Hey, I Guessed Right
As to Bush’s “36 Nations” fib, my own speculation was that they were including the NATO training mission:
Perhaps he is counting the ten extra countries involved in NATO’s training mission, a non-combat affair–where none have more than 15 people involved?
And it turns out that was the case. Of course, the accounting is still bogus even if you accept the NATO mission as “troops on the ground.” In the list of countries the White House released, Canada (1 “liasion officer”) and Tonga have withdrawn–Tonga, in fact, withdrew almost three years ago. Other problems with the “36” count are detailed in the TPM Muckraker article, but suffice to say that the Bush nation count has always been bogus in some form or another, like counting Costa Rica, which has no military.
The problem is, this count is so bogus it makes me wonder why they included it. Were they so careless that they just used an old number from somewhere? Are they so desperate for the illusion of international support that they’ll say anything no matter how blatant? Or were they so deeply engaged in lying throughout the speech that they figured, “hey, we don’t fact-check anything else in this speech, why fact-check this?”
Or did they throw this lie in intentionally so that people would focus on what is really an inconsequential statistic, and give less attention to the whopping huge lies in the speech, like “things are improving in Iraq,” “the surge is a success,” or “you can trust me on this”?
Bonus material: Here’s a fun geography game to play. Assuming you have basic country-on-the-map identification skills (and you’re not one of those poor schlobs who can’t fine the U.S. on a map), then look at the list of nations that have “troops on the ground” according to the White House. See the list? OK, now go to an unmarked map of the word, and see if you can correctly identify all those nations on a map.
The point: the list of 26 nations not in the NATO mission, even people with reasonably good geographical skills would have trouble locating even half of those on a map. At least one of the countries most people could get–Japan–withdrew a year ago. I imagine that most people would only find five or six. The NATO list is far easier–but then again, these are not actually “troops on the ground” in the sense that they’re fighting the war.
Actually the only countries I would have a problem finding is Tonga. But I should add, I am one of the few Americans out there who have a degree in Geography (human, economic). Every night when I go to bed, I look through some manner of atlas to put my mind at ease.
Also, Slovenia and Slovakia one has to be careful, because of the close spelling, its easy to mix the two up in casual conversation.
In regard to the big lie, I think it’s put there on purpose as a distraction from all the more important lies.
I think Michael Moore does a similar thing too. He’ll put in a factual error in his films on purpose so all the raving right wingers can go ballistic calling him a liar, then Moore feeds off the free publicity.
For Moore I think this is good business but it undermines the cause. It allows for emotionally biased right wingers to file his hole piece of work under “lies” and this prevents him from moving minds. As Gandhi said of the British: “I don’t want to kill them, I just want them to change their minds”. The whole thing then just reinforces existing positions. The right sees what they want and the left sees what they want.
With Bush, those will look at his speech and see what they want to see. Which is exactly the way he wants it. His goal is to just kick the can down the road for another 15 months. He just bought 6 more months.
Iraq is a disaster. It serves no purpose and sucks in money and spits out venom. What ever happened to the Republican congressional mantra of not “throwing money down a rat hole”? Does that only apply to money spent on America and American’s but not Iraq and Iraqi’s?
I often think that the Democrats heart is just not in the game. At the very least they could and should be using the Reppublicans own phraseology against them: “Why are we poring money down a rat hole? – To shore up the President’s legacy in History? Is that why are brave men are suffering and dying for in Iraq? – Not one dime more should be thrown down that rat hole until the bulk of our men and women are home!”
That’s “our brave” not ‘are’ brave …
Why use the number 36, in last night’s speech?
Hey Luis,
I’m breaking rule 6 so you can understand some key information about GW’s deceptions. No need to post it. It’s for you to research if you wish…
Want to know the true significance of the number 36 in Bush’s speech? There obviously are not 36 countries fighting in “Babble on.” So why did our Bonesman President use it in his speech last night?
Discerning the truth about the USA
Peace…