False Premise

It is a false statement made by informed people often enough to be presumed to be true; Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States withdraws its military presence from the beleaguered Middle Eastern country.

In an interview with the ignorant Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Vice President Dick Cheney said, “If Al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of an assistant oil resource. Iraq has almost 100 billion barrels of reserves, producing 2.5 to three million barrels a day. You take a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda and give it that kind of revenue, there‘s no telling the amount of trouble they could get into.”[i]

Later on in the interview, the vice president said, “and if a great white shark had balls, it would be a man.” Both assumptions are unlikely.

Arizona Senator and Republican presidential nominee John McCain asked U.S Commander in Iraq General David Petraeus during a Senate hearing if Al Qaeda was a major threat in Iraq. General Petraeus testified, “It is a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say 15 months ago.”[ii] Fifteen months ago, Al Qaeda was a major threat, but now Al Qaeda is a major threat. The first casualty of war is the truth. The second casualty of war is grammar. The war in Iraq has greatly improved our ability to manhandle the English language.

The Mainstream Media participates in this deception. The issue of Al Qaeda’s ability to take over Iraq strained its way into a Democratic presidential debate on February 26, 2008. During the debate, Tim Russert, the distinguished but overrated moderator of the political talk show Meet the Press, asked Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama a hypothetical question regarding Iraq after American troops have successfully withdrawn from the besieged Middle Eastern country. “If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in totality, and Al Qaeda resurges, and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right in your mind as American president to reinvade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?”[iii]

Senator Clinton attempted to answer the question by saying, “You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe…”[iv]

Mr. Russert rudely interrupted the Senator. He had the Senator from New York in his crosshairs. “But this is reality,” he said. Senator Clinton answered, “No, well, it isn’t reality. You are making lots of different hypothetical assessments.”[v]

Senator Clinton is a sophisticated woman who would not use harsh language in a public setting. However, the lovely Mona Lisa Vito, as portrayed by the beautiful and talented Academy Award winning actress Marisa Tomei in the movie “My Cousin Vinnie,” would have said in her charming Brooklyn accent that she could not answer the hypothetical question posed by Mr. Russert. Mr. Russert would have grinned and said, “Aha! You can’t answer the question because you don’t know the answer.” Ms Vito would have said, “The reason I can’t answer your question is because it’s a bullshit question!” Thus wiping the smug look off Tim Russert’s face.

Indeed, Tim Russert. It is not reality. You are making up a lot of hypothetical assumptions.

Mr. Russert’s hypothetical question is based on a false premise, that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling Iraq, a falsity perpetuated by the Bush Administration with the assistance from the Mainstream Media (MSM). The Bush Administration and the Mainstream Media feign ignorance of Iraqi history and current demographic data in order to continually perpetrate the rationale for maintaining a military presence in Iraq.

President Bush’s ignorance is understandable because he does not read. If the incompetent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice walked into the Oval Office to inform the clueless president that Cardassians (Star Trek reference) were threatening to invade Antarctica, our intrepid leader would immediately dispatch troops to Alaska to repel the attack.

But Mr. Russert is a journalist, or at least he portrays one on television. He should know better than to spread a falsehood during a presidential debate.

The correct answer to the question is to challenge Mr. Russert’s assumption by asking him if he honestly believes Al Qaeda is capable of defeating the collective will of 28 million people. The best way to answer Mr. Russert’s question is volley the facts right back to him.

The total population of Iraq is 28.5 million. Ethnically, Iraq consists of Arabs (64.7%), Kurds (23%), Azerbaijani (5.6 %), Turks (1.2%), Persian (1.1%), and other ethnic groups (4.4%). Iraqi religious affiliations are as follows: 62% Shia Muslim, 34% Sunni Muslim, and others.[vi]

Al Qaeda fighters are foreigners, not local Iraqi’s. Estimates of the number of Al Qaeda in Iraq range from 850 to more than a thousand, according to the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Demographically, less than 1% (.0000357% to be exact) of the Iraqi population consists of Al Qaeda fighters. There are probably more Jehovah Witnesses in Iraq than Al Qaeda fighters.

Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi Muslim sect that follows a stricter form of Islam. Wahhabists and Shia are enemies. Wahhabists believe Shia Muslims deviated from the true path of Islam, therefore Shia are heretics who should be put to death unless they return to the true path of Islam.

The Kurds reject Al Qaeda’s perspective of Islam. “Most Kurds are Sunni Muslim, but generally have little religious zeal. They drink hard and dance harder and rarely pray five times a day.”[vii] I’m guessing Wahhabists would not approve of Muslims acting like college frat boys on spring break.

The Sunni Muslims in the Anbar province rejected Al Qaeda oppressive tactics, and formed alliances with the United States military to expel Al Qaeda. It was not the promise of freedom that convinced the Iraqis in Anbar to assist the Americans. Instead, it was the lure of cash. The Bush Administration is paying Iraqis in Anbar not to engage our soldiers.

If you accept the Bush Administration’s argument that Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States military prematurely withdraws from Iraq, or Vice President Cheney’s contention that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling the oil fields in Iraq, or Mr. Russert’s premise of Al Qaeda resurging in Iraq if US troops withdraw, then you are arguing 850 to a thousand foreigners armed with machine guns and suicide bombers are capable of taking over a country.

Incidentally, a report from the office of the vice president indicated a motorcycle gang from southern California is also capable of capturing Iraq.

Not everyone shares the Bush Administration’s pessimism. In a message to the European Union in Belgium, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, “We are today more confident than any time before, that we are close to the point where we can declare victory against al Qaeda and its allies.”[viii]

If you accept the premise that 1,000 men can take over a country of 28 million people, then you are arguing the United States military (140,000 troops) and the independent contractors (estimate 150,000) are abject failures. One thousand mercenaries can succeed in controlling Iraq, but the “Coalition of the Willing” is incapable of securing the country.

Al Qaeda cannot control the oil fields because 1,000 foreign fighters are incapable of controlling large segments of Iraq. Capturing the oil fields would involve repelling the Iraqi military from the oil fields, extracting the oil from the ground, loading the oil in tankers, selling the oil on the open market, and finding a buyer. It could happen in the movies, except that James Bond would prevail in the end.

Not to say that 1,000 mercenaries are incapable of causing mayhem in Iraq. On September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers created havoc in New York City and Washington DC.

But for the media to hype the threat of 1,000 fighters in order to justify the Bush Administration’s military occupation of Iraq is unpardonable.

It is understandable for the average voter to ask such a question because the public is factually unaware of the status of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The average American probably does not know the difference between a Sunni Muslim and a can of Sunkist orange soda pop. It’s not like voters are asking a question they know the answer to like what is the capital of Vermont – which is…?

The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are exploiting our collective ignorance regarding Iraq. An attendee of the Christians United for Israel Tour who was actually arguing for more military intervention in the Middle East said, “If we move out of Iraq, the Muslims are going to take over and they are going to follow us here.”[ix] First, Muslims are the majority in Iraq. It is their country. Second, they cannot follow us here. They do not have the means of transporting thousands of soldiers to the United States, unless they decide to launch a massive invasion by swimming from Iraq to the United States.

Al Qaeda will fail to control Iraq, if the threat to take over Iraq ever existed, for the same reason the “Coalition of the Willing” is unable to secure Iraq. It is because Al Qaeda and the soldiers stationed in Iraq are foreigners. Iraqis will not submit to the will of foreigners, as would any other people who are being subjected to a military occupation from a foreign country.

The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are acting in concert to assert the falsehood that Al Qaeda is capable of taking over the country of Iraq. It happened before. The Bush Administration perpetrated a fraud on the American people when it argued Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security. The Mainstream Media were willing accomplices because the false evidence presented by the Bush Administration was not questioned.

