Seach the web Baathist resistance Sabotage Where are the WMD? Where's Saddam? =========== More Short Articles Passionate anti-Semitism Ricin in the mail Poodle leaves sinking ship Army criticises Terror War strategy Iraq's WMD:  Case Closed Asymetric War in Iraq Information Operations Bad news for Bush Stripping Plame of cover Terrorists and Terrorism Experts Polycentric Iraqi Nationalism Bush flight suit mystery Thinking about the Iraqi resistance Public Baffled by Terror Alerts Normal Failures Bush in Free Fall INC and Blowback Google finds Weapons of Mass Destruction More Polls The Timothy McVeigh Finishing School Reinforcing an opinion Legitimacy Borderlands Orwellian Centenary Cognitive Dissonance Heaven and other things Polls, Polls, Polls Where are they now: Eugene Hasenfus More Mass Delusions WMD Trailers NOT NRA rules in Iraq:  Gun confiscation flops About that Anthrax... Another Fine Mess Chaos in Iraq

June 8, 2003

Danius Maximus writes:

Delusions vs. lies.   Who tells a lie when you know you will eventually be caught?  You'd have to be delusional to think this wouldn't eventually catch up with you.

Politically, though, it is cleaner to say that they are lying--clear case of wrongdoing,   Easier than saying that they are delusional madmen.  Put that in an article of impeachment.

The picture I am getting is that Bush really did believe.  He was in effect fed a propaganda line by aides who were using the intel selectively.  And despite John Dean's belief to the contrary, there is something really wrong with Bush nat'l security.  He is not smart enough to know what's going on and to impose the kind of discipline that you need to stay out of this kind of trouble.   

Do Americans care?  Let's see what happens to public opinion after this WMD scandal bubbles along for a while.  This is the first time since 9-11 that Bush has been seriously challenged.  The emperor has no clothes......finally.

And clearly elites care about what has happened to US credibility.  Sen. Warner has promised hearings but it is not clear how aggressively his committee, Armed Services will pursue--Bush admin is trying to slow things down, perhaps with some effect.  Roberts of Sen. Intel committee says no hearings yet, and same for House intel. committee.   There's this approach that says, oh, we'll review the documents before we proceed to hearings.  But I think they can slow this train down but they can't stop it.  It's developing  a real momentum, with aggrieved intel sources getting their side on the record before they get blamed.  Bush admin has to respond, and that keeps the story bubbling along.  I mean, saying that an item lifted from a report saying there was no specific intel of chemical weapons was taken out of context.  (OK, let's see the entire context.)  We're sure the weapons are there, we just can't point to any specific locations.   I read that Tues. Cheney met with GOP senators trying to reassure them about WMD intel.  I cannot imagine they are very reassured--unless they are particularly delusional themselves.  And even if they succeed in slowing things down and/or spinning in the short term, the Blair dust-up is going to continue to make news.

I'm sorry, they are not lies, they are delusions.

Now, the public doesn't care that much because they still buy the consensual reality about winning the war.   Meanwhile, a case is being made by some that in the long run this really won't matter if the US succeeds with its Iraq project.  But we are not succeeding, and eventually that will break into the consensual reality.  I have noticed stories recently about how troop rotations being overtaxed.  They need to get troops out of Iraq, they really can't think about bringing more troops in.  As the WMD scandal bubbles along, there will be no improvement in the situation in Iraq--and that's the best we can say.  More likely we will see an increase in guerilla war, certainly from Baathist/Sunni elements, and also perhaps from the Shiites.  The problem with the opposition groups over an interim govt' is a serious one and not easily resolved.  US is right that it is premature to have elections, since more instability would be likely.  But not moving in that direction increases tensions and fuels the more extreme Shiite elements that are less patient with the Americans and less willing to play along.  Already saw one story about a Shiite cleric calling for active resistance.  That's just one mosque that was reported, but I think that if the moderate Shiites fail to get significant concessions from Bremer, increasingly extremist elements will take the initiative.  Then it just won't be Falluja and Tikrit offering armed resistance.

Now, how does Bush & Co. respond.  I'd say they are really in a box.  Launch another war as a distraction?--that gets a lot harder to do with diminished credibility.  Meanwhile, they are clutching at straws.  They have to hope they find some WMD, because they don't have the answers, and all kinds of reportage is indicating that they cooked the intelligence to suit their policy.  Look at it this way--can you imagine Bush having another press conference?  In the near future?  Medium future?  Ever?  I mean, the press is finally asking real questions and at the v. least Bush has to be prepared to answer questions that Helen Thomas asked about the quality of the intel he has been receiving.