. Posted August 13, 2007.


The president, firm in his resolve against "al Qaeda in Iraq," heads toward another August break in Crawford with another year of failure and cynical employment of terrorist threats under his belt.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Frank Rich

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The cases of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch were ugly enough. So surely someone in the White House might have the good taste to draw the line at exploiting the murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. But nothing is out of bounds for a government that puts the darkest arts of politics and public relations above even the exigencies of war.

As Jane Mayer told the story in last week's New Yorker, Mariane Pearl was called by Alberto Gonzales with some good news in March: the Justice Department was releasing a transcript in which the long-incarcerated Qaeda thug Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to the beheading of her husband. But there was something off about Mr. Gonzales's news. It was almost four years old.

Condoleezza Rice had called Ms. Pearl to tell her in confidence about the very same confession back in 2003; it was also reported that year in The Journal and elsewhere. What's more, the confession was suspect; another terrorist had been convicted in the Pearl case in Pakistan in 2002. There is no known corroborating evidence that Mohammed, the 9/11 ringleader who has taken credit for many horrific crimes while in American custody, was responsible for this particular murder. None of his claims, particularly those possibly coerced by torture, can be taken as gospel solely on our truth-challenged attorney general's say-so.

Ms. Pearl recognized a publicity ploy when she saw it. And this one wasn't subtle. Mr. Gonzales released the Mohammed transcript just as the latest Justice Department scandal was catching fire, with newly disclosed e-mail exchanges revealing the extent of White House collaboration in the United States attorney firings. Had the attorney general succeeded in enlisting Daniel Pearl's widow as a player in his stunt, it might have diverted attention from a fracas then engulfing President Bush on his Latin American tour.

Though he failed this time, Mr. Gonzales's P.R. manipulation of the war on terror hasn't always been so fruitless. To upstage increasingly contentious Congressional restlessness about Iraq in 2006, he put on a widely viewed show to announce an alleged plot by men in Miami to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and conduct a "full ground war." He said at the time the men "swore allegiance to al Qaeda" but, funnily enough, last week this case was conspicuously missing from a long new White House "fact sheet" listing all the terrorist plots it had foiled.

The Gonzales antics are, of course, in the tradition of an administration with a genius for stirring up terror nightmares at politically opportune times, like just before the Democratic convention in 2004. The Sears Tower scenario came right out of the playbook of his predecessor, John Ashcroft. In 2002, Mr. Ashcroft waited a full month to announce the Chicago arrest of the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla -- suddenly commandeering TV cameras in the middle of a trip to Moscow so that this tardy "news" could drown out the damning pre-9/11 revelations from the F.B.I. whistleblower Coleen Rowley. Since then, the dirty bomb in the Padilla case has evaporated much like Mr. Gonzales's Sears Tower extravaganza.

Now that the administration is winding down and the Qaeda threat is at its scariest since 2001, one might hope that such stunts would cease. Indeed, two of the White House's most accomplished artificial-reality Imagineers both left their jobs last month: Scott Sforza, the former ABC News producer who polished up the "Mission Accomplished" spectacle, and Peter Feaver, the academic specialist in wartime public opinion who helped conceive the 35-page National Security Council document that Mr. Bush unveiled as his Iraq "Plan for Victory" in November 2005.

Mr. Feaver's document used the word victory six times in its table of contents alone, and was introduced by a speech at the Naval Academy in which Mr. Bush invoked "victory" 15 times while standing on a set bedecked with "Plan for Victory" signage. Alas, it turned out that victory could not be achieved merely by Orwellian incantation, so the plan was scrapped only 13 months later for the "surge." But while Mr. Feaver and his doomed effort to substitute propaganda for action may now be gone, the White House's public relations strategies for the war, far from waning, are again gathering steam, to America's peril.

This came into sharp focus last weekend, when our military disclosed, very quietly and with a suspicious lack of accompanying White House fanfare, that it had killed a major terror culprit in Iraq, Haythem Sabah al-Badri. Never heard of him? Usually this administration oversells every death of a terrorist leader. It underplayed Badri's demise for a reason. The fine print would further expose the fictional new story line that has been concocted to rebrand and resell the Iraq war as a battle against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda -- or, as Mr. Bush now puts it, "the very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: crawford, texas, al qaeda, bush

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Just think: the use of one condom, just ONE condom! . . .
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Aug 13, 2007 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
could have prevented the iraq 'war' . . .


damn you, barbara. damn you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pfft! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» why do you hate america? Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
"Karl Rove to resign" - Bush's Brain is gone!
Posted by: defrag on Aug 13, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now will he be less dangerous, or even MORE dangerous without any brain at all???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

George's Tillman Problem
Posted by: Tom Degan on Aug 13, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This might seem lile the ultimate in cynicism, but after six and a half years of the Bush Mob, I've earned the right ro be cynical, thank you very much! The tragedy in Minnesota last week was an extremely lucky break for this disgusting administration. Until around 7:20 that evening, the only thing the media was talking about were the unsettling reservations regarding the government's exploitation of the fratricidal killing of former football star, Pat Tillman. When the bridge that connected the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul collapsed of Wednesday night, the Tillman story went the way of the Passenger Pigeon and the 45 RPM.