There was sufficient evidence available before the war to contradict the claims made by the Bush Administration. In an interview with Bill Moyers’, 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon said, “We only knew that the connection the Administration was making between Saddam and Al Qaeda was very tenuous at best and that the argument it was making over the aluminum tubes seemed highly dubious. We knew these things.”[x]

But the Bush Administration also duped the Mainstream Media. In his infamous appearance on Meet the Press on September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney said, “There’s a story in the New York Times this morning, this is – and I want to attribute this to the Times. I don’t want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but… it’s now public that, in fact, [Saddam Hussein] has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.”[xi] Vice President Cheney argued the story about Saddam Hussein attempting to acquire aluminum tubes must be true because the story appeared in the New York Times. If the Times printed it, then it must be true. Unbeknownst to the public, the Bush Administration leaked that story to the New York Times.

Displaying brilliant journalistic instinct, Tim Russert sat by his phone, like a high school geek, waiting for someone to call him to counter the Bush Administration’s argument for war. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Tim Russert said, “To this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.”[xii] Mr. Russert lacked the initiative to expose the Bush Administration’s false rationale for invading Iraq.

The Mainstream Media is as guilty of war crimes as is the Bush Administration because it neglected the evidence Saddam Hussein was not the mortal threat before the war. Furthermore, the Mediacracy perpetuates the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq deception, thereby continuing the justification for war in Iraq.


[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 11, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 8, 2008.
[iii] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[iv] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[v] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[vi] Encyclopedia Britannica, “Iraq Fact Sheet.”
[vii] Edward Wong, “In a Twist of History, Kurds Patrol Baghdad,” New York Times, April 24, 2007.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 17, 2008.
[ix] Max Blumenthal, “Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour.”
[x] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xi] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xii] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.

A Process Compromised

When asked during the HBO show “Real Time with Bill Maher” about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s success in recent Democratic primaries, Fox News pollster, conservative political consultant, and Republican loyalist Frank Luntz indicated there were fives reasons accounting for Senator Obama’s accomplishment. Mr. Luntz cleverly called the reasons “The 5 M’s.”[i]

First is money because Senator Obama raised the most money. Second is message because the Illinois Senator’s message of hope captured the imagination of the electorate.

It was the third “M” that caught my attention – Malice. The conservative pollster explained registered republican voters were voting in open primaries for Senator Obama in order to cause mischief in the Democratic nomination process.

The third “M” was a reminder of a conversation between Robert Redford and Hal Holbrook in the great movie “All the President’s Men” regarding the “infiltration of the Democrats.”

Mr. Holbrook, portraying the mysterious White House insider Deep Throat, described the methods used by the Nixon Administration to sabotage the Democratic Party. In a dark, secluded parking garage, Deep Throat said to Bob Woodward, “They were frightened of Muskie and look who got destroyed. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they’re running against. They bugged. They followed people. Fake press leaks. Fake letters. They cancelled Democratic campaign rallies. They investigated Democratic private lives. They planted spies, stole documents and on and on.”[ii]

Disgraced former President Richard M Nixon was traumatized by his narrow defeat in the 1960 presidential election to the handsome and charismatic Massachusetts Senator John F Kennedy. In Nixon's psychologically scarred mind, the best way to insure victory and prevent further trauma was to rig the nomination process of the opposing party.

Nixon left two lasting legacies in electoral politics in the United States. First is the use of the “Southern Strategy,” a blatant attempt to exploit racial anxieties of southern, white Democrats, thus siphoning votes from the Democratic Party. Second, willfully sabotaging the nominating process in the Democratic Party. Both strategies are still used by the Republican Party.

An assessment of recent Democratic presidential nomination campaigns offers proof of the Republican Party’s nefarious activities. In 2004, former Vermont governor Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination before a single ballot was cast. He was considered the front-runner because the former Governor from Vermont raised the most campaign funds. The central issue of his candidacy was his opposition to the war in Iraq.

Conservatives quickly labeled Governor Dean an extreme liberal whose political views are in sharp contrast with the values of Americans. But Dean was running against the war in Iraq – an unnecessary war initiated over fictitious reasons by a fallacious President. It was not in the Republican Party’s best interest to run against an antiwar candidate.

