The Impeachment Case Against George W. Bush Count 1 : Intelligence Fraud

"Imagine by A Perfect Circle"

As the dawn of the 110th Congress approaches, the issue of Impeachment hangs in the air for many on the left and right. In many ways it remains a trap for which Democrats are more than a little unwilling to fall into, for if they do aggressively pursue Impeachment of President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney how could it be seen as anything but partisan payback for the last six years?

The way out of that trap is to make the evidence compelling and complete enough - and the case laid out in a stark enough manner - that the neccesity of impeachment to change the direction of this country, this war, and to hold the criminal misdeeds of the Administration to account will be plain for all those with their eyes open to see.

Thus I present part one in a multiple part series: The Impeachment Case Against George W. Bush - Count 1 : Intelligence Fraud. President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney did, with malice of forethought, perpetrate a fraud upon the American People and the World by deliberately suppressing the truth about Iraq's lack of WMD, and did then use those false pretenses to begin an illegal and immoral War of choice.

With the announcement today by Sen Jay Rockefeller that the Senate's Phase II Investigation of Pre-War Intelligence will finally be moving forward to completion in 2007, the evidence on this count is certain to mount - but much of the key elements in this charge have already been disclosed through mainstream sources.

Starting with the article "The War they Wanted" by Vanity Fair which does a good job of tracking down how the WMD threat was sold to us.

First, we are all well aware of the PNAC demand for President Clinton to invade Iraq from 1998. This letter shows both motive and premeditation.

Next there are Bush's own words that "if I have a chance to invade [Iraq]. If I get that much [political] capital. I'm not going to waste it".

Then there's the Niger Yellowcake story, one that was discredited and debunked at over and over again but still remained one of the Bush Administrations must fervent claims long after the War.

Vanity Fair found at least 14 instances prior to the 2003 State of the Union in which analysts at the C.I.A., the State Department, or other government agencies who had examined the Niger documents or reports about them raised serious doubts about their legitimacy—only to be rebuffed by Bush-administration officials who wanted to use the material. "They were just relentless," says [Col Lawrence] Wilkerson, who later prepared Colin Powell's presentation before the United Nations General Assembly. "You would take it out and they would stick it back in. That was their favorite bureaucratic technique—ruthless relentlessness."

So it's not that many in the Bush Administration didn't know or suspect that the relevent documents had been forged - they we're well warned - they simply refused to believe the truth (and/or allow the truth to be heard). Or to put it another way, they preferred to perpetuate a lie and a fraud.

Many of Bush's supporters have long claimed that "the entire world thought Saddam had WMD's" - as if to say it's not so bad that we were wrong if everyone else was too. But not everyone else was wrong - both France and Germany disagreed strongly with our claims that "Saddam was an imminent threat".

France's opposition is critical because they happen to own the Uranium Mines in Nigeria. If anyone would notice 1000 tons of missing Yellowcake, it would be France. They had external corroboration that the Niger/Yellowcake story was bogus. And they weren't the only ones who thought this story was a fish-tale.

To many W.M.D. analysts in the C.I.A. and the military, the initial reports sounded ridiculous. "The idea that you could get that much yellowcake out of Niger without the French knowing, that you could have a train big enough to carry it, much less a ship, is absurd," says Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff.

"The reports made no sense on the face of it," says Ray McGovern, the former C.I.A. analyst, who challenged Rumsfeld about the war at a public event this spring. "Most of us knew the Iraqis already had yellowcake. It is a sophisticated process to change it into a very refined state and they didn't have the technology."

Germany's opposition to the invasion is also crucial as they were the country that had direct access to Curveball, who was the prime source for allegations linking Saddam to continued WMD and WMD programs. Their intelligence operatives told members of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) that he couldn't be trusted. Yet Rumsfeld didn't bother to tell this to Colin Powell before he used Curveball's erroneous info before the UN? Amazing.

Then of course there was Ibn Sheik al-Libi, the prime source of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, who it turns out was tortured in an Egyptian Prison and where apparently gave a false confession and was considered a fabricator by - you guessed it - the DIA.

Colin Powell, who chose not to reference the Niger claims as being too questionable, never the less went before the UN in October of 2002 after viewing a video of al-Libi's confession and proceeded to put forward a false presentation. Powell was never told about the torture or the DIA doubts about al-Libi and Curveball's credibility. He was duped.

Update: George Tenet has also claimed to be unaware of Curveball's credibility problems...

"It is deeply troubling to me that there was information apparently available within CIA (search) as of late September or October of 2002 indicating that Curveball may have been a fabricator," Tenet said in a detailed seven-page rebuttal. "There is nothing more serious or galvanizing in the intelligence business than associating the word fabricator with a human source."

Powell didn't know, Tenet didn't know and Congress didn't know.

However it should be noted that the Yellowcake evidence was so weak that Tenet took personal action to have it removed the Bush's State of the Union Speech repeatedly, yet it found it's way back in supposed at the hand of Stephen Hadley.

The involvement of both Cheney and Rumseld in these events can not be discounted, as Larry Wilkerson has noted.

What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.

We can see how these decisions affected the claims Powell did make to the UN such as the famous Aluminum Tubes with the special anondyne coating which the Bush Administration claimed were going to be used as centerfuges to process the yellowcake ore. That claim was debunked by both the Energy Dept and State Dept's INR and included in the classifed version of the National Intelligence Estimate provided to Congress that October, but was left out of the unclassified summary which most Congresspersons used to help determine their vote on HJ 141 - the Iraq Force Resolution.

Bush and his supporters have long claimed that Congress had the "same intelligence" information as the President. They did not. The truth of this was recently revealed when the President claimed that his own father - a former President - doesn't get the same information he does.

Colin worked closely with CIA Director George Tenet for weeks to develop his presentation, but even Tenet and the CIA had been kept in the dark.

Today on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeated the false assertion that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a relationship before the 2003 invasion, despite the recent Senate Intelligence Report that found U.S. intelligence analysts strongly dispute that claim.

<>Rice tried to pin the blame on then CIA Director George Tenet, saying he said, “there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime going back for a decade.” But in July, Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the White House pressured him and that he agreed to back up the administration’s case for war despite his own agents’ doubts about the intelligence it was based on.”

Rice also tried to dismiss the Senate report as being after-the fact, stating, "Now, are we learning more now that we have access to people like Saddam Hussein's intelligence services? Of course." But as Wallace pointed out, a Defense Intelligence Agency report from Feb. 2002 -- before the U.S. invasion -- also concluded that Iraq and Al Qaeda had no relationship: "Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful CB, that's chemical or biological, knowledge or assistance." Rice said she did not remember seeing that report.

So DIA knew the Al-Qaeda claim was bogus way back in February, but no one told poor Colin?

What's also interesting is that one month before Powel's presentation to the UN, in September of 2002, we had the head of CIA Operations in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, gaining access to the Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri who specifically told us they had no active WMD programs, a message which was relayed personally by Tenet to Cheney & Bush - and was ignored.

"The group that was dealing with the preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said, 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said, 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.'"

Powell himself was diligent in putting together his presentation, but he never considered- he might simply be wrong.

Powell later recalled that most of their time was spent "trimming the garbage" of the White House's overwrought verbiage and uncorroborated specifics from the speech. Once that was done, Wilkerson concluded long afterward, "what we were all involved in -- groupthink isn't the right word -- it was a process of putting the data to points in the speech rather than challenging the data itself." As they probed for proof of Hussein's lies, no one thought of looking for evidence that might have raised questions about their assumptions that the weapons existed.

Powell's presentation was succesful in passing UN Resolution 1441, and in helping the Congress pass HJ 141. Many have argued that voting for this resolution was a de-facto vote for war - but it is unfortunately not that simple. I some even question the Constitutionallity of the resolution itself.

Under the War Power Clause of the Constitution, the power to declare war rests solely with Congress, yet HJ 141 effectively delegated that authority to the President for the purpose of strengthing his hand diplomatically, not neccesarily allowing him to go to War on a whim. This is a point which was emphasized by Sen John Kerry when he made his decision on matter.

HJ 141 resolution required that the President show the Congress that he had "exhuasted all diplomatic means" to bring Saddam into compliance with all relevent UN Security Council resolutions before committing us to War. As it turned out - Saddam was already in compliance and any documents provided by the President to Congress to justify the invasion must have have been a fraudlent.

Just as fraudulent as Colin Powell's UN speech.

In December of 2002, Saddam released a Full and Complete Disclosure of the status of their weapons programs in accordance with UNR 1441 - which pointed out that these programs had been completely shutdown for over a decade, exactly as Sabri had claimed and as had been originally revealed in 1995 by an Iraqi Defector named General Hussein Kamel. (All of these claims were later completely confirmed by the Duelfer Report after the completion of "Major Combat Operations" in Iraq)

The Bush Administration ignored Saddam's declaration and called it a "more lies" based on the arguement that he "failed to explain where the Niger Uranium was"!!! Which of course, is the Uranium he never tried to buy.

During his 2003 State of the Union Speech Bush claimed...

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.

This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors.

No they didn't - WE did! Clinton pulled the inspectors out in 1998 just before he started bombing them again, not Saddam. (Note: Saddam did expell the American Inspectors Only in 1997, the Non-Americans followed them out in solidarity on their own)

This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement.

No, he didn't - see Duelfer.

He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Actually, all of those worked!

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

No he didn't because he would have been overrun by the Kurds and Shia Militia, kinda like the way things are right now! He was bluffing them!

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs.

They lied.

These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

That's because they didn't exist.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Oh, really? How's Joe Wilson feel about that?

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Or regular missles exactly like the Italians use.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

Well, someone was definitely deceiving.

Early in 2003 the second UN Resolution that the Brits had called for was blocked by Russia, China, France and Germany. All of whom were doubtful of the US claims of Iraqi WMD. (France and Germany in particular for very good reason obviously - claims that they were all bought off have been debunked.)

February of 2003 the UN inspectors had still found nothing and were growing frustrated with US WMD intelligence. "It's Garbage"

In April, with no WMD yet found, Bush decided "he can't trust Saddam", and orderd the inspectors out and the attack on Iraq to begin.

All of it, a fraud.

The DIA (and presumably Rumsfeld) clearly knew it was all a fraud all along. They had more than enough information to make the case that Saddam was innocent of these allegations. They knew the links to Al-Qaeda were bogus and that both al-Libi and Curveball were liars - but said nothing. Their conclusions were mysteriously missing from the NIE which was presented to Congress - which means the INTELLIGENCE DIDN'T "FAIL", THE DIA KNEW THE TRUTH AND KEPT IT HIDDEN.

The State Dept and Energy Dept. had dissented strongly over the aluminum tubes, and their dissent was also hidden beneath layers of false security (as well as being covered up by Steven Hadley and Karl Rove during the 2004 election). Many in the CIA doubted the yellowcake story and were ignored. Others who came forward later such a Joe Wilson who personally investigated the Niger claim at the behest of the CIA were vicously smeared. We had information voluanteered to us from fairly credible sources such as Gen. Hussein Kamel and Minister Naji Sabri- that Saddam had no WMD - a claim that was echoed by Saddam's own UN required declaration only to have it suppressed and ignored by the President while he claimed the exact opposite to the American people and the Congress.

If Bush didn't know what he was claiming were complete falsehoods - he should have known. It's HIS JOB TO KNOW. Whether he personally initiated the fraud isn't the point, he helped perpetrate it. He legitimized it. He is the one ultimately responsible. Further, if he was this mendacious (or just plain incompetent) in getting us into this War, exactly why should we have any confidence what-so-ever that he'll be able to successfully end it? The faster Bush is gone, the faster we can begin to fix what he has completely obliterated.

This isn't to say that having Saddam out of power isn't a good thing, but there is the question that if Bush had simply let the inspectors complete their jobs - and let them eventually come to the same conclusion as the Duelfer group, would Saddam's regime have tumbled out of control due to renewed unrest from the Kurds and Shia Militia who have been kept at bay since Saddam's 1991 chemical weapons attacks? If we hadn't invaded, and had simply remained on the diplomatic path we were required by law to follow might the Civil War that us trapped us have erupted on it's own and brought Saddam down?

Bush and his supporters have since claimed that we didn't go to Iraq just because of the WMD threat, that instead we went to spread Democracy and end Human Rights Abuses. Yet neither of these arguements were made in either his Oct 7th Cincinatti speech, or the 2003 State of the Union. "Human Rights" are also not included as a justification for Force under HJ 141. Yet again we have the perpetration of a fraud.

For these reason among many others Bush & Cheney should be Impeached and Removed and they along with Secretary Rumsfeld should be indicted for criminal fraud and negligence leading to the deaths of nearly 3000 Americans, and tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

The only trick now is getting the American People to understand, believe and support it - or else it'll be seen as nothing but partisan payback for 2000 and '04.

But this issue is far too important for that to happen. the case has to be made - and it has to be air tight.

Vyan

Update: Fixed some spelling and the Duelfer Report Link.

Kristol: Republican Support for Iraq will Crumble in 3 Months

From Thinkprogress:

This morning on Fox New Sunday, Bill Kristol said that that the current Iraq strategy of “Iraqification” is “failing” and has been “discredited.” Noting that CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid said he finds “despair” about Iraq when he comes to Washington, Kristol said he was “very worried” that if conditions in Iraq did not improve within 2 to 3 months, “political support will crumble not among Democrats, but among Republicans. Gone.

Now we all know just how wonderful PNAC luminaries such as Kristol have been at predicting anything, but for once I think they just might be onto something. Particularly since Bush's own semi-secret advisor at steerings us smack-dab into Vietnam Redux, Henry Kissinger has already jumped the shark.

Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq.

Well, duh!

The Neo-con's 19th nervous breakdown continues in the Washington Post.

..Heading into the final chapter of his presidency, fresh from the sting of a midterm election defeat, Bush finds himself with fewer and fewer friends. Some of the strongest supporters of the war have grown disenchanted, former insiders are registering public dissent and Republicans on Capitol Hill blame him for losing Congress....The sense of Bush abandonment accelerated during the final weeks of the campaign with the publication of a former aide's book accusing the White House of moral hypocrisy and with Vanity Fair quoting (Kenneth) Adelman, Richard N. Perle and other neoconservatives assailing White House leadership of the war....

Some insiders said the White House invited the backlash. "Anytime anyone holds themselves up as holy, they're judged by a different standard," said David Kuo, a former deputy White House director of faith-based initiatives who wrote "Tempting Faith," a book that accused the White House of pandering to Christian conservatives. "And at the end of the day, this was a White House that held itself up as holy."...

And has apparenlty lost it's own Holy War.

And what does Bush's Bestest Brit Buddy Tony Blair say? Iraq has been a "disaster"

Tony Blair has publicly agreed with the opinion that the violence in Iraq since the 2003 invasion has been a disaster.

The UK prime minister was responding to a question by Sir David Frost in an interview on the new al-Jazeera English-language Arabic TV channel.

The Liberal Democrats said Mr Blair had finally accepted the enormity of his decision to go to war in Iraq.

Of course a little piling on from the Left starting with Helen Thomas, doesn't make the picture any prettier.

It's over for them and their big dreams of pre-emptive wars and conquest of the Middle East. If anything, this group has left America weakened by the tragic military misadventure in Iraq. They convinced President Bush it would be a "cakewalk" to invade and occupy Iraq but it has turned out otherwise. Those power-driven ideologues have learned that the price for their dream was high -- too high.

So much for their calamitous "Project for A New American Century," which laid out the agenda to transform several Arab nations to their liking. It also meant sending Americans to kill and die for reasons yet to be explained by the president.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi says ending the War is her Highest Priority.

This morning, I visited our brave men and women at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center. It is a place of prayers, of honor, of respect, and reflection. And I left there more committed than ever to bringing the war to an end.

I told my colleagues yesterday that the biggest ethical issue facing our country for the past three and a half years is the war in Iraq.
This unnecessary pre-emptive war has come at great cost. Nearly 2,900 of our brave troops have lost their lives and more than 21,000 more have suffered lasting wounds. Since the war began, Congress has appropriated more than $350 billion, and the United States has suffered devastating damage to our reputation in the eyes of the world.

I'm beginning to think Ap-IPSOS might have to start polling Laura and Barney soon, everyone else seems to be getting the picture.

"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?"

Right Decision? 41% Wrong Decision? 51%

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"

Keep Troops? 46$ Bring them Home? 48%

"Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?"

Has Clear Plan? 19% No Clear Plan? 71%

Many had thought that the ouster of Rumself on the day after the election signalled a change in direction on Iraq - but with Gen Abizaid arguing to Congress that we can't add troops, and we can't leave - exactly where does that leave our nation and troops other than being trapped in the cross-fire between Sunni's fearful of Shiite political influence and Shias sick and tired of Sunni violence?

But with Bush recent comments in Vietnam - "We'll succeed unless we quit." - it doesn't exactly look like the Prez is really getting the message of all those beating drums in the distance.

The real irony is that we could have won Iraq. Bringing Peace and Democracy to a region of the world that had been devasted by roving death squads, sectarian and religious violence while combating the influence of Al Qeada is something we've done before... in Bosnia.

Despite years of ethnic cleansing and the growing influence of Muslim Radicals - we the U.S. in equal partnership with Europe and Russian ended the violence. The former killing fields of Bosnia are now a thriving and rich Democracy - thanks largely to President William Jefferson Clinton who had to fight tooth and nail with a Republican Congress to accomplish the mission.

The real question is can a similar solution from the Baker-Hamilton group, involving regional powers such as Syria and Iran, a political accomodation between Shia, Sunni and Kurd, and a credible Force Transition Plan to give the Iraqis their country back fom our ongoing occupation be something that that President Bush can either get behind or most importantly - Implement with any Competence What-So-Ever?

My best guess would be... Hell No.

He's going to do nothing be stonewall, completely ignoring the recommendations of Baker-Hamilton just as he's ignored 90% of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Congress will attempt to force the President to comply, he'll fight back and Veto, then they'll fail to override and the War will trundle on, the bodies will pile higher, the blood trail will thicken for the next two years until the next President comes into office and either gets serious about cleaning this mess up with some genuine good faith diplomacy or simply runs from Iraq like a scared rabbit.

Either option is better than what we have now, but the former is far more desirable than the latter.

The one thing we can count on: is that we'll get neither from Bush.

Vyan

Fox News Anchor Finally Speaks Truth

In an interview with Bill Kristol, Studio B host Shepard Smith finally points out that the War on Iraq has become a complete disaster. Transposed by Dailkos.

SHEPARD SMITH: "Can't you say beyond...beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that what's happening in Iraq is not working as we had hoped it would happen?

BILL KRISTOL: Yes.

SMITH: That the terrorism is getting worse? That they are feeding off it? Today, one side is talking about secession if they don't get over it, that the sectarian violence is spreading, that we're clearing out one area and not able to hold it and the insurgents ... that stay the course isn't working? Any more than, maybe, cut and run would work? And that everyone seems to know, but won't say the answer is to add troops not take them away? Where are the people who are looking out for our best interests?

Smith's main point here isn't that we should "cut and run", rather than troop levels should be increased so that the violence can be contained. Not exactly a bad arguement, it's too bad noone in the Administration and none of the Generals have said anything like that to the President.

Oops.

KRISTOL: Well, I've said that many many times, so often I've been ridiculed for saying "more troops, more troops, more troops." I hope the president...

SMITH: If they really want to win it! [agitated]

KRISTOL: I agree...I hope...

SMITH: But I think they are just paying lip service to all this! [yelling]

KRISTOL: Well, I hope not because it really wouldn't be the right thing to do and I think President Bush wants to do the right thing and I think he knows there's a problem. He can't probably do anything until election day. I very much hope after election day he takes a fresh look at Iraq, sends enough troops, surges the...goes on the offensive there and plays for victory because..

SMITH: Bill..

KRISTOL: it's just too important to just, you know...

SMITH: It's horrifying that you just said he can't do anything until after the election. We've got men and women over there who are dying every day and you just said that the man who you support can't do anything even though you believe he knows it's wrong.

KRISTOL: I...I...urged him...

SMITH: OK, but what is worse that? What is worse than that, Bill Kristol? This isn't working. Well, isn't that what you are saying?

KRISTOL: It's not working....

SMITH: It's not working.

Well, it' s nice we have an agreement isn't it?

