Lindsey Graham, "Saddam kicked the inspectors out", and False Memory.

[bleever]

People who know me will tell you: I am not a United States Senator. My career in the House of Representatives: non-existent. So Lindsey Graham is surely the authority between the two of us, regarding the history of the Iraq War.

Except this: he (and I suspect a huge proportion of people, if they had an answer) says that Saddam kicked out the inspectors, so we had no choice but to invade.

But that's not what happened. The administration claimed that the weapons were so well-hidden that the inspectors were wasting their time, and the world's time, by even looking. They told the inspectors that we were about to commence bombing, and that it would be a good time to get out of the country. And for good measure, they did whatever they could to discredit Hans Blix and Mohammed El-Baradei as bumblers not equal to catching an evil genius like Saddam.

And most damning of all: Saddam's refusal to come clean, and prove he had complied with the UN's resolutions about disarmament. He failed to provide sufficient documentation of his nothing, so we needed to invade, immediately.

Of course, he had nothing. Which was what the inspectors were finding. Til we kicked them out.

And now Lindsey Graham, a United States Senator, remembers that we had to invade because Saddam kicked the inspectors out.

This is what is known as "false memory". Here are some explanations I found from an eminent scholar of this phenomenon:



"...memories do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they continually disrupt each other, through a mechanism that we call "interference." Literally thousands of studies have documented how our memories can be disrupted by things that we experienced earlier (proactive interference) or things that we experienced later (retroactive interference).

/snip/


This degree of distorted reporting has been found in scores of studies, involving a wide variety of materials. People have recalled nonexistent broken glass and tape recorders, a clean-shaven man as having a mustache, straight hair as curly, stop signs as yield signs, hammers as screwdrivers, and even something as large and conspicuous as a barn in a bucolic scene that contained no buildings at all. In short, misleading post-event information can alter a person's recollection in a powerful ways, even leading to the creation of false memories of objects that never in fact existed.

/snip/

Relatively modern research on interference theory has focused primarily on retroactive interference effects. After receipt of new information that is misleading in some way, people make errors when they report what they saw. The new, post-event information often becomes incorporated into the recollection, supplementing or altering it, sometimes in dramatic ways.

/snip/

Nearly two decades of research on memory distortion leaves no doubt that memory can be altered via suggestion. People can be led to remember their past in different ways, and they even can be led to remember entire events that never actually happened to them. When these sorts of distortions occur, people are sometimees confident in their distorted or false memories, and often go on to desscribe the pseudomemories in substantial detail.

/snip/

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/loftus.mem.html



So maybe there's an explanation for what Lindsey Graham, sponsor of a measure to suspend all rights of habeus corpus for people in U.S. detention, declares to be true.

Unfortunately, it's not an explanation that does credit to his claim to be a noble standard-bearer for Truth and Justice.

[emdee]

1. This didn't happen 20 years ago....

why can't people REMEMBER? I've had this same discussion with republicans since day one! After explaining that I REMEMBER that the inspectors had to leave *because* Bush was invading, they have this blank look and don't remember! How is this possible?

And, when they claim that it wasn't about WMD - hello! I REMEMBER the speeches before we went in --- why don't they?

Has there been a mass hypnotism or what?

emdee

[bleever]

3. It's almost like the managed to put something in the water so that

no one's memory was more than six months long.

But all this stuff was the news of the day, common knowledge:


* wanting a war.

Cheney twisting the National Intelligence Estimate, under a hurry-up scenario, to make sure it supported war.

* subverting any and every diplomatic effort that may have tripped up his war.

All those troops prepositioned for war, increasing the pressure to pull the trigger.


We all knew. And the "official" narrative snaked and shifted, and as hapless consumers of the news and citizens in fear, we were hard-pressed just to keep up with just what "reality" was operative that week.




Very strange.

[Toots]

23. Study how cults work and you will have your answers.

GOP is a cult designed by Moonies with constant reenforcement from MSM.

[jokerman93]

37. bingo n/t

[tblue37]

41. Bush trotted that meme out during a photo op with

Kofi Annan. No one called him on it, though Kofi Annan looked very startled. Since then, it has been deliberately picked up and spread by Republican liars and shills in the corporate media. Bushie himself calls what he does "catapulting the propaganda."

Americans are ignorant, lazy, self-absorbed. They don't pay much attention to world news. They take their talking points from what they hear on the radio and TV, and the Pubs have that propaganda/Big Lie thing going prefectly.

