You are herecontent / How the Bush administration sold the Iraq War to American people

How the Bush administration sold the Iraq War to American people

Road to war
Updated: 1:56 p.m. ET Nov. 8, 2005

It was September of 2002, just three days before the emotional one-year anniversary of 9/11 and the giant wound of the al Qaeda attack on New York was still open.

The Bush administration had assembled a media strategy team known as the White House Iraq Group. It consisted of top officials, including those in the vice president’s office whose goals starting after Labor Day was to sell a war on Iraq, which had no detectable role on 9/11.

On September 7, 2002, White House chief of staff Andy Card referred to the effort in an interview with The New York Times and said, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Remember this photo from the Vietnam war?

Well, be warned that the images from the ongoing Iraq war are as bad and worse.

Children and other victims are being subjected to at least equal horrors from the use of napalm and white phosporous by U.S. forces. The results are gut churning and extremely difficult to look at, but if you think you can stand it, see this JPEG image. And here's a brief excerpt from the commentary at Daily Kos:

First, I think it should be a stated goal of United States policy to not melt the skin off of children.

As a natural corollary to this goal, I think the United States should avoid dropping munitions on civilian neighborhoods which, as a side effect, melt the skin off of children. You can call them "chemical weapons" if you must, or far more preferably by the more proper name of "incendiaries". The munitions may or may not precisely melt the skin off of children by setting them on fire; they do melt the skin off of children, however, through robust oxidation of said skin on said children, which is indeed colloquially known as "burning". But let's try to avoid, for now, the debate over the scientific phenomenon of exactly how the skin is melted, burned, or caramelized off of the aforementioned children. I feel quite confident that others have put more thought into the matter of how to melt the skin off of children than I have, and will trust their judgment on the matter.

Now, I know that we may be melting the skin off of children in order to give them freedom, or to prevent Saddam Hussein from possibly melting the skins off of those children at some future date. These are good and noble things to bring children, especially the ones who have not been killed by melting their skin.

I know, as well, that we do not drop "chemical weapons" on Iraq. We may, in the course of fighting insurgents in civilian neighborhoods, drop "incendiaries" or other airborne weaponry which may melt the skins off of children as an accidental side effect of illuminating their neighborhoods or melting the skins off their neighbors. In that this still can be classified as melting the skins off of children, I feel comfortable in stating that the United States should not condone the practice. (This may mean, when fighting in civilian neighborhoods, we take nuanced steps to avoid melting the skin off of children, such as not dropping munitions that melt the skin off of children.)

And I know it is true, there is some confusion over whether the United States was a signatory to the Do Not Melt The Skin Off Of Children part of the Geneva conventions, and whether or not that means we are permitted to melt the skin off of children, or merely are silent on the whole issue of melting the skin off of children.

But all that aside, there are very good reasons, even in a time of war, not to melt the skin off of children.

  • First, because the insurgency will inevitably be hardened by tales of American forces melting the skin off of children.
  • Second, because the civilian population will harbor considerable resentment towards Americans for melting the skin off of their children.


O nation miserable,
With an untitled tyrant bloody-scepter'd,
When shalt thou see thy wholesome days again.

(Shakespeare - Macbeth, Act IV. Scene III.)

I remember that photo ... I never imagined we would use it again more than thirty years later. I did look at the file photo ... it's unbearable how evil the smiling president is . His heinous crimes against Iraqui babies and children that had no WMD's hidden in their cribs must go to ICC> that is the only alternative we have that will be acceptable from us to the world.


"But the investigation was not in time to stop White House operatives from executing what had already been a masterful and successful marketing of what State Department official Richard Haass called at the time, "a war of choice." "

Can you believe MSNBC? What balls. If not for them, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess, and they fucking know it. There was tons of mis and disinformation out there which they conveniently didn't bother to contest, and the marketers were never challenged in any meaningful way. How much money are you making on this war, GE? Bastards.

Whoemever said "it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission" was no doubt right, and these assholes aren't too proud to use it to their advantage.

What fucking scum.

Will the pictures from Fallujah of the innocent men, women and children being melted by the illegal use of the chemical, White Phosphorous, now melt the hearts of those in congress who still give their support to Bush. No matter what is said about Bush, he can only maintain his position with the support of congress. The only chemical abuse Bush has had to experience is Cocaine and Jim Beam, would he also like to experience the chemical effects of Napalms and White Phosphorous? The indictments of Bush must also be the indictments of the congress that still supports him.

It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them.
--Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

A great source for Bush war crime information:

Everyone should also read this book review by Thom Hartmann:

A real eye opener, I believe, especially for fence-sitters and blind Bush supporters. If you know any of these types, please make sure you pass this on to them!

John Perry

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Find the perfect Purple Bridesmaid Dresses for your bridesmaids from




Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.