KRISTOL: It's not working, but some of the alternatives would work, would work worse and to be fair to him he has been....look ... I....Two months ago a Democratic senator said to me, I was saying Bush was going to stay the course and I admire him for his sticktoitive.. for his courage on Iraq and he said, "You're kid... You're crazy...everyone in Washington knows he is going to pull troops down before election day. He wants to give those Republican congressional candidates the benefit of seeing troops come home." It is to Bush's credit that he did not do that. We have moved a few more troops into Iraq. Bush has committed...

SMITH: A few more troops. [sarcastically]

KRISTOL: We should... We should ...

SMITH: We're still losing ground in city after city every day...

Yes, we are - because we're playing "whack a mole!" We move into an area, take the insurgents out, we leave - they come back. Gee wouldn't it be nice if the Iraqi troops could move in after we've come through and hold their ground. Maybe if they had the right equipment or their we're too busy planning their next coup attempt. Thank god they had those elections in 2004-05, that solved everything. Not.

Then Kristol begins to admit that what's really driving the way this war is being handled - is politics.

KRISTOL: I agree we should move more, but I think Bush has done...at least he has held his own ...ummm... I don't know...it's going back and forth there right now... I agree we could hit a crisis in two, three, four months unless we surge troops after the election. I thinks its hard to ask Bush to do something in the middle of this election season. We've seen how poisonous this political debate has gotten and I think... I just hope... I think he's right to hang tough and I hope he does the right thing after election day.

SMITH: That's a disgusting and repulsive reality Bill you have to admit that. That we can't do anything about something that is not working and where people are dying until after our elections are over...

Is it a reality, or is it something that we just choose to accept? The President is using the War against the Democrats first, not to mention the Iraqi people. Al-Qaeda and actual terrrorist are running a distant third, if they're even on the list at all. This where Smith truly gets animated.

KRISTOL: Well, we could do something... we should do something...but I'm just telling you that....

SMITH: The political reality is we can't. [scornfully]

KRISTOL: it's been a poisonous political debate ...both sides.

SMITH: If I were the mother of a father of a young man who dies between now and that election in this war I would be raising holy hell. Wouldn't you?

KRISTOL: Well, no....

SMITH: Wouldn't you, Bill? If you believed that this isn't working...

KRISTOL: No. They do..they're doing..They think they're doing the best the military strategy

SMITH: Do you think they think that, Bill, really?

KRISTOL: I think they, I think so.

SMITH: Because you don't think so, you just said so.

:et me say it again - Oops. A Fox New Anchor actually calling out a lie from a card-carrying member of PNAC? Is this April Fools?

KRISTOL: Well, I've been critical of them. I think they should send more troops, but other people differ. I think Bush is going to reconsider when he thinks uh..after he gets through this election here. I wish he would have reconsidered six months ago. I urged him to six months ago. He chose not to. But to be fair to him, to be fair to him I think he is doing what he thinks is his best for the country and I think he is right, that the alternative of somehow pulling down wouldn't help. And incidentally, for the mothers and fathers who have kids there my solution does not...does not... decrease the chance of casualties. I'm willing to.. I think we may have to take more casualties there.

Ok, so we're losing - what we're doing isn't working, so his solution is to do more of it and enrage the Iraqi people even more severely by increasing our presence? Again, what about the Iraqi's own forces? As Joe Biden pointed out on Face the Nation this morning, we have a combined force of 600,000 troops in the area - and we are still losing ground. Naturally Kristol think all we need to do is send more - and take even more casualties. Terrific.

SMITH: To win! But what they keep saying is they want to win. And yet you talk to soldiers and captains and colonels who come home or who talk to you on the phone or who send you an email and they say, "Look! We win individual battles. We leave the individual battle and go to the next town and the insurgents come back." It's happening in Afghanistan right now!

KRISTOL: I agree.

Yeah, like I said "Whack-a-mole!". So much for that "things are going swimmingly meme".

SMITH: The Taliban had been wiped out. Now the poppy production is up to supplying 92% because we don't have enough people there. So how fair is it to the people of this country and to the world to be in a process that you know is not working, to know what the solutions are, yet because of the election system and the political process you allow a losing thing to continue?

KRISTOL: Well I think we can make it a winning thing, I think Bush will make it a winning thing, It's a democracy. It has drawbacks.

Comment from Dkos - [Wha?!?! STOP THE TAPE! WTF does that mean? Bush could fight the war better if this wasn't a democracy?]

Yeah, sure don't you remember ""I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

I agree on Afghanistan,incidentally, that's another place where we're going to have to increase troop levels in the next few weeks.

SMITH: Yeah, but when?

KRISTOL: Soon.

Yeah, any minute after the elections.

SMITH: We'll see. Bill Kristol, good of you to come.

KRISTOL: Thank's Shep.

The weird thing about this is that nothing, I mean absolutely nothing goes on Fox News without having political overtones - and the signals that seem to be being sent here are - frighteningly enough - that the Bush Administration has been too soft on Iraq so far. Just as Bill O'Reilly has argued we need to treat Iraq the same way that Saddam did, these people are neccesarily calling for an end to the war. Not hardly, but at least they realize that something needs to change. I would argue that since our forces our one of the main inspiration for the violence, with over a hundred attacks occuring each day - what we really need is a effective Force Transition Plan.

The job needs to be done, someone needs to stand up against the violence - and the proper solution to that is for the Iraqi's own forces to do it. Instead of under training and under equiping their forces, we need to work vigorously with the Iraqi government - and yes, create deadlines, goals and benchmarks for improvement - to bring their forces online and gradually unit by unit transition their people in to replace ours. It's not a matter of our people "Cutting and Running", creating an effective Iraqi Army IS Mission Accomplished.

If we aren't doing that, then Shepard is correct, all were doing is condeming our soldiers and the Iraqi people to an endless meatgrinder.

Vyan

Israel, Lebanon and Proof of Insanity

Is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. This weeks Prime Example: The Israel/Lebanon Conflict.

From former CIA Analyst Ray Close.

One of the definitions of madness is the repetition countless times of the same action, always expecting a different result. For more than half a century, the Israelis have been applying the tactic of massively disproportionate retaliation to every provocative act of resistance attempted by the Palestinians, expecting every time that this would bring peace and security to all the people of the Holy Land. Every single time they have done this this, it has backfired. Every single time.

Crossposted on Dailykos and Democratic Underground.

Close Contiued:

The national philosophy (it is really deeper and more significant that just a military tactic) that underlies this devotion to massive over-reaction, and particularly its corollary, collective punishment, is obviously and demonstrably foolish and futile. It does not intimidate or deter the Palestinians, and it never will. It hardens their determination to resist and to defy. I don't care whether you consider the Palestinians to be terrorists or common criminals or freedom fighters or national resistance heroes. If you are an intelligent and sensitive human being, you learn from your past mistakes and you make a rational decision to try something different. The Israeli leadership for all these many generations has been incapable of performing that really rather simple mental and moral exercise.

This morning Condoleeza Rice stated that the thought that our efforts in Iraq have destabalized the region is "Grotesque". From Thinkprogress:

Today on ABC's This Week, George Stephanopoulos pointed out that the Bush administration repeatedly promised that war in Iraq would bring peace and stability to the Middle East. But as the recent violence in the Middle East has shown, the region has actually fallen deeper into instability and unrest since the war began. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Stephanopoulos it was "grotesque" to suggest that the Iraq war contributed to that instability. Watch it:

Full transcript: expand

But basic common sense tells us that destabalization is exactly what is occuring. As America's reputation for the potential to project overwhelming military superiority has begun to fade in the wake of Iraq, so has the similar reputation of our putative ally Israel. The fear of retribution for striking out and kidnapping not just civilians, but American and Israeli Soldiers has been dulled, meanwhile the anger at our ongoing occupation of what was a formerly soveriegn country has begun to increase. Cynicism has begun to creep in as was recently shown by an exchange between President Bush and Russian President Putin this week. (Thinkprogress again)

During a press conference today at the G8 summit in Russia, President Bush told President Vladimir Putin that Americans want Russia to develop a free press and free religion "like Iraq." To laughter and applause, Putin responded: "We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly." CNN's Ed Henry called it a "tough jab." Watch it:

The exchange underscores how the war in Iraq has damaged the standing of the United States, to the point where even modest encouragement for democratic reform is met with ridicule.

Outside the protective bubble of his handlers and neo-con syncophants, Bush's Imperialistic Bullshit gets the response it deserves. Laughter.

While we continue to flounder about in Iraq - maybe we're staying, maybe we're not - Baghdad teeters on the brink of collapse.

In just 24 hours before noon yesterday, as parliament convened for another emergency session, 87 bodies were brought to Baghdad city morgue, 63 of them unidentified. Since Sunday's massacre in Jihad, more than 160 people have been killed, making a total of at least 1,600 since Iraq's Government of national unity came to power six weeks ago. Another 2,500 have been wounded.

In early June, Nouri al-Maliki, the new Prime Minister, flooded Baghdad's streets with tens of thousands of soldiers and police in an effort to restore order to the capital.

More recently, he announced a national reconciliation plan, which promised an amnesty to Sunni insurgents and the disbandment of Shia militias. Both initiatives are now in tatters.

"The country is sliding fast towards civil war," Ali Adib, a Shia MP, told the Iraqi parliament this week. "Security has deteriorated in a serious and unprecedented way," said Saadi Barzanji, a Kurdish MP.

Mr al-Maliki told parliament: "We all have a last chance to reconcile and agree among each other on avoiding conflict and blood. If we fail, God knows what the fate of Iraq will be."

Israel's efforts to break the back of the Hezbollah Militia in southern Lebanon may be very likely to suffer a fate similar to our own in Iraq. As was noted Friday on Keith Olbermann as he spoke with Newsweeks chief Whitehouse correspondant, very often the way that tyranical regimes are brought down are internally. Caesar was taken down by the Roman Senate. Nixon was taken out by his own White House Council John Dean - who remains to this day a "Goldwater Conservative" - and eventually by then RNC Chairman George H.W. Bush - who finally told Nixon "it's time to go".

Hezbollah in Lebanon has to be taken out by the Lebonese government itself. Israel can and should aid in this transition, but to take the lead role in reorganizing someone elses country is to take responsibility for it in total. As Colin Powell once said - "You break it - you own it". Is Isreal ready to own Lebanon, as we now own Iraq? Have they even bothered to plan that far?

