The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Rachel Maddow Deceiving You Part I

Posted by iusbvision on March 20, 2009

She plays the cute girl on MSNBC who spouts dishonest left wing propaganda. I have been watching her from time to time and of all the people on MSNBC, her deceptions are the most subtle carefully pieced together to be believable.

This is her March 19th 2009 segment which Maddow calls “The Memory Hole”. Well Rachel, we have a little memory hole for you. Here is the video, it seems convincing until you see the evidence posted below.

UPDATE – As is so often the case when Maddow blows it MSNBC goes out to start yanking those video’s as they did this one. As this post has been getting a lot of hits. This new video has most of the segment that was taken down from youtube. But alas if they yank this one we have the transcript HERE.

There are three parts of the video to examine very closely.

FIRST:

She shows the “Mission Accomplished” banner. That banner was not placed there by the administration that banner was placed there by the order of General Tommy Franks, and was referring to the mission of toppling Saddam’s regime. Of course after the regime is toppled a new mission begins to stabilize and democratize the country. How is this any different from VE Day (Victory over Europe)  or VJ Day (Victory over Japan)? We toppled the regimes and then the occupation and rebuilding began. The post victory mission after WWII took many years and was a huge commitment and many soldiers died in that process.

Did you see the press making fun of the government for declaring victory over Germany and Japan in 1945 when we still had several years worth of work to do to completely finish the job?

SECOND:

Maddow talks about the reasons for going to war in Iraq and then shows a picture of President Bush while quoting the Iraqi Oil Ministry saying that Iraq is giving oil contracts to foreign firms [foreign to Iraq] while showing a picture of President Bush. She is clearly making the direct implication that “Bush’s oil buddies are getting contracts in Iraq and getting rich” which is a reference to the conspiracy theory that it was all for oil and Bush and Cheney were going to get rich.

Guess what Maddow doesn’t want you to know the vast majority of Iraqi oil contracts went to NON-AMERICAN firms. China, India, France and other countries companies won most of the contracts.

Below is the proof.

AFP: Iraq to award oil contracts to foreign firms

Iraq will award contracts to 41 foreign oil firms in a bid to boost production that could give multinationals a potentially lucrative foothold in huge but underdeveloped oil fields, an official said on Sunday.

“We chose 35 companies of international standard, according to their finances, environment and experience, and we granted them permission to extract oil,” oil ministry spokesman Asim Jihad told AFP.

Six other state-owned oil firms from Algeria, Angola, Pakistan, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam will also be awarded extraction deals, Jihad said.

Washington Post: Iraq and China Sign $3 Billion Oil Contract. Deal Is First of Its Kind Since Invasion.

BAGHDAD, Aug. 28 — Iraq and China signed a $3 billion deal this week to develop a large Iraqi oil field, the first major commercial oil contract here with a foreign company since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The 20-year agreement calls for the state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. to begin producing 25,000 barrels of oil a day and gradually increase the output to 125,000 a day, said Asim Jihad, a spokesman for the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

The contract revamps a deal the Chinese company had reached with Saddam Hussein in 1997 to develop the Ahdab oil field in Wasit province, south of Baghdad near the border with Iran. Unlike that deal, which called for China to share in the revenue, the current contract is based on a fixed-fee structure.

Western oil companies came close this summer to reaching agreements with the ministry to return to Iraq. Those smaller technical service contracts involved giving advice on how to boost production. The China deal is a service contract, which is more lucrative and involves large-scale development of the field.

In case someone tells you that American companies got no-bid contracts in Iraq as reported by the New York Times (LINK) be sure they tell you that a few months later those contracts were rescinded (LINK).

AP: Official: Iraq to award oil contract in March
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN , 02.18.09, 10:34 AM EST

Iraq’s Oil Ministry will award a service contract to develop a prized oil field in southern Iraq next month, a senior Iraqi official said Wednesday.

Italy’s Eni SpA, Spain’s Repsol and Japan’s Nippon Oil are competing for the service contract to develop the Nasiriyah oil field. The contract is designed to offer engineering, procurement and construction services.

THIRD:

Examine closely where Maddow calls Condoleeza Rice a liar when she states that the administration never said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

Before I get to the evidence it is important to keep in mind that it was a Democrat talking point that Republicans were claiming ‘all the time’ that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and the Republicans were lying to the American people to justify the war.

Maddow goes to show President Bush stating that Saddam had aided Al-Qaeda and that official statements by the administration said so. She ties this with the false claim that Republicans said Saddam was responsible for 9/11.  In journalism context is everything. Here is what Maddow left out and doesn’t want you to know.

Saddam was giving aide to any terrorists and terror groups who would come along. He was sending $25,000 checks to the families of homicide bombers. Some of the terrorists Saddam’s government aided with training and funds were members of Al-Qeada. Does this mean that Saddam had operational control over Al-Qaeda and active participation in 9/11?….. no more than the fact that I have aided the Salvation Army and I do not have any operation control over them. As long as they have similar enemies that can aid each other.

For a couple of years the left said that Saddam had no connection to Al-Qeada whatsoever. The evidence shows that Saddam had plenty of links with most of the terror groups in the Middle-East; he just didn’t have genuine operational control on them and he didn’t need it.  The evidence came in the form of the hundreds of thousands of records and intelligence captured from Saddam’s intelligence bureaus that documented it all. We wrote about that story HERE.

As you can see, it was perfectly reasonable for the administration to say that Saddam’s government had aided Al-Qaeda and also say that Saddam had no operational role to the 9/11 attack. Maddow is trying to fool you.

I am confident that Rachel Maddow will continue to be a font of deceptive propaganda for this writer to deconstruct. Part II is on the way.

UPDATE – Part II is up LINK.

UPDATE II – Maddow claims that The Constitution does not have a preamble… – LINK.

One Response to “Rachel Maddow Deceiving You Part I”

  1. Wesley Ray said

    just to reiterate…

    “It is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or sent out of the country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, dozens of Scud missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production of chemical and biological weapons that officials claimed were present without the United States detecting some sign of this activity,” said the report, prepared by Carnegie President Jessica T. Mathews, Joseph Cirincione and George Perkovich.

    Powell responded that Saddam obviously had, and used, destructive weapons in the late 1980s and then refused for a decade to reassure the world that he had gotten rid of them.

    “In terms of intention, he always had it,” Powell said. Of Carnegie’s finding that Iraq posed no imminent threat, Powell said: “They did not say it wasn’t there.”

    [Try actually reading what we post here on these subjects BEFORE you post? Is that so much to ask…. as we wrote on this subject at length.

    – Editor]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: