« GOP Sen. Voinovich Announces Retirement | Home | Is Harry Reid Really Trying to Push Tom Coburn Off the Judiciary Committee? »

Sanders Stands Up For Logic in Bushworld

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has written to the Smithsonian raising questions about the caption that sits beneath its new portrait of George W. Bush. The current wording of the caption states that Bush's term was marked by "the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." Sanders, bless his heart, points out that the 9/11 attacks -- all together, now -- had nothing to do with the Iraq war.

From Sanders' letter to Martin Sullivan, director of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington:

When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one "led to" the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked ... Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order[?]

If any readers happen to stop by the Portrait Gallery this month and see a new caption, please let us know.


63 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I love me some Bernie!

user-pic

Me too! It soothes the stomach ache I get listening to Cheney and Bush blaming everyone else in the world for everything that went wrong...

user-pic

I know it's like talking to a brick wall...but I'll try again. True, the Sept. 11th attackers were not from, nor supplied by Iraq or Saddam. However, the attacks changed the rules. No longer could our leaders wait and "respond" to an attack. They had to look at threats and reduce them. Saddam was viewed as a threat and was taken out. You can disagree with the decision, but it would be dishonest to claim that the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with it.

user-pic

No, the brick wall is the one that forms your skull, leaving no room for a brain. And by the way, there is damning evidence that Bush was planning the Iraq war BEFORE 9/11, indeed virtually from the day he took office.

user-pic

I agree with you only insofar as 9/11 gave Bush the environment of fear that he exploited to attack Saddam. However, if you think that Saddam posed a greater theat to US security than, say, N. Korea or our old buddies, the Russians, then you need a great big hit of fresh air followed by a healthy helping of logic rehabilitation.

user-pic

the attacks changed the rules.

no, bush changed the rules, and a lot of bedwetters accepted it.

user-pic

"Today’s dangers are different, though no less grave. The power to destroy life on a catastrophic scale now risks falling into the hands of terrorists. The future of our security – and our planet – is held hostage to our dependence on foreign oil and gas. From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone.

The attacks of September 11 brought this new reality into a terrible and ominous focus. On that bright and beautiful day, the world of peace and prosperity that was the legacy of our Cold War victory seemed to suddenly vanish under rubble, and twisted steel, and clouds of smoke."

Obama agrees that 9/11 changed the rules too...

user-pic

In other words, the terrorists won.

user-pic

Only in weak minded lemmmings... Bush has scared old Sarge into living in fear. Contempt was bad enough, now the old fellow has to live in fear AND contempt.

Not to diminish the terrible event or trivialize the lives lost, but 3000 Americans out of 300 million lost their lives, and two buildings out of twenty million were destroyed.

Somehow that has Sarge and his ignorant ilk foaming at the mouth that the foundations of our nation are threatened.

Funny thing, the Bush administration and it's reckelss, morbid bully-for-hire foreign policy and it's callous, royal domestic policy has done more to shake that foundation than a thousand Bin Ladens could ever consider.

Seriously, just in ouring Valerie Plame (not to mention the laundry list of other crimes) Cheney's done more to destroy what we mystically refered to as "The American Way of Life" than all the terrorists combined.

And now that they have lost their power and Rove's 1000 year Republic rule myth has been summarily busted, they have decided to move to Dubai. Now their "trickle down" construct is revealed for what it always was ...

"Piss on em'"...

user-pic

Funny that you cite Obama when he opposed the Iraq war from the start. See, it's possible to acknowledge the threat and still try to deal with it rationally rather than go off on misbegotten misadventures that cripple our military and serve as a recruiting vehicle for more terrorists.

user-pic

Funny that you cite Obama when he opposed the Iraq war from the start

not funny, completely predictable.

user-pic

Yes, it changed the rules. Now watch how Obama deals with the new world in new and different ways from Bush. That is, reasonable policies. Nine-Eleven changed things- but that doesn't pre-emptive war is all of sudden a good idea.

user-pic

there should be a "mean" in there.

user-pic

The September 11 attacks were an excuse to invade Iraq, certainly not a justification.

user-pic
Saddam was viewed as a threat...

Passive voice = evasion.

Hussein was a dictator in his dotage working on a novel. Bush & Co. portrayed him as an imminent threat to sell their war, as billpaustin summarizes a couple of posts down.

Go back and see how much of a threat Richard Clarke and others outside the Bush bubble considered Hussein to be at the time. And ask yourself why Bush didn't let the UN inspectors continue their work (you know, the inspectors Bush pretends Hussein wouldn't let in).

user-pic

Oh, give it a rest.

I don't know what's more pathetic, that you believe that drivel, or that you expect anyone else to.

user-pic

Look up defense in the dictionary, Sarge. Last time I looked, aggressively attacking another nation without provocation doesn't meet the criteria - it does for offense. Also, the Constitution directs funding for an Army specifically for National Defense - never mentions offense. So why don't you read up on the Constitution, the Federalist papers, and a few other resources written by the founding father and their concern about an aggressive government using an army for political puroses - internally and externally.

user-pic

Maybe the link was that the sheeple were more willing to accept the lies that bush inc., used to try and justify that which followed. baaaaa!

user-pic

SFC Wallace,

your post no doubt would go over well if it were published on the FOX website, Newsmax or FreeRepublic.com, but when you post this babble here at TPM where many rational people congregate you simply hold yourself up to ridicule.

user-pic

The day I'm not ridculed "here at TPM where many rational people congregate" is the day I get concerned. Remember Crazy people "think" they're sane...

user-pic

How about something along the lines of: "President Bush's term was marked by eight years of incompetence accompanied with a complete failure of leadership on every front possible or even imaginable . . .

user-pic

Works for me, except that the guy was never honestly elected but stole the office twice . . . Eugene McCarthy referred to Jr. Bush as a "Pretender"; Garrison Keillor calls him "the occupant", but to let him keep un-asterisked the title of "President" compresses into one word an eight-year torrent of lies, fear, and loathing.

user-pic

Seriously, is there any way to sweeten such a sour story? Even with Madison Avenue writing his copy for him, Bush will never escape the harsh reality of his own administrations failures.

No one will ever convince the Bush loyalists that he was a failure, so give that up. But it would be good if the schoolchildren of the future had the simple truth made available for them to weigh against the lies that will be promulgated by the status quo.

Which is why I end all my gmails with "Viva la Blogs!" Twenty years from now, they may still be the only place to go for that simple truth.

user-pic

9/11 did lead to the war in Iraq. The US had long wanted to attack Iraq, and as PNAC noted, all that was needed was some kind of major event to allow the war to proceed. 9/11 was just the event that PNAC needed, and it was successfully used to justify invading Iraq.

Of course, it is clear that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack itself, and posed little threat to the US. This was established before the US invaded. These facts caused the administration to lie, expose an internal intelligence asset, and obstruct justice in order to prosecute the war.

9/11 did lead to the Iraq war, just not in any honorable or logical way.

user-pic

Yes and BTW, they DID find a terrible weapon of mass destruction in Iraq.....

It's called OIL!

user-pic

Gertrude Bell once wrote ... the Kurds and the Shia had both proved too turbulent to be trusted with stewardship . Seems the Sunni's were the only ones capable of administering the government at its inception in the early 1920's. And Sadam was a Sunni. Now look at the mess created by the US in Iraq when the Shai are running the show. Of course, the Kurds are doing everything possible to break completely away and form an independent Kurdistan, which will be invaded by every Sunni and Shia country in the region.

The best thing the US should have done was invade, look for WMD's, then leave. Instead, we opened an Arabic Pandora's box and let the $hit hit the fan. Should have left Saddam in power and kept the Middle East at a slow boil.

user-pic

"...which will be invaded by every Sunni and Shia country in the region."

The Turks are none too happy about this "Kurdistan" thing, either.

SO, when does a geographic area represent a real nation? How do we define ourselves, if not by wrapping our ethnic character with a flag?

The tribal instinct compells us to name ourselves, and stake a claim. It has gone on since the dawn of man. Teamed with religion, regionalism has created more wars than it has peace.

We have our own history of faded states and nations.

Ever heard of the State of Franklin?

user-pic

Or simply: " . . . the attacks on September 11, 2001, that mistakenly led to pointless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."

user-pic

I'm pleased they found such a fittingly ugly portrait of the man.

user-pic

The 9/11 terroris attack led to the war in Iraq in much the same way that the Reichstag fire of 1933 led to WWII.

user-pic

perfect. thank you.

user-pic

Suggested new caption: "Florida, you ignorant slut."

user-pic

bush-history watch! We need someone to keep focusing on that!

user-pic

Can we get that photo on a dartboard?
Biggest seller of 2009...

I still suggest John Carlin would be a good one to re-post at the head of the National Archives, where he was the head before Bush replaced him with his own hack.

Carlin, former Kansas Governor, would connect all the new dots for us, better than anyone else because he was there before Bush' started revising history on a daily basis.

Just food for thought...

user-pic

How long before someone throws a shoe at it?

user-pic

or add some horns and a forked tongue with indelible black ink.

user-pic

I'd prefer this portrait have Bush clothed in something more appropriate, say an orange jumpsuit. Oh, maybe have him looking through some iron bars.........

user-pic

Sounds like a great photoshop project...

user-pic

Yeah, just add a bag o' pretzels in his hands...

user-pic

Picket the photo! Bring your signs! Going to DC for the inauguration? Now's your chance!

user-pic

Amend the caption now:

THE LAST DICTATOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

user-pic

The last? More likely the latest.

user-pic

Let us pray you are wrong.

user-pic

I like Carol G's term: Bush the Worst!

user-pic

Make that First and Last, and I'll buy into it.

user-pic

Well it is not our last except in the sense that
Jep07 just noted if the electorate is not ever vigilant.

user-pic

Y'know, back in 74, when I was crashing on The Madonna at Gate 5 in Sausalito, I went to the Dead's LAST concert... and then a few weeks later, they had another concert.