Pat who?

When his death was first announced to the public in April of 2004, the Pentagon and the White House expoited the event for all it was worth, catapulting the propaganda that Corporal Tillman lost his life in a heroic battle with the Taliban. This was a dynamite story that was too good to be true! A real national hero - a freakin' martyr! The guy was perfect for the role: movie star good looks, an All-American boy-next-door image, a true blue patriot in the best sense of that word! This was a publicity coup! Every kid in the United States was going to want to grow up to be Pat Tillman! CAA I GET A WITNESS???

It was all a lie - and your so-called "leaders" knew it. Tillman, it turns out, wasn't killed by any crazy Afghan - he was killed by his fellow soldiers! But wait! It gets better (or worse - depending on your sense of irony) The coroner who examined his body believes it might very well have been a homicide. Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that they lied about the events that led to his death - with a total disregard for the sensibilities of the Tillman family, all of whom are (as you can imagine) in a blind rage about the entire debacle. Once again, the truth has been revealed. Once again, the Bush White House are exposed for the corrupt and incompetent fools that they are. Did these assholes not learn a thing from the Jessica Lynch affair? Of course they didn't. The fact of the matter is, these people are incapable of learning anything.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: George's Tillman Problem Posted by: willymack
» RE: George's Tillman Problem Posted by: Tom Degan
The Rats are leaving the ship
Posted by: common intelligence on Aug 13, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush on vacation. eh, most likely to try to knaw him self loose from the bear trap he's in. He's chewing right through his appendages. Rove, of all pirates, has jumped ship now. I believe the only two left are Condolesa and the Dick. (as well as the whole of the NeoConJob's

Any other corporation would pay the CEO a "walk-away" severance to get him hell out. Like that guy from HomeDepot getting over $200 milliion for screwing up.

So how much should we pay George to Get the hell out?
Because the congress and of course "Pe-lousy" don't seem to want to hold these pirates accountable.

Then of course, if the guioltine where brought back by popular demand we could really shorten Bush's and Cheney's term!

Anyway make your calanders. This is a national holiday.
Bush's brain is Gone. Hallalooya!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No title
Posted by: hillstar on Aug 13, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THANK YOU FRANK RICH!!!the moral corruption of this administration knows no bounds!!!And you call them on it every single time...keep up the good work!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rove and dirty tricks
Posted by: SackofWoe0 on Aug 13, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So he is leaving the White House and going to Texas, where he can really design all the dirty tricks he has up his sleeves for the Replublican candidates, without having to answer to Congress. What a thief and liar he is and just think someone will pay him off or give him a position at a University where he will be teaching the next generation Political Science. Oh my, this saga just doesn't go away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ove and dirty tricks Posted by: willymack
Vacation
Posted by: frank69 on Aug 13, 2007 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush has now broken the all time record for vacation time. He has broken the record previously held by Reagan.
And remember, the Republicans used to attack President Truman for taking two weeks off in August!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Vacation Posted by: willymack
what makes you think he is gone
Posted by: Rod on Aug 13, 2007 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like he will never pick up the phone and call Mr. Rove???

Rod

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Must be a slow couple of days
Posted by: Trazom on Aug 13, 2007 11:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for Alternet. Has anyone bothered to notice the Fed dumping $40 billion into the markets since Friday? Where's the discussion on that? This could very well spell the beginning of the end for this recent bull market (and maybe even beginning of Kondtratiev winter as some posters continue to point out), which could last well into the next decade. Where's the story on that one?

As far as Bush is concerned, his brain took a vacation 6 1/2 years ago. He is walking proof that one's brain need to be connected to one's body in order to function.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Outright rightie outing
Posted by: Knowmad on Aug 13, 2007 11:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I posted the gist of this under a previous topic, but it was quickly buried by other developments; I decided to repost so it gets wider exposure. As some of you are aware, I’ve been doing my best to identify rightwingnut trolls on here, and out them for the misguided creatures they are.