[polmaven]

2. False Memory!`

Hmmm...Wish I'd known that term when I was a kid and my mother would catch me in a "false memory" episode. But she just called it lying!

[Martin Eden]

4. Nothing wrong with Graham's memory -- just his honesty

He's lying, and counting on others to have "false memories."

[Daylin Byak]

5. Yeah Graham is right

Saddam did kick the inspectors out of Iraq but shortly before we invaded didn't he let them back in.

No need to debate this guy, Lindsey Graham is a bushwhore through and through and will say or change anything to support him.

[Martin Eden]

17. Yeah Graham is a right wing whore

After 7 years of UN inspections and no prospect of sanctions being lifted, Saddam quit cooperating and the inspectors withdrew in 1998. In 2002 with US saber-rattling and the passage of Resolution 1441, Saddam readmittted UN inspectors and granted them access to every site, including his palaces. They were forced to leave a few months later -- not by Saddam, but by the US invasion.

The only imminent threat was the likelihood that the inspectors would report Saddam had no WMD and the rationale for war would vanish along with the mushroom clouds we were told to fear.

[leesa]

20. Also, wasn't the reason Saddam asked them to leave because the CIA

secretly entwined themselves with the inspectors and Saddam found out?

[Martin Eden]

25. Yes, that too n/t

[Zhade]

42. He did NOT kick them out.

Jesus, read some fucking history.

[Debs]

53. No you are mistaken

Iraq NEVER kicked out the inspectors. I assume you are speaking of 1998. Lets not help the rightwing by accepting their spin. What happened was that there was a sensative site protocol in place, negotitated by the Security counsel. It went like this when inspecting a sensative site, four inspectors would be allowed in IF anything were found they would all be allowed in. Richard Butler without Security counsel approval demanded the protocol be changed he showed up at a sensative site and demaded all the inspectors be allowed in. Iraq, following the existing protocol declined offering to allow six inspectors in. RICHARD BUTLER, then removed the inspectors from Iraq. After that Iraq refused to allow them back in, of course by then the papers had run stories that some inspectors had been CIA and had left targetting deviced behind after their inspections. The bottom line is that Iraq did NOT kick out the inspectors even in 98

[elperromagico]

6. Or he could just be lying.

Maybe Graham isn't the one who has false memory.

Maybe it's the people who believe the lies he and his cohorts dole out who have the false memory.

[bleever]

7. What is this "Kool-Aid" that we speak of?

Look at the blank looks on their faces.

On Graham's, and on so many other faces, when you bring up the facts.

They're sure that their stories are right, and that you just don't know the facts.

But their stories are the accepted narrative, the communal delusion, and so many of them really, sincerely, believe it is fact.


Not that I'm putting lying beyond anyone, but his blank expression when challenged on this evening's (shudder) Hannity and Colmes was not that of a master dissembler, but of a blind follower.

Open your eyes, Lindsey: You're screwed, by the newspapers of just a few months ago.


ed: sp

[sandnsea]

8. In 1998

I don't know what remarks you're specifically referring to, but whenever I've heard anybody talk about Saddam kicking out inspectors, they're talking about back in 1998. And those circumstances can be debated too, but let's not confuse what is being debated, only makes us look like we don't know what we're talking about.

[bleever]

9. Sen. Graham, tonight on TV claimed that Saddam threw the inspectors

out, just prior to our invasion.

He's wrong.

[sandnsea]

10. Which program?

I'd like to read the transcript because I've never heard anybody say that before.

[bleever]

13. Thanks for asking.

It was on tonight's "Hannity & Colmes" (11-15-05).

See also eleny's thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5370301

And the Shrub himself has made the very same claim. I'd google it up for you, if I had time right now, but I'll find it later if you want.

[sandnsea]

14. I'll read it

I've just always heard it in reference to 1998. I'll read it when it comes up. Thanks.

[sonicx]

11. But that doesn't really make sense...

...them talking about 1998, not 2003.

What does kicking out inspectors in 1998 have to do with invading in 2003?

[sandnsea]

12. well nothing

But that never stopped them. Most of what they said happened before 1998.

[Debs]

54. I dont see it as debatable

Iraq did not kick out the inspectors in 98 the facts are what they are Richard Butler removed them they were NOT kicked out

[mitchum]

15. Gomer lies about his orientation, so why should he tell the truth...

about anything else?

[bleever]

16. Now really, is that a Naborly thing to say?

:)

[Neil Lisst]

18. No one remembers something that didn't happen better than ...

No one remembers something that didn't happen better than the Wingers.

