HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » my problem with the &quo...

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:15 PM

my problem with the "Hubris" special

Good so far as it goes, but the main narrative is - "..after 9-11, the Bush team sought to make the attack a pretext for war with Iraq".
IN FACT we know, from the most mainstream of reliable sources, Bush's former Sec. of Treasury, Paul O Neil, that a war with Iraq was a primary driver of the administration from day one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-592330.html
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."


You could go back to the Project for a New American Century document written even well before the election to see the
roots of the policy, but I understand how timid news media might avoid that for fear of being accused of conspiratorial thinking.
I am disappointed that the MSNBC team would not make use of as generally-regarded-as-mainstream-but-woefully-never-discussed source as the O' Neil revelations.

44 replies, 3351 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply my problem with the "Hubris" special (Original post)
greenman3610 Feb 2013 OP
Euphoria Feb 2013 #1
annabanana Feb 2013 #2
JHB Feb 2013 #35
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #40
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #3
tavernier Feb 2013 #4
MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #5
Cleita Feb 2013 #6
ProSense Feb 2013 #7
Auggie Feb 2013 #43
msongs Feb 2013 #8
Cleita Feb 2013 #9
delrem Feb 2013 #24
malaise Feb 2013 #37
tiny elvis Feb 2013 #41
Festivito Feb 2013 #44
KoKo Feb 2013 #10
global1 Feb 2013 #15
hay rick Feb 2013 #30
global1 Feb 2013 #11
Blue_In_AK Feb 2013 #12
LeftInTX Feb 2013 #13
yodermon Feb 2013 #14
frazzled Feb 2013 #16
Amonester Feb 2013 #17
just1voice Feb 2013 #18
mostlyconfused Feb 2013 #25
JHB Feb 2013 #36
blkmusclmachine Feb 2013 #19
csziggy Feb 2013 #20
GiaGiovanni Feb 2013 #22
csziggy Feb 2013 #23
Fedaykin Feb 2013 #27
Number23 Feb 2013 #29
delrem Feb 2013 #32
annabanana Feb 2013 #39
VPStoltz Feb 2013 #21
Fedaykin Feb 2013 #26
patrice Feb 2013 #28
Babel_17 Feb 2013 #31
greenman3610 Feb 2013 #33
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #34
lunatica Feb 2013 #38
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #42

Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:18 PM

1. Totally agree

It's crucial to understanding what happened and why

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:19 PM

2. She DID go back to the PNAC letter to W early on.

And that they were looking to 9/11 as a good excuse to sell America on an Iraq attack. (Remember "hit a trifecta"?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:55 AM

35. Letter to W, or to Clinton?

I haven't seen it yet. Did she mention the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton urging action against Saddam? So many of its signers became part of the Bush administration that a letter to him would be comedically redundant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:04 AM

40. She showed the one to Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:20 PM

3. Tora Bore was missing

As well as other important points in the story.

The end, there s another reason Shrub will never admit it...agressive war s a war crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:21 PM

4. My problem is that so much was left out...

for one thing, the screams and protests around the world. Congress may have voted for it, but millions of citizens lined the streets around the nation rallying against it. The show made it sound as though everyone was duped, when in fact that was just not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:22 PM

5. True...

But, it's MSNBC... not Current TV... Nobody's ready for what should be on real prime time...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:26 PM

6. She did show the 1998 letter to Clinton making a case for invading Iraq

at the beginning of the program. However, unless you already knew it came from the PNAC website you wouldn't make the connection.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

She didn't mention O'Neil did she? Or, did I miss it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:27 PM

7. She did, but this needed to

be at least 90 minutes. Rachel mentioned the desperation of the Bush cabal to link Iraq to 9/11 as a pretext for war.

Another of Bush's biggest lies submitted for media dissemination was the letter to Congress.

After mentioning the 16 words in the SOTU, it would have been good to mention the letter to Congress before showing Bush talking to Americans. That lie ties it all together.

Hubris: Selling the Iraq War - The Rumsfeld memos
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022394769

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:25 PM

43. Agree. 120 minutes and the could of reported on the profiteering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:33 PM

8. and 9/11 happened just at the nick of time....whatta coincidence eh ? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:34 PM

9. Which is why I have always been a LIHOPer although we aren't allowed to talk about

it on DU anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 12:50 AM

24. nevertheless you're probably right.

it's the simplest explanation and it eliminates all the absurdities about how "it was a surprise".
And it eliminates the absurdities about "controlled demolition".