So, here’s my latest list of these brilliant thinkers, who seem to have nothing better to do than try to derail valid progressive discussion. Be sure to let me know if you’ve other candidates, or if you think some of these have morphed into another identity in an amateur attempt to escape - as if they could ever disguise themselves from our devastating analysis and radar vision. Okay now; step up and meet the neighbors who are so intent on degrading property values here.

First there's conservasaurus, their humble leader, (we affectionately refer to him as Dino, and he’s currently in big trouble with the others because he can't help but lean toward the truth on occasion). The others are all pretty much cut of the same rags: kbest, bobsays, bestofthebest, whitemiddleclassmale, slydad and eaglemb. There are also at least three others (encinom, temporary and albrechstrauss) who may aspire, and are on 24 hour watch status (security level puce).

"Oh boy, am I in trouble now or what?" ;O)

So fellow progressives, the official list is now up to seven, plus the three potential wannabes. I'd strongly advise you to stay clear of any gathering of these so-righteous righties, as it’s usually winds up as some form of repugnant group-grope, each desperately making the best use of their Mitts as they try to ascertain the gender of the other (and often themselves) before really getting down to it. Stand back, you definitely don't want to get any of this on you.

Cheers friends.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The GWB Horror Show
Posted by: pzzp on Aug 13, 2007 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all dressed up, just like Americans have been bred to like.

http://www.notinourname.net/
resources_links/bush_image_may03.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Golden opportunity
Posted by: willymack on Aug 13, 2007 5:17 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our dear leader must be in a state of shock(even more than usual), now that the end of the little voice in his ear (during the presidental "debates", and "news conferences") is in sight. The Democrats should go after him with a vengence while he's off-balance. Who knows? Maybe he'll crack(comparitively speaking, of course).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is the meaning of the word "cynical"???
Posted by: halg on Aug 13, 2007 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am really confused by the recent, widespread use of the word "cynical" especially as applied by bloggers and journalists. I always thought it meant to be distrustful of someone or something. In fact, according to Miriam-Webster:

having or showing the attitude or temper of a cynic ... contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives

See the full definition.

Here, the article refers to "cynical employment of terrorist threats ..." Does this mean that the president is contemptuously distrustful of his own use of terrorist fearmongering? That doesn't make any sense to me -- surely, the president must be at least one fan of his own disgraceful and twisted plans.

I am not picking on this article's author in particular. I have been noticing the use of the word "cynical" since about the 1988 or 1992 DNC where one of the speakers used the word "cynical" this way. This (mis-?) use has spread rapidly over the last decade or so.

I am not an English expert, and I am sure one can find plenty of errors in my own words. But I am concerned aobut this because one might be led to believe (through repeated contextual applications) that the word means that a thing we might be cynical of is cynical itself. This presents potential problems for readers and listeners:

"Hal G. is a cynical critic. Anyone who reads his postings knows this!"

Does this mean that Hal G. is distrustful of others, or does this mean that Hal G. himself is untrustworthy? Can you see why this could lead to a lot of confusion? Which meaning of "cynical" does the author intend? Notice that the follow-up sentence does nothing to clarify the first statement through context, either.

One might note that the word "hinder" is, today, interpreted to mean "getting in one's way." Actually, the original meaning was to kind of "push along," as if being behind someone else, maybe helping to steer their decisions the right way or wrong way. In fact, the root of the word, "hind-," is the same root as in "behind." My point is that "cynical" would not be the first word to go down this confusing path, maybe making some of us cynical about its use! :^)

I sometimes think that people mean "sinister" in this context, and they think the word sounds close enough, so they use "cynical" instead. But the words are not related, of course. "Sinister" would certainly make a lot more sense in this context. If there is an English grammar (not lit.) major out there, please offer feedback.

Anyway, I would completely agree that we should all be very cynical about the president's sinister employment of fearmongering to control public opinion and policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crawford, Ticksass
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 15, 2007 1:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Said it before, but it bears repetition: the two strongest arguments I can think of in support of abortion during any trimester are (1) George W. Bush and (2) Dick Cheney. Now, for those Roe v Wade protesters the same result was doable via vasectomy and tubal ligation and for that failure may the Bush and Cheney families ponder such "junk science," and weigh it against the outcome. Ughhhhhhh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Crawford, Ticksass Posted by: halg
» RE: Crawford, Ticksass Posted by: halg
» RE: Crawford, Ticksass Posted by: Col. Jackleg
mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Aug 19, 2007 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to worry, their lies will stop once martial law is place, and since they have the mechanisms securely in place to run a dictatorship, does anyone believe that they'll just tuck their tails between their legs and skulk off passively?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]