Required Viewing

I caught this on PBS two nights ago and it's hands down the most complete and concise presentation about the aftermath of 9/11 and the buildup to the Iraq invasion. It's chilling, especially in the context of Cheney and Rumsfeld building their own intelligence arm in the Pentagon, and in light of what we now know about wiretapping and data mining of US citizens. Everyone should take the 90 minutes to watch this.

As of this posting it's not up yet, but it's supposed to be available as of 5pm EST today. I can't express enough how worth your time it is.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

thanks, Chip -- already got the channel set...

Welcome I'm not sure if PBS rebroadcasts Frontline on tv later in the week but it rocks that they make the shows available for streaming. I plan to watch it again.

I watched this when it aired, it was very well done and gives a lot of good information. It's pretty depressing, of course, but I also think it's important to watch.

The stream is now available.

Yeah, I watched this the other night as well. The really sad thing is that I wasn't surprised by any of it. It's not like it was a secret that they were doing these things.

The fact that Bush flat out lied in his state of the union speech has been pretty well documented.

What amazes me is that even with all this being public knowledge, Bush was still elected in 2004!

Orwell was right:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Yeah, no kidding. I knew pretty much the whole story already, but I wasn't fully aware of how Rumsfeld built his own intelligence wing in the Pentagon to do an end around the CIA, and that it was that Pentagon group (full of Bush cronies) who were responsible for most of the faulty intelligence (with the exception of the stuff they got from the guy the CIA tortured in Egypt that was later recanted). It's truly amazing how brazen and dishonest Cheney has been. This really confirms my view that Bush is just a patsy and puppet for Cheny and the neo-cons. I really hope this documentary gets seen by a lot of people.

Will they care though? Apathy in my country is huge, people don't want to know and care what is happening in politics. When they find themselves in a situation that they are directly affected they just stand there with blank looks on their faces wondering what happened.

Do you vote for the person whose politics you believe in and who does whatever means necessary to achieve your shared goals, or do you vote for the person who will fight against what you believe in, but do it honestly?

Sad but true

I read this phrase as "patsy-puppy" and had to go back and read it again - but I think "patsy-puppy" is one of the best descriptions of George W.'s role I've ever heard.

I think the Demo's should market a stuffed-animal patsy-puppy (soft, curly, crossed-eyes, big ears, dumb-and-sickly-lovable) for the '06 and '08 campaigns....

You vote for the one that will serve the best interests of the country as a whole, not the one who will give you what you want personally.

I knew the country was in trouble when Bush started using the word “mandate” in 2004. When you win with a victory margin, in terms of absolute number of popular votes, that was the smallest of any sitting president since Harry S. Truman in 1948 and, percentage-wise, the closest popular margin of victory ever for a sitting president, that is not a mandate. That is barely squeaking by.

When Regan won 49 out of 50 states in 84 (98% of the electoral votes!), that was a mandate.

Talking about things like a mandate and "political capital" when almost as many people voted against you as voted for you is a sure sign that you don't give a damn about what the people want (or even worse, that you are totally out of touch with reality).

President Bush serves everyone in the country, not just the ones that voted for him. Someone needs to remind him of that.

Interesting question, Groucho. I think Vares answer was spot on. Our system of government is supposed to be about consensus and compromise, not about the majority trampling over the minority. I think this administration, and especially the republican congress should be deeply ashamed of how they've behaved. Tom DeLay's parting speech to Congress, in which he defended uncompromising partisanship, typified everything that's wrong with our political system.

I would vote for honesty if those were the choices. Someone that is honest about doing bad things would soon be gone.

Someone that is honestly trying to do the best they can for our country wouldn't harm it much most likely.

Someone that lies constantly obviously has things to hide. That means trouble.

Bush, as an example, is full of lies and doing things only for the good of a small, select, powerful group. He doesn't give a damn about the country as a whole, nor the common people in it.

That doesn't answer the question, Vares. It answers a different question, and I don't disagree with your answer.

But the choice isn't about your personal goals and personal profit. Most people who voted for Bush, IMO, didn't do so for personal reasons. They honestly believe that it is better for the country and the American people to outlaw gay marriage and abortion, to bring more spirituality (i.e. religion) back into government and our schools, to promote American style democracy in foreign lands, et al.


You're a smart guy. Did the "mandate" issue really tell you something you didn't know about Bush and his administration? Sounds a bit to me like those who were shocked, shocked mind you, that Bush would dress in a jumpsuit and land on an aircraft carrier as a political stunt.

Likewise, someone who is completely honest would soon be gone. They might last if they were very secretive, evasive and totally avoided answering the tough questions. I don't find secretive and evasive to be much better, personally.

But open and honest politicians would never, ever get elected. The best you can do is vote for the lesser of two evils and hope that over time this will breed a better political climate and more educated and discerning voters.


I think this is very far from true, but this is surely a matter of opinion. An open and honest leader will most likely never get anything done and will be paralyzed by inaction. Even the most worthy and honorable causes will never get underway because they all have very ugly undersides that most people don't want to know about.


Someone like Bill Clinton, for example? The backlash over Clinton's prevarications and indiscretions were a primary reason for Bush taking office in 2000, IMO. That combined with Gore's abundance of honesty and detailed, overly complicated plans and speech.

If Gore were elected do you think he could have mustered support for the war in Iraq? Even if he did the analysis properly and determined that it was the overwhelmingly correct course of action, there is no way he would have got it done.


I think Bush is doing what he genuinely thinks is best for the country and his ethics are questionable to accomplish his goals. He is certainly influenced by his background and his friends, but I don't think he ever makes a conscious choice between screwing the American public over just to put a few billion dollars in Halliburton's coffers.

What backlash? More Americans voted for Gore than Bush. There was no backlash from Clinton among Democrats and Independents. Historically it's pretty rare for a sitting vice president to be elected president. And this time one actually won the popular vote. Not bad at all.



Why would Gore have gone to war in Iraq? There was no reason to go to war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was contained. He had no access to WMD, his military was badly weakened and the UN sanctions were in force. Gore wouldn't have needed to distract our mission in Afghanistan and our fight against Al-Qaeda, by invading a country that had no contacts with Al-Qaeda, no ties to Afghanistan, and was no threat to the USA.



No, he probably doesn't. He doesn't seem to care where the money comes from when putting a few billion dollars in Haliburton's coffers. He inherited his money. He got sweetheart deals because of his family background when he ran his oil business into the ground. And the only business he ever ran that was even slightly successful, he used tax payer money to support. Bush doesn't think he's screwing us when he wastes billions. He thinks he and his wealthy cronies have a right to that money.