It's the explanation that fits the goals of the PNAC admin in the US at the time. And it's the explanation for the WoT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:29 AM

37. +1,000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:11 AM

41. LIHOP is MIHOP

the slightest effort or deliberate neglect would be participation in the attack

because stopping attacks was their job

how many different things did bushco do to let it happen?

what was the limit to participation?

look the other way and cross their fingers?

even that is MIHOP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #41)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:52 PM

44. No. They're not the same. I see your point though.

One reads a lot, finds out what has happened, and one wants to throw the book at them! Letting it happen, ha! Those actions sound like they made it happen... I hear ya. But...

Let's not muddy or water down our words.

Can we leave MIHOP for those who think WTC was controlled demolition, that no plane flew into the Pentagon, ... and keep LIHOP for those who think it was a more conventional hit, that the Bush team knew: parts of, all of it, whatever, because it does not matter how much or little they knew. They knew enough.

I preferred HIHOP, helped it happen on purpose. But, all it did was to confuse the conversations, so I dropped it and moved on. Slow progress, but we're getting closer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:36 PM

10. PNAC/Downing Street Memos/Valerie Plame/Judith Miller...etc. etc.

whatever.. It didn't go to the BEGINNING....

It was what it was. Old news for many of us here on DU...maybe new to Rachel's audience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:44 PM

15. Both Plame And Wilson Appeared In This Documentary.....

And without mentioning Judith Miller - I believe there was a reference to a NYT article that Cheney referred to in order to make his point. Interesting that contents of that article was probably supplied to the NYT (Miller) from Cheney or his office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:21 AM

30. Plame appeared, but the Plame/Cheney affair wasn't mentioned.

Yellowcake from Nigeria was highlighted, but I don't think it was connected to Wilson. Judy Miller wasn't mentioned but they showed a NYT headline with her name (and another) in the byline. That story would have been a distraction and was probably better left out if the object was to compress the story into one hour.

The PNAC connection, Paul O'Neill's observations, and the Downing Street memos are all obviously relevant to the story but also reasonable candidates for the cutting room floor if you're trying to make it short and sweet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:38 PM

11. I'm Thinking That Rachel Will Be Talking A Lot About "Hubris" In The Days And Weeks To Come.....

I believe that she will fill in the blanks and also have guests on that will help round out the story, the lies and deception. My suggestion is that you contact her through her website and urge her to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:38 PM

12. So much wrongdoing to cram into a one-hour special,

it's no wonder important facts had to be left out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:42 PM

13. Frontline Bush's War is very in depth

Four hours long. It takes a lot of concentration. I'm constantly pausing and replaying parts.

However, Hubris is short and to the point. It also appeals to a broad target audience.

I thought Rachel was able to put a lot of information into 1 hour. I thought it was concise and easy to follow.

Link to the Bush's War
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:42 PM

14. Google "Fuck Saddam. we're taking him out".

The 8th link from the top is a post I made on DU on June 6th 2005, with that quote as the title.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3797390

It was in the wake of the Downing Street Minutes, and of course we were all hoping it would lead to shrub's impeachment, har har.
More germaine to the OP though are the 2 other quotes in that post, from Colin Powell and Condi, and

Here they are again:
"(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
- Colin Powell, February 24, 2001


"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
- Condoleeza Rice, July 2001

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 12:06 AM

16. They forgot to explain why the media went along with it all

While we knew every bit of that information as it was unfolding. We knew the Prague thing was a hoax, we knew the mobile labs were a hoax, we knew Chalabi was untrustworthy, we knew the yellowcake was a forgery. We knew that the Intelligence report had many qualifications and reservations about things they were saying were proven. We knew it all back then.

I didn't really learn anything new from that show. What I wanted to know was why the media didn't know what we knew, and why they didn't report on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 12:14 AM

17. There was word at the time that "they didn't want to lose access"

And that Rove was in charge of keeping "records" of which 'media' "didn't want to lose access" and they mostly complied...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 12:21 AM

18. The MSMedia is full of lying, propagandizing whores but they're to "civil" to say it

 

A woman in Greece said it about a year ago "I feel like I've betrayed my children because my generation traded civility for corruption".