After a disappointing third place finish in the Iowa Caucus, Governor Dean attempted to rally his disillusioned supporters with a rousing speech. Except that Governor Dean was a little too enthusiastic. He concluded his concession speech with an exuberant “BYAW!!!” The media replayed what became known as the “Dean Scream” over and over again. Democrats became disenchanted with the crazy, red-faced liberal from Vermont.

Americans find such exuberance distasteful in a presidential candidate; however not knowing the names of foreign leaders is acceptable. Foreign leaders are foreigners and in America nobody cares about foreigners.

However, the Republican Party still needed a beatable opponent. The next best thing to a liberal from Vermont was a liberal from Massachusetts. As a state, Massachusetts is America’s patsy, forever obliviously wearing a “Kick Me” sign carefully pasted on its back.

Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam War credentials were a significant problem considering he was running against the two virtual draft dodgers, President George Bush and Vice President Dick (I had other priorities) Cheney, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth eventually torpedoed Senator Kerry’s chances of becoming president.

In 1992, the Republican Party was probably salivating at the chance to run against a draft dodging, womanizing liberal from a small, indistinguishable southern state. However, Texas billionaire Ross Perot siphoned votes from President Bush and the Republicans lost the presidency to serial womanizer Governor Bill Clinton.

In 1988, the Democratic Party nominated former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. However, the front-runner for the nomination was former Colorado Senator Gary Hart – who lost the Democratic nomination to former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984.

Senator Hart’s candidacy dropped dead after the Miami Herald published a picture of the amorous Senator with a lovely woman, who was not his wife, on his lap.

Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was another strong candidate whose candidacy did not survive an alleged scandal. It was disclosed that Senator Biden was lifting passages from a speech made by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock in his own speeches. Senator Biden was forced to drop out of the presidential race.

Governor Dukakis was an attractive candidate to run against. He was the former governor of Massachusetts, also known to conservatives as the most liberal state in America. To conservatives, liberalism is just another word for evil. Massachusetts has such a negative connotation in conservative politics that former Governor Mitt Romney often refused to name the state he served in. Instead, he used euphemisms to describe the state; such as I was the governor of a difficult state.

Governor Dukakis was attacked during the presidential campaign because he was against laws mandating the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as governor he supported prison furloughs, and he failed to clean up the environmental disaster in Boston Harbor.

Governor Dukakis’ was not only an easy candidate to run against, but he also provided an excuse to use the “Southern Strategy” against the Democrats. It was the prison furlough issue that was especially damaging once a commercial of a menacing black man named Willie Horton began circulating on television. What better way to scare white people to death than to introduce the possibility of a Democratic president releasing angry black men from prison who will rape and kill white women upon tasting freedom.

Governor Dukakis was such a weak candidate; the Republicans did not even have use the Governor’s Greek ancestry against him, but it does not mean the Republicans would not be incapable of using such tactics in the future.

Three out of the last four Democratic nominees fit a profile the Republicans are comfortable running against, beatable liberals with heavy baggage.

Senator Barack Obama developed a sizable lead in the Democratic nomination process by vaulting over the inevitable Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama accomplished this feat by mobilizing young voters who are participating in the nominating process for the first time. In addition, Obama has attracted independents and Republicans. In open primaries, 57% of registered republicans crossed party lines and voted for Senator Obama.

If Frank Luntz’s assertion that Republicans are voting for Senator Obama simply to cause mischief in the Democratic Party is true, then the Republican Party is involved in a blatant attempt to sabotage the Democratic Party. Republican mischief is a threat to the integrity of the nomination process. The method of nominating a candidate has been compromised.

If a Republican operative wanted to create a profile of the perfect presidential candidate to run against in general election, then the profile would include the candidate’s race, ethnicity, name, record of public service, gaffes, religion and vulnerability to trivial issues.

If a Republican operative wanted to follow Nixon’s textbook strategy of how to defeat the Democrats in the general election, then Senator Obama could be considered the easiest candidate to defeat in November. Senator Obama is a textbook Republican opponent.