When a DJ asked why they called it their last concert, they said "yeah, that was our LAST concert, are you coming to our next one."

user-pic

Attacking a country that did not attack us, did not have weapons/troops ready to attack us, was just a cowardly and costly move.

Remember how there were weapons inspectors there? And George told them they should be leaving around March, 2003? They weren't finding a thing, so they were told to leave before it became clear that nothing was there.

Remember how we pretty much had Saddam under our thumb, with no-fly-zones?

user-pic

Dang, that rant was meant for Sarge up above.

user-pic

...understood ... but don't you feel a little silly trying to tslk sense with a brickwall?

user-pic

I want to turn this picture around to see if the rear view shows the wireless receiver shaped bulge in the middle of the back.

user-pic

Replace "that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq", with "that mistakenly led to the U.S. occupation of Iraq".

user-pic

Unfortunately, 9/11 did lead to the both wars. Without 9/11 there would have been no pretext.

user-pic

I assume there's some sarcasm there. But saying that 9/11 led to the Iraq War is ridiculous. It's an attempt to cover the sordid history of the war, and I'm glad Rep. Sanders took note. Maybe we should all write to Martin Sullivan at the NPG and express our thoughts on the topic.

user-pic

Unfortunately we're not talking semantics here. The occupation of Iraq was planned long before 9/11. It would have transpired even if 9/11 did not happen.

In broad strokes, (the way which the Bush administration hopes we all remember history) linking these two events suggests a direct causal relationship.

If you were teaching a student about this time in history, you would have to emphasize that we went to war with a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.

If pretext is important, complete context is even more important.

user-pic

Now, back to the original article: Makes me very proud to be a Vermonter.

user-pic

The ratification of the Constitution led to the invasion of Iraq, because the Constitution provided for the selection of a President by the Electoral College instead of by popular vote, and so George Bush became President instead of Al Gore.

Saying that 9/11 "led to" the war in Iraq is just as silly, because it means that Bush had no free will in the decision to invade.

Ultimately, it was Bush himself that led to the invasion of Iraq and we should not allow anyone to try to shift any responsibility to any other person, event, or circumstance.

And exactly *why* Bush decided to invade is a question that will puzzle historians for a long time, because the decision to invade made no sense militarily, strategically, politically, economically, or diplomatically.

user-pic

Thank you Bernie Sanders!

user-pic

According to Keith O it is over. Sanders won. Head of the museum sent letter agreeing to take out the words 'led to'. Good job Senator Sanders.

user-pic

Wondering if they have the painting under plexiglass yet. The poor portrait gallery paintings conservators will have a their hands full cleaning the spit off of the portrait otherwise.

user-pic

People ask Why did we invade Iraq? What motive? Well, try this on for size...

) Rumor, after the first gulf war Saddam sent a hit squad against Bush Sr in retaliation for the war. The attack was prevented and the people dealt with. So motive #1 could have been to settle an old score. A family feud.

) Rumor, there is more to the story of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait then we've been told. It may be that he was deliberately mislead into thinking that it would be okay for him to invade.

) Unverified, it has now been established that the Japanese were goaded into attacking Perl Harbor, and that our ships were deliberately bottled up in there. There is a very interesting book on this subject, sorry don't have the title handy, google is your friend.

The point being that Iraq is not the first time such shenanigans have been pulled, in fact this type of manipulation has been going on for hundreds of years. Also read "A Bright and Shining Lie"

) Fact, Bush Jr was planing the invasion before he even got elected. There is credible documentation of this.

) Fact, the endless series of No-Bid contracts for Halliburton, was one of the largest transfers of wealth that this country has ever seen. It is theft/rape/looting of the county on an incomprehensible scale. Massive profits and Billions of dollars unaccounted for.

) Rumor, the Twin Towers were decrepit and losing money.

) Fact, the Twin Towers insurance payout was very profitable.

) Fact, Al-Qaeda initially disclaimed responsibility for the 9-11 attack. Their spokesman stated that the attack was the result of an international banking conspiracy. This was initially broadcast on tv and then later suppressed/ignored.

) Fact, NORAD could have easily stopped those airplanes from reaching their targets. After the first one hit, there should have never been a second one much less a third. The air force has the intercept capability. Ever since a Cessna landed on the White House lawn back in the 70's and became a major embarrassment, we have had air security available for DC. The only way that airplane could have gotten through is because the air force was ordered to stand-down. And that order could have only come from the highest levels.