It's their "go to" move.

[Enhancer]

19. Bullshit politics aside.

I wonder, any relation to this hot piece of ass "f***-me-santa-f***-me-santa" Lauren Graham?

[maxsolomon]

26. oh, enhancer

do you even WATCH that show? i have to live in a house with 2 women who think its SO clever. she's the worst girlfriend in the world. no one ever shuts up.

[wishlist]

21. Bush and his supporters like Graham are the ones 'rewriting history'

Saddam was cooperating by giving inspectors access and destroying long range rockets before Bush rushed to invade. Every time he denied Bush's (now known to be false) accusations, Saddam was called a deceptive liar.

[bleever]

29. Yes, the administration claimed that Saddam's co-operation, because it

did not produce the vast stockpiles they expected, was further proof of his evil genius.

The whole idea of "wrong-footing" Saddam also came out more explicitly in the Downing Street minutes.

[OKthatsIT]

22. Didnt anyone remind Graham about Galloway?

After all, it was Galloway who exposed the propaganda for what it was and then, after we were forced to stomach Bushy lies, Galloway could only rescue people by getting them out of the country.

The Repugs better rethink this SPIN.

The UN Inspectors were almost done with their jobs, that was when the WH started spinning lies about deadly labs/weapons are inside the palace compound. The inspectors knew the WMD were not. The UN Inspectors had been watching the palaces for yrs.

The Bush lies were incredibly infantile. The Inspectors were forced out of Iraq because WE, THE USA, were bombing in Iraq and the US media wasn't reporting it to the US People. It was Bush who threatened anyone inside Iraq with preemptive bombing. The UN Inspectors told Bush he was making a case out of thin air.

But...NOOoooooo....the American People were trapped in a media SpinZone. THE MEDIA wouldnt question the WH...they were, both, claiming a media blackout in Iraq AND extremey excited about their own prospects and ratings, should we begin an invasion.

MEDIA WHORES....dont you agree?

[npincus]

24. slippery fucker... I believe Saddaam DID kick out inspectors

but that was several years BEFORE the start of the Iraq war... the inspectors were admitted back in again after (I believe) threat of further UN sanctions and were able to operate without interference from the Iraqi government UNTIL the US warned them to get the fuck out because we were coming in.

That's what you can call misleading, selective ommission of infromation to craft a perception. That's how the GOP operate. Why doesn't the media call them on this?

[librechik]

30. no--Clinton pulled them out after they were accused of spying for CIA

by Iraq, followed immediately by Desert Fox--Clinton pulled them out to avoid them getting bombed or retaliated against for the bombing.

[bornskeptic]

47. Saddam didn't kick them out in 1998 either.

Check out this piece from FAIR. It compares what the media reported in 1998 with what they said in 2002.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123

Here's one example:

"The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."

-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98


"To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago."

--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02

[Debs]

55. You believe incorrectly

They were NOT kicked out. They were removed by the head of the UNMOVIC team, Richard Butler

[maxsolomon]

27. This is how History is written

A re-write is absolutely neccessary.

[ninkasi]

28. You've brought up a point which really frustrated me at the time...

Well, the whole phony lead-up to the invasion was both frustrating and infuriating, but you say "And most damning of all: Saddam's refusal to come clean, and prove he had complied with the UN's resolutions about disarmament. He failed to provide sufficient documentation of his nothing, so we needed to invade, immediately."

Bush seemed to say that Saddam's refusal to lead us to the weapons he insisted he didn't have was proof that Saddam wasn't cooperating. It seemed like such a bizarre thing to say, that I was further disappointed when the media didn't point out the sheer lunacy of the statement.

Imagine an episode of Law and Order, where the defendant pleads innocent to murder charges, and the D.A. gets a conviction because he refuses to show the police where he hid the murder weapon he denies using. That's really the way Chimp was reasoning when he made the inspectors leave Iraq so he could invade.

[bleever]

31. The logic was circular, and it went unexamined in the media and public

discourse.

But in retrospect it makes so little sense, that the official narrative for the war supporters is that Saddam kicked out the inspectors.

Lindsey Graham was muttering furiously when challenged on this by Colmes last night. The guy's a freakin' U.S. Senator and his memory of history doesn't reach back three years.

[ninkasi]

32. The whole thing was ridiculous...

Anybody with the ability to read could quickly determine that Saddam had not kicked out the inspectors right before the invasion, and you are right, the lies and distortions were completely let slide by the media and the public alike.