Damn straight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:04 AM

25. Or why so many on both sides of the aisle supported it

There were plenty of dems who were positive about the threat Saddam posed, that he had WMD's (or soon would), and that he had to go. Not hard to find public statements to that effect, or to identify those who voted in favor of the authorization to use force. They should not be let off the hook either. There were really only a few in DC who stood consistently against this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:18 AM

36. They might have had to mention the one show pushing back on that front...

...which was Phil Donahue's show on... MSNBC. His ratings were good, but the network at the very least did not want to get branded as the "anti war" channel. And going past that "very least", remember it was owned by major defense contractor GE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 12:24 AM

19. Operation Iraqi Liberation

O.I.L., the short version.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 12:29 AM

20. Heck the ONION knew that Bush wanted to attack Iraq

On January 17, 2001, the Onion published a uncannily prescient satirical article. Their prediction of what Bush would accomplish in his years in office was frightening at the time even as it was intended as humor.
Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'
ISSUE 43•01 ISSUE 37•01 • Jan 17, 2001

WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

<SNIP>

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

<SNIP>

Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.

"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
More: http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/

Bush's goal as predicted by The Onion were certainly achieved - in this Bush was a complete success.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 12:45 AM

22. Sometimes the Onion is the only truth in town

 

Now that our reality is beyond satire, I think the Onion should be our national paper of record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiaGiovanni (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 12:49 AM

23. That 2001 Onion story convinced me they knew the truth

Behind everything. And it's not 42.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiaGiovanni (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:05 AM

27. Agreed!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:19 AM

29. Wow! That is uncanny!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:09 AM

32. Thanks for the link! That was hilarious in the most awful black comedy way.

We're talking 100's of 1000's dead, millions of refugees, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, a system of disappearing people and sending them to black sites, and a continuing destruction of US civil liberties that US citizens have not yet gotten their minds around in either scope or implications.

President Obama said this: "I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we have to look forward as opposed to looking backward, and part of my job is to make sure that, for example, at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to make Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all of their time at work looking over their shoulders and lawyering... we have not made a final decision but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if some have blatantly broken the law that they are above the law, but my orientation is going to be to look forward. ... ... My general belief is that when it comes to national security what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past."
He has now set up a multinational system of targeted assassination by drones, while ensuring that all "rendering" and "torture" are outsourced to two degrees of deniability.

This is foreign policy, for the most part, so no problem for any American. Except for.... oh yeah... that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:53 AM

39. +1000!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 12:42 AM

21. Those questions were not asked because they were answered in advance.

It had nothing to do with SADDAM - it was all about the oil.
That's what Cheney's secret meeting was about just after the stolen election - divvying up the oil fields among the corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:04 AM

26. Watched 'Huburis' on the Left Coast...

 

...and for those of us plugged into alternative media for years since Gulf War I, what was presented tonight on television was nothing new... Norm Solomon, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, just to name a few asked the relevant questions M$M "journalists" were afraid to ask...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:11 AM

28. GOOD catch!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:26 AM

31. Maddow's show was very well crafted and is a great resource

Sure, many of us know of lots of damning evidence that was left out. But that's not what this is about, it's not about releasing a definitive indictment.

It's about being irrefutable. It's about not looking shrill. It's about releasing a powerful narrative that the relatively uninformed can watch and gain a truthful understanding of just how wrong and deceitful the war mongers were about the war with Saddam Hussein.

It was a bullet proof presentation and when it gets talked about we won't have to defend it or explain it.

Well, we might have to note that there's plenty more to be said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:54 AM

33. I get it. I understand why.

but it's damn sad that that is the media environment that we live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:07 AM

34. Not to mention that this administration is continuing the policies forged during Bush's war on terra

 

drone strikes etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:34 AM

38. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) is a very good idea when first presenting something like this

I think Rachel's team chose deliberately to keep it simple because most Americans don't know what was really going on. First you present just enough to get them interested in what might have happened. If you present too much, such as PNAC it just sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory coming from wackos. When your aim is to expose the truth which is going to be very painful to accept, it's best to do it in smaller doses.

Even here on DU where we are determined to find the truth it was very painful, and it took us a while to admit that things like the media sellout and the lies were deliberate. Waking up to the truth is a process, and it entails steps, like the five stages of grief. Too much at once will just shut people down and they will refuse to listen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:16 AM

42. Most Americans can't tell the difference between Saddam and Osama.

... can't tell the difference between Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran.

... think everyone in the middle east (except Israel) is an Arab fundamentalist Islamic terrorist.

... can't name the current Vice President, and sure as hell can't recall who Condi Rice was, or what her role was.

... no idea who Fieth, Rumsfeld, Wilkerson were.

... PNAC? What's that, the name of the financial institution that owns the stadium in Charlotte?

Before you can explain the many, many details of the story, you need to get people to understand the broader outline.

And you can't do much more than that in 1 hour.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread