Campaign Lies

[kobayashi]

i'm quite certain the common retort to this article will be that every administration participates in underhanded activities-it's unavoidable. while that may be true(i wonder if anyone has ever tried not to participate in underhanded activities) this seems to be underhanded on a whole new level.

August 6, 2002
The Memory Hole
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Winston Smith, the protagonist of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four," was a rewrite man. His job was to destroy documents that could undermine the government's pretense of infallibility, and replace them with altered versions.

Lately, Winston Smith has gone to Washington. I'm sure that lots of history is being falsified as you read this ? there are several three-letter agencies I don't trust at all ? but two cases involving the federal budget caught my eye.

First is the "Chicago line." Shortly after Sept. 11, George W. Bush told his budget director that the only valid reasons to break his pledge not to run budget deficits would be if the country experienced recession, war or national emergency. "Lucky me," he said. "I hit the trifecta."

When I first reported this remark, angry readers accused me of inventing it. Mr. Bush, they said, is a decent man who would never imply that the nation's woes had taken him off the hook, let alone make a joke out of it.

Soon afterward, the trifecta story became part of Mr. Bush's standard stump speech. It always gets a roar of appreciative laughter from Republican audiences.

So what's the Chicago line? In his speeches, Mr. Bush claims to have laid out the criteria for running a deficit when visiting Chicago during the 2000 campaign. But there's no evidence that he said anything of the sort during the campaign, in Chicago or anywhere else; certainly none of the reporters who were with him can remember it. (The New Republic, which has tracked the
claim, titled one of its pieces "Stop him before he lies again.") In fact, during the campaign his budget promises were unqualified, for good reason. If he had conceded that future surpluses were not guaranteed, voters might have wondered whether it was wise to lock in a 10-year tax cut.

About that 10-year tax cut: It basically takes place in two phases. Phase I, which has mainly happened already, is a smallish tax cut for the middle class. Phase II, which won't be completed until 2010, is a considerably larger cut that goes mostly to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers.

That two-phase structure offers substantial opportunities for misdirection. If someone suggests reconsidering future tax cuts, the administration can accuse him of wanting to raise taxes in a recession ? implying, falsely, that he wants to reverse Phase I rather than simply call off Phase II. On the other hand, if someone says that tax cuts have worsened the budget
picture, the administration can say that tax cuts explain only 15 percent of the move into deficit. This sounds definitive, but in fact it refers only to the impact of Phase I on this year's budget; by the administration's own estimates, 40 percent of the $4 trillion deterioration in the 10-year outlook is due to tax cuts.

There is, however, an art to this sort of deception: you have to imply the falsehood without actually saying it outright. Last month the Office of Management and Budget got sloppy: it issued a press release stating flatly that tax cuts were responsible for only 15 percent of the 10-year deterioration. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noticed, and I reported it here.

Now for the fun part. The O.M.B. reacted angrily, and published a letter in The Times attacking me. It attributed the misstatement to "error," and declared that it had been "retracted." Was it?

It depends on what you mean by the word "retract." As far as anyone knows, O.M.B. didn't issue a revised statement conceding that it had misinformed reporters and giving the right numbers. It simply threw the embarrassing document down the memory hole. As Brendan Nyhan pointed out in Salon, if you go to the O.M.B.'s Web site now you find a press release dated July 12 that
is not the release actually handed out on that date. There is no indication that anything has been changed, but the bullet point on sources of the deficit is gone.

Every government tries to make excuses for its past errors, but I don't think any previous U.S. administration has been this brazen about rewriting history to make itself look good. For this kind of thing to happen you have to have politicians who have no qualms about playing Big Brother; officials whose partisan loyalty trumps their professional scruples; and a press corps that, with some honorable exceptions, lets the people in power get away with it.

Lucky us: we hit the trifecta.



Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

 

[Danospano]

Kudos for re-printing this article. It really makes one think about what the government's 'higher ups" knew about September 11th, 2001. The government had a motive to attack itself. You can't deny the facts.
I'm not saying the Bush Administration did any of these things, but I am saying that it's sad that we haven't pondered the possiblity.

 

[diamond]

ok i pondered it.
still no sale..

sorry-
have u tried..tabloid tevision?

db9

 

[speedracer]

Kudos for re-printing this article. It really makes one think about what the government's 'higher ups" knew about September 11th, 2001. The government had a motive to attack itself. You can't deny the facts.
I'm not saying the Bush Administration did any of these things, but I am saying that it's sad that we haven't pondered the possiblity.

Um...I can understand attacking Bush for using 9/11 as an after-the-fact excuse for breaking the budget.

But any allegations of the government staging the attacks of 9/11 go out the window for one simple reason: two of the planes were headed for Washington. Sending planes to attack the World Trade Center would be incredibly sinister. Sending planes to attack the Pentagon/Capitol/White House/etc. would be idiotic.

 

[KingPin]

Um...I can understand attacking Bush for using 9/11 as an after-the-fact excuse for breaking the budget.

But any allegations of the government staging the attacks of 9/11 go out the window for one simple reason: two of the planes were headed for Washington. Sending planes to attack the World Trade Center would be incredibly sinister. Sending planes to attack the Pentagon/Capitol/White House/etc. would be idiotic.

But the ones headed for Washington were shot down. Except fo the "plane" that hit the pentagon, which probably wasn't a plane. There was no wreckage of the wings or fuselage, no damage to the building from the wings, etc.

 

[pax]

Except fo the "plane" that hit the pentagon, which probably wasn't a plane. There was no wreckage of the wings or fuselage, no damage to the building from the wings, etc.

Well. What was it, then, if not a plane?

 

[Popmartijn]

Well. What was it, then, if not a plane?

Is it a bird?
Is it a plane?
No, it's ...

SUPER GROVER!!!

(sorry, couldn't resist. I mean, I like some conspiracy theories on its time, but sometimes they get too far)

Marty

 

[Salome]

no kidding

 

[z edge]

TOP SECRET

But the ones headed for Washington were shot down. Except fo the "plane" that hit the pentagon, which probably wasn't a plane. There was no wreckage of the wings or fuselage, no damage to the building from the wings, etc.

You are so right Kingpin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And so are you Dannospano!!!!!!!!!


I must confess, that I have been working on a top-secret project with black ops that I really shouldn't even talk about here. But what the hay! We have genetically engineered a super species of birds to fly undetected and attack "objects" without suspicion of our enimies. This has been going on for years and years, without the knowledge or support of our President (who is against this type of genetic enhancements too btw).

In fact it was through our super blue-jays that we gained knowledge of Florida voter fraud and ballot-box rigging (shhhhh don't tell) but we swept that under the rug of course! On September 11, the only birds we had left were our experimental fleet of parakeets, which were a bit fiesty and triggerhappy. When we launched the fleet after the highjacked jetliners, they went to attack but accidentally slammed into the pentagon instead.

And to complicate matters even worse, some of them are still out roaming the skies. So next time you see evidence (birdshite) on your car, I urge you to examine the feces closely for any remanents of the Pentagon or military armament.

And Dannospano, I urge you to notify your Movement Commander Michael Moron of this! And tell him to be careful because we unleashed some crazy hummingbirds after him!

Those of you who heard of this new disease transmitted by mosquitos called West Nile Virus, yep BINGO thats us again. See we tried to figure out a way to get the birds and this seems to be working, though the mosquitos too seem to have gone crazy and are targeting humans as well as birds!

I think next we are working on some mutant frogs to target the mosquitos, though we are worried that certain princesses might try to capture and kiss our frogs in search of a prince. But, we are still hopeful at the least.

Thank you, and take care of yourselves. And please watch out for the militant birds / mosquitos, etc..


(I am also known as LOVE MUSCLE and Spyplane )

 

[KingPin]

People, come on.

If it wasn't a plane, it could have been a bomb. It could have been a bomb in a truck. There are more ways to make a big crash and bang than just a plane.

Have you seen photos of the Pentagon when it was hit? Did you see a plane anywhere? Or the wreckage of a plane? Or any oil? if a plane hit as hard as it supposedly did, then:

a) it would have wiped out several floors. A 747 is just as tall as the pentagon. however, what actually happened was the first 2 floors were demolished, and then the ones above collapsed. This can be verified through pictures.

b) there'd be flames all over the place, from the explosion hitting the jet fuel. Instead there were just flames inside the building and a little bit outside.

c) at the speed of a 747, the nose of the plan would have gone clear through the building, so the nose was inside the open area... and the wings would have hit the outer walls. When in fact the explosion only affected the outside of the building and the area wasn't even close to the wingspan of a plane.

d) there would be wreckage EVERYWHERE. but there was none.

I don't know what it was . A bomb is just as likely as it was a plane, in my opinion. Although I don't know what happened to that 4th plane. It just doesn't make sense that it hit the pentagon... unless it vaporized on impact.

 

[BAW]

It just doesn't make sense that it hit the pentagon... unless it vaporized on impact.

Yeah, pretty much like the one in Pennsylvania did. Not much was left of that wreckage and there was no doubt it was a plane.

It would have to be a pretty extensive conspiracy involving phony flight numbers and passenger lists. And it would also mean that everyone on the phony passenger list would have to be a government agent sworn to secrecy. Where are they hiding all those poeple if they weren't on that plane?

 

[melon]

I do get a serious chuckle from this thread. Conspiracy theories from either the right or the left are pretty hysterical.

My thoughts:

1) The government did not create 9/11. Sure, there were some serious holes in security, but with a long-running mantra of "government is evil" and presidents cutting taxes haphazardly over the last couple decades, you often get what you pay for.

2) Bush, certainly, has found his shelter with the "war on terrorism," albeit that shelter is crumbling. Before 9/11, you had a president that everyone was laughing at. Then came the aftermath of 9/11, where anyone who laughed at him was a potential "terrorist." How convenient, right? After enough economic stagnancy, he can't continue to rely on 9/11 to deflect inevitable criticism of his domestic policies...or lack thereof. Of course, there is Iraq, which I imagine will be launched right around when that shelter of 9/11 collapses.

Regardless of political disagreement, I find it disheartening that some will continue to insist some vast government conspiracy on 9/11. Until I see compelling evidence otherwise (let's not forget "innocent until proven guilty"), I will continue to brush aside such claims as hysterics.

Melon

 

[oktobergirl]

This is the stupesting thing I have read all day........

 

[BAW]

Regardless of political disagreement, I find it disheartening that some will continue to insist some vast government conspiracy on 9/11. Until I see compelling evidence otherwise (let's not forget "innocent until proven guilty"), I will continue to brush aside such claims as hysterics.

Melon

My thoughts exactly. I refuse to believe that the US government would allow the slaughter of 3000+ innocent people for ANY reason. Lax security, yes...conspiracy, no.

 

[speedracer]

People, come on.

If it wasn't a plane, it could have been a bomb. It could have been a bomb in a truck. There are more ways to make a big crash and bang than just a plane.

Have you seen photos of the Pentagon when it was hit? Did you see a plane anywhere? Or the wreckage of a plane? Or any oil? if a plane hit as hard as it supposedly did, then:

a) it would have wiped out several floors. A 747 is just as tall as the pentagon. however, what actually happened was the first 2 floors were demolished, and then the ones above collapsed. This can be verified through pictures.

b) there'd be flames all over the place, from the explosion hitting the jet fuel. Instead there were just flames inside the building and a little bit outside.

c) at the speed of a 747, the nose of the plan would have gone clear through the building, so the nose was inside the open area... and the wings would have hit the outer walls. When in fact the explosion only affected the outside of the building and the area wasn't even close to the wingspan of a plane.

d) there would be wreckage EVERYWHERE. but there was none.

I don't know what it was . A bomb is just as likely as it was a plane, in my opinion. Although I don't know what happened to that 4th plane. It just doesn't make sense that it hit the pentagon... unless it vaporized on impact.

Uh, except you don't claim to be an eyewitness while there are plenty of other people who claim to have seen the plane hit the Pentagon.

 

[KingPin]

Here's the link I was looking for.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

I know it's weird, and I sound crazy. Things just don't add up.

And I'm not suggesting for a second that the US Government planned 9/11. I am open to the thought that they knew about it and let it happen "for the greater good". Heck, the CIA killed the JFK.

I dunno. I just think everything about 9/11 is TOTALLY hazy and weird. There are big problems with the governments explanation of the whole thing. And given how they like to drop things down the memory hole, I find it hard to trust the American media and government.

 

[z edge]

Here's the link I was looking for.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

I know it's weird, and I sound crazy. Things just don't add up.

And I'm not suggesting for a second that the US Government planned 9/11. I am open to the thought that they knew about it and let it happen "for the greater good". Heck, the CIA killed the JFK.

Actually it wasn't the CIA that killed President Kennedy. The limo he was riding around in had a defective engine, and should have been recalled. However, unsuspecting Kennedy still rode around in the deathtrap and that fateful day in Dallas the motor blew a rod and send it into his head and, and several others too.

 

[BAW]

And I'm not suggesting for a second that the US Government planned 9/11. I am open to the thought that they knew about it and let it happen "for the greater good".

But for the greater good of what? What has the US gained? I'm open to hearing your theories but please explain what good has come from 9/11?

 

[z edge]

I'll admit those pictures don't show much wreckage, and it is hard to pick out. However you can see some debris that appears to be wreckage.

Also, if a plane can travel at 650 mph and NOT travel all the way thru WTC, then why would you expect a plane to skid on it's belly and still penetrate all of the buildings' layers?

As far as the remains of the passengers, disentigrated in the fire/explosion. Wasn't this plane full of fuel?

ANd there is a thing called Photoshop too.

 

[speedracer]

Here's the link I was looking for.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

I know it's weird, and I sound crazy. Things just don't add up.

And I'm not suggesting for a second that the US Government planned 9/11. I am open to the thought that they knew about it and let it happen "for the greater good". Heck, the CIA killed the JFK.

I dunno. I just think everything about 9/11 is TOTALLY hazy and weird. There are big problems with the governments explanation of the whole thing. And given how they like to drop things down the memory hole, I find it hard to trust the American media and government.

1. Are you for real?

2. Given the large amount of fuel in the plane and the thermal conductivity of metal, the plane would very likely be severely deformed upon impact. You expect to see easily recognizable pieces of wreckage if a plane crashes, but not when it incinerates.

 

[KingPin]

But for the greater good of what? What has the US gained? I'm open to hearing your theories but please explain what good has come from 9/11?

- Oil pipelines through Afghanistan that have been blocked for years.
- Increased patriotism amongst Americans.
- Faith and Support for a government that was being criticized heavily.
- Free license to attack "terrorists" like Iraq, North Korea, etc.
- An excuse to back out of treaties and agreements concerning weapons, torture, etc.
- An excuse to beef up "national security" with things like starting a civilian spy program, or sealing up government documents that were previously available.

 

[KingPin]

I'll admit those pictures don't show much wreckage, and it is hard to pick out. However you can see some debris that appears to be wreckage.

Also, if a plane can travel at 650 mph and NOT travel all the way thru WTC, then why would you expect a plane to skid on it's belly and still penetrate all of the buildings' layers?

As far as the remains of the passengers, disentigrated in the fire/explosion. Wasn't this plane full of fuel?

ANd there is a thing called Photoshop too.

All of those photos can be found on the US Military's website.

If the plane was disintegrated by the fire and explosion, then why is the grass around the impact area green and untouched?

 

[KingPin]

1. Are you for real?

2. Given the large amount of fuel in the plane and the thermal conductivity of metal, the plane would very likely be severely deformed upon impact. You expect to see easily recognizable pieces of wreckage if a plane crashes, but not when it incinerates.

Metal doesn't just burn away. When a plane crashes like that, you're right, there's insane amounts of fire, which burn up much of the planes contents and fuel. But the photos don't show any fire of that magnitude. The firefighters are only 40 feet away from the building, and they're on green grass.

 

[speedracer]

Metal doesn't just burn away. When a plane crashes like that, you're right, there's insane amounts of fire, which burn up much of the planes contents and fuel. But the photos don't show any fire of that magnitude. The firefighters are only 40 feet away from the building, and they're on green grass.

Huh? Look at how much of the building is charred and smoky...

 

[pax]

9/11 a government-sponsored conspiracy? I sincerely doubt it. There was too much of a chance for things to go even more horribly than they actually did. If the Pentagon crash was planned, for example, just think of the consequences if the plane had landed just slightly differently--national security nightmare, with all sorts of equipment and intelligence destroyed. That wouldn't have served our purposes, would it?

And, cynical though this may sound, if some national disaster had been planned for political gain, I doubt they would have chosen such a profitable place as WTC for the destruction target. I would venture that many Republicans have lost lots of money (among other things) due to 9/11.

Bottom line, though, 9/11 was a vicious and premeditated attack on the United States most likely perpetrated by the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. Although there were surely some security holes and whatnot, our government surely cannot be held responsible. We are only beginning to figure out how difficult it would have been to prevent--and how difficult it will be to prevent from happening again.

Much as I don't like (That's My) Bush, I sincerely doubt that he or his administration would have collaborated with terrorists for 9/11.

:ause::

Whoa. I think z edge and I actually agree on something. Where's 80sU2isBest?

 

[z edge]

:ause::

Whoa. I think z edge and I actually agree on something. Where's 80sU2isBest?

See Paxy, that wasn't so hard now was it??

I think this may be only the beginning of a new conservative jaunt for you

welcome aboard

 

[Danospano]

Ho--hum. Kingpin and I are simply speculating. Stop calling us crazy, because we're "thinking" outside the box.

The government benefited greatly from the attacks. As Kingpin pointed out the Executive Branch was basically given a free ride with any legislation they want to pass before Congress. This is scary, and usually impossible, but terror made it possible. I honestly believe that people high up in the government had advanced knowledge of such an attack, but let it slide for the good of the country. It created more jobs in the defense department, stimulated the economy by a greater production of military weapons, took an angry, evergrowing consenous to the sidelines, and gave the government more power than they ever wished to possess.

Destroying the WTC is a huge event, and while many lives were lost, we must ask the question: When has the U.S. government put the needs of the working-class, few above the needs of the powerful elite? Never. Never. Never. Our government's trackrecord is disgusting and should be evaluated before we pledge allegiance to their seemingly divine given rights.

 

[kobayashi]

annnnyways...

does anyone have any thoughts on the about-face bush appears to perform regarding economic policy as laid out in the article?

 

[Angela Harlem]

The American government are not murderers. Bush is not a murderer.
Even if it wasn't a plane, what difference does it really make? That is a big if. There is no benefit in 3000+ lives.


"- Oil pipelines through Afghanistan that have been blocked for years.
- Increased patriotism amongst Americans.
- Faith and Support for a government that was being criticized heavily.
- Free license to attack "terrorists" like Iraq, North Korea, etc.
- An excuse to back out of treaties and agreements concerning weapons, torture, etc.
- An excuse to beef up "national security" with things like starting a civilian spy program, or sealing up government documents that were previously available."


Those do not have a price tag. As for some of them, the government does not need such a huge loss of life to do some of these and your government will always be criticised regardless of who is in power.

 

[speedracer]

Ho--hum. Kingpin and I are simply speculating. Stop calling us It created more jobs in the defense department, stimulated the economy by a greater production of military weapons,

Hogwash. As was mentioned before, the overall effect on the nation's economy was to plunge it even further into recession.