I remember the frustration here at DU, since we could see the glaring inconsistencies in the administration's statements, and I imagine many of us yelled at our television sets when the lies by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the rest went unchallenged.

It's really sad that even now, they continue to lie. Even when confronted with the facts, they try to deny and lie and spin their way out of it. Now, though, they are being challenged more and more on it; I only wish it hadn't happened too late.

[anaxarchos]

33. For anyone who hasn't seen it...

There is a group of young Democratic Congresspeople, most notably including Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), who show up at the wee hours on CSPAN, from the floor of the House. Representing the Democratic "30 Something" Group, they hold a free-form conversation about all the ills in America and about the rottenness of the Republicans. They obviously pick up floor time that no one else wants because the galleries are empty, the floor is empty, and the first time I saw it, I was waiting for someone to turn out the lights. The "conversation" is largely unscripted so it is often halting and sometimes tentative. Yet, the sincerity of it all (at 2 AM), slowly won me over...

The Republicans noticed too it seems. A few weeks ago, they started responding. A couple of days ago, I watched Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) launch a "counter attack". I was amazed by it... Just some highlights: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (still there.. they just haven't been found yet). Iraq was responsible for 9/11. WMDs were an imminent threat to the United States. Joe Wilson's report proved the opposite of the press claims, i.e. that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger in order to build a nuclear weapon, and on... and on... and on...

All of this was said without weasel words or convoluted explanation - as if it were simply a matter of fact.

Sometimes, it makes you wonder where to even start...

[bleever]

39. Wow. I want to start hanging with those guys.

Thanks for the info.

[boobooday]

34. This is one of their favorites

BushCo always tries to sneak in this little "revision." They just slip it right by and usually get away with it.

Same old lies and more lies.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

35. "False memories" is a term misused by some pseudo-scientists

to discount reports of early in life traumatic abuse, and to claim that the memories were implanted by a therapist.

Subsequent research shows there is not one documented such case.

....


This has been a clarification, and is separate from what should be being discussed in this case.

[RazzleDazzle]

58. And it's a grave disservice to use the term here

Lindsey Graham's remarks are either becaue he's misinformed, or because he's lying.

Period.

Thanks for your post.

[Patsy Stone]

36. K&R

Because you're so right. :)

[Disturbed]

38. W has stated that many times.

L. Graham is only parroting that lie.


"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush

[RevCheesehead]

40. A nod and a kick for the Bleev.

;)

[baldguy]

43. When given a choice between an inconvenient truth or a comforting lie

The fearful among us will choose the lie every time.

And the idea that the President of the United States would:

*Deliberately lie to start an aggressive war
*Expose our soldiers and intelligence agents to meaningless deaths and
*Actively take steps to undermine our ability defend this country

is insanely frightening.

[bleever]

48. "And the idea that the President of the United States would:

*Deliberately lie to start an aggressive war
*Expose our soldiers and intelligence agents to meaningless deaths and
*Actively take steps to undermine our ability defend this country

is insanely frightening."


Brilliant. The fulcrum.

[Debs]

56. Exactly

Who was it who said that propaganda is not used to convince informed people but to give cover for moral cowards who do not want to take a stand (warning very liberal paraphrase)

[Nothing Without Hope]

44. VIDEO - Olbermann shows another example of them caught in the act of

trying to re-write history Orwell-style: the attempted rewriting of a WH Press Conference transcript.

Keith and the Editor and Publisher spokesman absolutely nail it. Keith even mentions Orwell and calls this situation "double A negative":



Countdown-Rewrite of the White House Transcript
Scotty-Did He or Didn't He say "That's Accurate"
CanOFun 11/16/2005 4:01:26 PM
Windows media: http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/countdownrewritenov1005.wmv

Recommended. We MUST EXPOSE AND FIGHT THESE LIES. The avalanche of self-serving revisionist history is only just getting under way.

[bleever]

49. Thanks, Hope! Funny how much of this Newspeak dissection comes down to:

just being willing to stick by the history of last week, month, and year.


:hi:

[Nothing Without Hope]

51. Yes, they rely heavily on short attention spans and poor memories.

Gadflies like us are needed to burst the bubbles of historical political fantasy.
:toast:

[understandinglife]

45. Excellent. Thank you.

I only wish I had seen this thread sooner so I could have recommended it.



Peace.

[mike_c]

46. there are still quite a few DUers parroting this myth...

...and its corollary "we only voted for the IWR to force Saddam to let the inspectors back in."

[bornskeptic]

50. While Saddam did not order the inspectors out in 1998,

after the bombing in that year, he did not consent to allow them to return until September of 2002, and then he wanted the same restrictions on the inspections as had held prior to 1998. The US considered these conditions inadequate, and no agreement for resumption was reached until after the passage of the "IWR", and the passage of a new UN resolution. Saddam eventually consented to the US demands, and the inspectors returned to Iraq on November 18, 2002.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,794275,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2167933.stm

[mike_c]

57. wrong-- you're perpetuating the myth again....

Here is the text of Iraq's letter agreeing to UNCONDITIONAL resumption of inspections in Sept. 2002. The only folks trying to impose "conditions" were in the United States.

Dear Secretary-General,

I have the honor to refer to the series of discussions held between Your Excellency and the Government of the Republic of Iraq on the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions on the question of Iraq which took place in New York on 7 March and 2 May and in Vienna on 4 July 2002, as well as the talks which were held in your office in New York on 14 and 15 September 2002, with the participation of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States.

I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.

The Government of the Republic of Iraq has responded, by this decision, to your appeal, to the appeal of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, as well as those of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries.

The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction. This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of sanctions imposed in Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687(1991). T this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.

In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all Member States of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and article (II) of the Charter of the United Nations.

I would be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of the Security Council members.

Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General the assurances of my highest consideration.

Dr. Naji Sabri

Minister of Foreign Affairs

Republic of Iraq

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/09/16/international1954EDT0706.DTL
http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=4733&Cr=iraq&Cr1=

The U.S. immediately began trying to manipulate and undercut the return of inspectors, and to divert attention away from certification of Iraq's disarmament (which by that time was nearly a decade complete):

http://www.defense.gov/news/Sep2002/n09192002_200209194.html

Rumsfeld said that while other nations are dangerous and are looking at weapons of mass destruction, no terrorist state in the world poses a more immediate threat to the security of America than the regime of Saddam Hussein.

<snip>

He said there is a place for inspections, but not with this regime. Inspections are effective if the country being inspected cooperates and wants to prove to the world it is complying.

"They tend not to be as effective in uncovering deceptions and violations, when the target is determined not to be disarmed," he said. "Iraq's record of the last decade is that it wants weapons of mass destruction and that it is determined to develop them."

Iraq already has offensive biological and chemical weapons, and it's working to develop a nuclear capability, Rumsfeld said. Saddam's regime also maintains ties to a number of terrorist groups. The combination of a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups that wish to use those weapons is a danger the United States and the United Nations cannot ignore, he said.

"Since Sept. 11 we have seen a new means of delivering these weapons -- terrorist networks," Rumsfeld said. "To the extent that they might transfer (weapons of mass destruction) to terrorist groups, they could conceal their responsibility for attacks on our people."

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concurred with the secretary's remarks on the dangers of Iraq. He assured the senators that the U.S. military is prepared to do whatever President Bush requires of it.

"Today we have sufficient forces to continue our ongoing operations, meet our international commitments and continue to protect the American homeland," Myers said.

[bornskeptic]

59. I said that the US was the party that would not accept the conditions.

That doesn't change the fact that there were no inspections in October and there weren't going to be inspections unless Saddam agreed to the conditions which the US demanded. You claim that in the letter you quote Iraq agrees to unconditional inspections, but the letter doesn't say that at all.

To this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.

How do you read this as saying IRAQ is agreeing to unconditional inspections? It was not until November 13,2002 that Iraq agreed to allow inspections of the Presidential palaces and certain other areas, as demanded by the UN resolution.

The terms of the resolution, written by the United States and Britain, demand that Iraq give U.N. weapons inspectors immediate and free access to suspected weapons sites, including the Iraqi presidential palaces and other sensitive areas previously declared off-limits.

The resolution also demands that inspectors have the right to interview anyone, anywhere and anytime while investigating. Iraq has refused to allow weapons inspections since 1998.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec02/resolution.html

[mike_c]

60. you're parsing again....

Iraq did not set conditions for the U.S. to not accept. What part of "the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions" don't you understand? The "practical arrangements" you object to were things like "when will the inspection team be assembled and enroute to Baghdad?" and "how many vehicles and drivers will be needed?" Those matters weren't restrictive "conditions."

[texpatriot2004]

52. Thanks Bleever for keeping the record straight. I remember just

like you.