) Fact, several of the alleged hijackers later turned up alive and well.... so much for the accuracy of the FBIs information.

) Fact congress was debating the so called Patriot Act, ("Orwell speak", call it the opposite of what it really is) one of the most damaging pieces of legislation that has ever hit this country. The justification for it was the 9-11 attack. But a straw-pole taken a few days before the official vote showed that it would fail by a narrow margin. And that's when the Anthrax showed up and threw congress into a total panic. After that they could not sign it fast enough.

The timing is the key to understanding the motive for the Anthrax. It showed up at just the right time to ensure that Congress would pass the Patriot Act, a law which lays the legal foundation for a dictatorship to take over this country.

) Fact, the propaganda machine went into overtime and tried very hard to convince people that Saddam had been responsible for both the 9-11 attacks and the Anthrax attacks. To this day many people still believe that Saddam was guilty of these things. Now, don't misunderstand, Saddam is certainly no saint. But there is not one shred of evidence to support the claim that he was behind either of these attacks.

) Fact, it was in this state of total panic and the desire to strike back at any handy target that the country was stampeded into a war that people otherwise would not have agreed to. It was a masterful job of manipulation.

) Fact, it did not take long for the Saddam Anthrax story to fall apart. The FBI then went through a succession of equally unlikely perpetrators. By the time they traced it back to a top secret US Army Research lab, nobody cared anymore about where it had come from, the war was well underway. The loose end was finally closed with the ~apparent~ suicide of the prime suspect.

) Fact, Senator Tom Daschle the main target of the anthrax attack had been one of the most effective opponents of Bush Jr policies. He was described as being "The thorn in Bushes side". The anthrax attack very effectively neutralized him.

) Unverified, Bush Sr's father was a banker who financed and supported Hitler during WWII. He should have been tried for treason but for some reason no action was ever taken against him.

) Fact, Bush Sr was the head of the CIA, don't underestimate the importance of this.

) Fact, in a very bizarre interview that was broadcast on public tv in the run-up to the 2004 election; Cheney admitted that they were doing research into their legal ability to declare a state of emergency as a result of the war with Iraq and to use that authority to cancel the election.

) Fact, the voting machines in the 2004 election were rigged. The CEO of Diebold was forced to step down as a result of the scandal, but congress was unwilling or unable to gather enough strength to insist on a recall.

) Fact, about 24 congressmen signed a petition for Impeachment, but the mainstream media never bothered to report on such profound matters. Contrast that with the treatment that Clinton got.

) Fact, when the voting fraud from the 2004 election was finally coming to light and could no longer be ignored by the mainstream press. The headlines that week and the sustained focus of the media was on the "election fraud" in the Ukraine! This was an amazingly effective diversionary tactic. The media said as little as possible about the fraud which was documented in this country.

) Opinion, Yes, 9-11 gives every appearance of having been an American Reichstag. And America somehow narrowly managed to escape from becoming a total permanent dictatorship. But the economy has been looted in the process and it shall take years to recover from the damage that was done by one of the worst administrations in the history of this country.

Opinion, What is truly astonishing is the level of collusion (and possibly blackmail) that was needed in order to pull this off. I think that America came very close to a total dictatorship takeover.

Opinion, And that's just the half of it that is plainly visible... I did not even talk about the Fed Reserve and the Currency/Banking scam. Or the massive damage to the environmental protection laws or the apparent collusion of the oil companies with Bush's help and blessing. The story isn't over yet.


) Fact, All of the information above is from publicly available sources.

user-pic

by the way, for anyone who missed the connection... Cheney was CEO of Halliburton before becoming the vp.

Bush is of course the oil man who paid back all of his buddies who helped to get him elected by bringing us $4.50 a gallon gas. There was a very interesting 60 Minutes expose on this subject, "we weren't investing in a failed drilling oil company, we were buying the White House".


Here is that book on Pearl Harbor I was talking about.
http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239210273&sr=8-10

and another, the reader comments/reviews are very interesting.

"Destroy all notes and anything in writing."

http://www.amazon.com/Pearl-Harbor-Judgement-Henry-Clausen/product-reviews/0306810352/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R9E2U58LB3M4B

user-pic

I think I should explain my rating system above to prevent misunderstandings.

When I say above that something is "Unverified" this is not in any way an opinion about the source of that information. In fact I believe it to be true or else I would not have posted it. What I am saying is that I personally have not verified that information so I present it with a mid-level of confidence.

When I say that something is a "Fact" it is because I have a very high confidence level in the correctness of that information based upon my own research and observations.

But since you don't know me, and have no particular reason to trust me, you should do your own verification.

By the way, if you want to track down that 60 Minutes documentary with that quote about "buying the White House", I don't recall the name of it, but it was all about Bush and was made prior to the 2000 election.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address