Mr. Obama is a black man, with an exotic name. His middle name Hussein corresponds with the last name of our mortal enemy and threat to national security Saddam Hussein. He can be labeled a Muslim because of his exotic name. Even though Senator Obama does attend a Christian church in Chicago, the church can be mildly labeled as Afro-centric, or menacingly considered as Black Separatist. Senator Obama is politically inexperienced having served in the United States Senate for only two years. Early in the presidential campaign, he was prone to gaffes and mistakes. As for trivial, nonsensical issues, Senator Obama does not wear a flag pin on his lapel, and he keeps his arms at his side during the National Anthem.

The propaganda wing of the Republican Party is an active participant in the practice to undermine the Democratic nomination process. The Weekly Standard editor, Fox News political analyst, former GOP strategist and evil embodied William Kristol was extremely grateful that Senator Obama defeated the Republican Party’s old nemesis Senator Hillary Clinton in Iowa. In a column, Kristol heaped praise on the Senator from Illinois, stating the young senator was charismatic, charming, “a gifted politician and an anti-politician.”[iii]

However, Kristol turned on Obama when it became apparent Senator Obama was going to become the Democratic nominee. In a February 25, 2008 Op-Ed article in the New York Times, Kristol implied Senator Obama was an elitist because he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel. By not wearing a flag pin, Senator Obama is indicating he is better than the Troglodytes and Neanderthals who still choose to wear flag pins.

Early in the presidential campaign, deceitful Fox News personality Sean Hannity was complementary towards Senator Obama, saying, “I think he’s a likeable person. She’s (Senator Clinton) not.” Hannity defended Obama whenever the Clintons “attacked” the Illinois Senator, but once Senator Obama built a comfortable lead among pledged delegates, Hannity proclaimed on his nationally syndicated radio show that “having Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee was the best way for a Republican to win in November.”[iv]

However, Republicans suddenly are voting for Senator Clinton. Maybe the enthusiastic crowds at the Obama campaign rallies are intimidating the Republicans. Or maybe the Republicans are imaging a debate between the youthful Obama and the charismatically challenged Arizona Senator John McCain.

Egomaniacal radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh prompted his listeners to vote Clinton in order to prolong the Democratic nomination process hoping the eventual nominee becomes irreparably damaged during the process.

In Texas, 119,000 Republicans voted for Senator Clinton providing her with the margin of victory. According to an article in the Boston Globe, John Taylor, the Republican chairman of Madison County in Texas said, “Some people there that I recognized voting said they were going to do some damage if they could… These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall.”[v]

The Republicans want the nominating process to continue hoping Senator Clinton at best will walk away with the Democratic nomination against the wishes of the voters, thus damaging the party beyond repair, or at worst deliver a crucial setback against Senator Obama that will linger until the general election. The Republicans want to run against a damaged opponent.

It is ironic that Republicans are hoping their mortal enemies (the Clintons) will be an important factor in Senator McCain capturing the presidency. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton is willingly enabling the vast Right Wing Conspiracy in achieving its dastardly goals.

The method of nominating a Democratic candidate for president is compromised. Republicans cannot be trusted to fairly participate in the process. Republicans have demonstrated in the past a tendency to sabotage. For the sake of future elections, the Democratic Party should consider locking out Republicans and independents from the nomination process.

Anyone who believes such groupthink is impossible should watch videotape of the people who were trying to disrupt the 2000 ballot recount in Florida. Sprinkled throughout the angry white faces were active congressional Republican staffers trying to stop the recount.

The only way to truly know if the method of choosing the Democratic nominee was compromised by unethical, deceitful, untrustworthy, double-crossing Republicans would be the actual general election results in November. If Senator Obama candidacy implodes, if he loses in a landslide to Senator McCain, then it can be argued the process is indeed compromised.

[i] Real Time with Bill Maher, February 15, 2008.
[ii] “All the President’s Men,” Warner Brothers, 1976.
[iii] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[iv] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[v] Hardball with Chris Matthews, March 18, 2008.