Today former CIA Agent Larry Johnson writes;

Israel Takes A Stupid Pill

Apparently not content to let the U.S. do a self-immolation act in the Middle East by itself, Israel decided to set itself on fire by invading Lebanon. Burn baby burn? Like George Bush, Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, never served in a combat unit and launched military operations without thinking the matter through. In fact, Olmert reportedly never even served in the military. I raise this because there is one simple question Israel cannot answer about the current operations--what is their strategic military objective. Olmert has somehow persuaded the Israeli military to ignore strategy, think tactically, and in the process become really stupid. The events in the next several weeks will expose as myth the canard that you can secure a nation by killing terrorists. No you can't.

What about Hamas and Hezbollah?

Yes, what indeed. In Palestine Hamas is now leading their Democratically Elected Government - but with the Bush Doctrine to spread Democracy through pre-emption, shouldn't the U.S. have respect for the tenents of Democracy, respect the will of the Palastinian people and at least try to work with Hamas -- or does that rule only apply when you happen to agree with the party currently in power?

If the definition of a "terrorist" is one that stages unwarranted attacks on innocents - how does George Bush escape the charge? Or better yet, how does the Republican Party? Many who like to state the George Bush is a Terrorist are missing the big picture, Bush is merely a figurehead - an enabler - for a policy that has been in the formative stages for nearly 30 years. The truth isn't the Bush is a terrorist, that being far too narrow a view, the neo-con wing of the Republican Party is a terrorist organization.

Palestine elected terrorist into their governent, and so did we.

And in some ways, so is the Government of Israel as well as the Hezbollah militia's they are currently battling in southern Lebanon. The methods employed by Bush and the current Israeli government are reckless and irresponsible. They might consider it "leaning forward" -- others, fucking insanity. They aren't winning the ideological battle, simple creating more hardened enemies.

The sillyness has even begun to find it's way onto the screens of Faux News:

This morning on Fox News Sunday, [PNAC Signatory] William Kristol argued that the Bush administration's "coddling" of Iran had "invited" the latest aggression, and that the United States should join in the current fighting. Juan Williams pushed back:

You just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. You wanted us in Iraq. Now you want us in Iran. Now you want us to get into the Middle East. ... You're saying, why doesn't the United States take this hard, unforgiving line? Well, the hard and unforgiving line has been, we don't talk to anybody. We don't talk to Hamas. We don't talk to Hezbollah. We're not going to talk to Iran. Where has it gotten us, Bill?

Kristol threw up his hands and didn't answer. Watch it:

Well, War is good for business after all. Got to keep those military contractors profits up.

I really don't know where all this is leading us, particularly since these events in Lebanon seem to getting the Rapture Right ready for their Beginning of the Armageddon Party.

Via The Talent Show--I too am soooo excited!! I get goose bumps, literally, when I watch what's going on in the M.E.!! But, yes, it is most indeed a time to be happy and excited

And look, the new Left Behind Video Game where kids learn the tactics they'll need as Holy Christian soldiers to sweep all unbelievers from the streets of New York should be ready just in time for the increasing violence in Lebanon to finally reach our own shores.

Chip Berlet has reported on how the game fronts for, and helps to market Tim LaHaye' brand of hateful hateful ideology. In Berlet's view:

So the outcome of Tim LaHaye's "non-fiction" writing, the Left Behind series of novels, and the video game, is the training of young Christian evangelicals to rebel against the elected government of the United States when they decide government leaders are in service to the antichrist. And the task for these young Crusaders is to gun down the agents of Satan and their witting and unwitting allies among the ranks of the non-believers.

And from the Left Behind novels, we know this list is likely to include not just secularists, but also homosexuals, feminists, abortion providers, as well as Jews, Catholics, Hindus, and Muslims...especially Muslims.

Well, isn't that just Special?

Of course, we back in America need not worry right now - not with the right honorable George W. Bush in charge. No, George is just going to completely bungle and fuck-up the Middle-east and the Christian (wing-nut) Army is certain to keep thier weapons holstered until the time is right.

Sure things are pretty bad right now, the fucking nutballs are running the asylum, but just don't let a Democrat (who might actually have some solutions to the middle east issues and stuff) come into office -- that'll fuck up the wingbat's master plan and the shit will be on. Seriously.

Vyan

Bushco still banking on the Big Lie

In his dustup with Helen Thomas the other day, President Bush besides ignoring the obvious facts that his biographer has shown [That he did intend to invade Iraq long before he was even President, and that once sworn in spent his very first NSC briefing talking exclusively about Saddam - while ignoring Al Qaeda ] Bush yet again continued to perpetrate the Biggest Lie of his Administration.

Bush claims that Saddam Hussein failed to "disarm and disclose" in accordance with UN Resolution 1441.

Now, we all certainly know there were no WMD's in Iraq when we invaded -- but we seem to have completely forgotten that Hussein told us there were no WMD's three months before the War, and BushCo completely ignored him.

Transcript of the exchange with Helen on March 21, 2006

Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Q Everything --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

Q -- everything I've heard --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true.

Ok, let's have a short reality break here...

Mickey Herskowitz who had struck a deal to ghost write Bush's autobiography said that...

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency....

And we all know this claim was merely an echo of the 1998 PNAC letter to Bill Clinton on Iraq.

Bush v Helen continues...

My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

So his attitude changed on September 11th, did it? Then why did Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill state that from the very first meeting of the Bush's national Security Council in January 2001 he had Iraq on the brain.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying `Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

Back to the Bushwacker...

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --

Q I'm talking about Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

Ok, I think most of us agree that chasing down al Qaeda in Afghanistan was a reasonable choice. It's too bad Bush botched the job, let most of al Qaeda escape across the borders and let Bin Laden out of Tora Bora - but it was at least a step in the right directly. It's immediately after that, that things went off the rails.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --

Q -- go to war --

THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

Ok, this right here is the money quote. Most people have noted what I mentioned previously about PNAC, Herskowitz and O'Neill but this is the crucial LIE right here and it has two parts.

1) Saddam did not deny the inspectors.

From the White House Press Briefing of November 26th, 2002.

QUESTION: Ari, can I go back to the U.N. weapons inspectors? Tomorrow they're going to be actually doing the first of their inspections. Is there any message to the inspectors? Is there any message to the Iraqis?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President's message to both the inspectors and the Iraqis is that the Iraqis need to disarm for the sake of peace. And the President is pleased that the United Nations has passed a strong resolution that will allow the inspectors to have more tools to do their jobs to verify that Saddam Hussein has disarmed. Iraq has until December 8th to list the weapons of mass destruction for the United Nations Security Council resolution, and after December 8th that will begin a process where we will find out whether the Iraqis told the truth or not. So they have this date that is approaching. After that date a process begins. And the President wants to make certain that process leads to two things -- one, the truth, and the truth must lead to disarmament.

2) Saddam did fully disclose!

On December 7th, one day ahead of schedule, Iraq provided a full and complete declaration - as required by UN Resoution 1441 - on the status of their WMD Stockpiles and capabilites. The 12,000 page reported stated that their stockpiles were either depleted or destroyed and their programs for replenishing them were null and void.

The President stated that the U.S. would "take some time" to review the declaration...

Iraq is now required by the United Nations to provide a full and accurate declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs. We will judge the declaration's honesty and completeness only after we have thoroughly examined it, and that will take some time. The declaration must be credible and accurate and complete, or the Iraqi dictator will have demonstrated to the world once again that he has chosen not to change his behavior.

At this point I also want to mention a another peice of hay that Bill O'Reilly has been pounding on. Namely a March 12th New York Times Report that three months before the invasion Saddam revealed to his Generals that they had no more WMD's. O'Reily has claimed that since Saddam's own generals didn't know - how could we expect the President to know, and those who've accused him of being a "Liar", including former President Jimmy Carter, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, and Democratic Sens. Harry Reid (NV), Richard J. Durbin (IL), John Kerry (MA), Edward Kennedy (MA), Patrick Leahy (VT) and also entertainers like Will Smith, Chevy Chase, Johnny Depp, Ron Reagan Jr., Mike Farrell, and Barbra Streisand - should all apologize.

Media Matters does a good job of shooting this bogus canard down, by pointing that out even without the NYT article, many of Bush's claims and statments just don't hold water - but there's more.

The real problem with O'Reilly's argument is that through their December 7th Declaration Iraq told us exactly the same thing that he told his Generals ; they had no more WMD's. The Bush Administration just didn't listen.

Here's what then NSA Director Condoleeza Rice said about the Declaration on January 23rd.

And instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie.

For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad, its manufacture of specific fuel for ballistic missiles it claims not to have, and the gaps previously identified by the United Nations in Iraq's accounting for more than two tons of the raw materials needed to produce thousands of gallons of anthrax and other biological weapons.

Basically they used one lie, about the Niger Uranium, to call Saddam a liar? Jesus Jiminy Christmas.

Here's more from Bush's 2003 State of the Union.


The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq [Might one of these be Curveball?], in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

But then we didn't really even need Saddam's declaration for proof, back in 1995 a defecting Iraqi General by the name of Hussein Kamel had claimed to have personally given the order to destroy Saddam's WMD stockpiles following the first Gulf War.

When the inspectors arrived they stated that they weren't finding any weapons or evidence of a Nuclear program, some even going so far as to say that the U.S. provided intelligence was "garbage". After four months of searching in February of 2003 the UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors had found absolutely nothing - no mobile biological labs - zip. Just a set of al samoud missles which were outside the guidelines of 1441, which they destroyed, but no actually WMD.

So we have a declaration from Iraq that they have to WMD's, we have inspectors on the ground who say - "They have no WMD's", we have a defector who says "We destroyed the WMD's" and what does Bush do?

He ignores it and claims that "Iraqi operatives continue to play a shell game with inspectors, moving suspected prohibited materials to different locations every 12 to 24 hours".

Then on March 17th, he orders the invasion.

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Ok, so the inspectors were still in Iraq until March 17th were they? That's interesting since so many of Bush's supporters like to claim that Saddam pushed out the inspectors. No, Bush made the decision. He set the timetable, the interrupted the inspection process which as we now know would have eventually confirmed the Iraqi Declaration just as the Dulfer Report eventually revealed.

Chemical Weapons: While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

Biological Weapons: In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.

Nuclear: Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

The fact is that the Iraqi Declaration - was absoluately correct. They had no WMD's and they told us so months before the War.

Bush supporters, the few that are left such as O'Reilly, Hannity and Gingrich, like to claim that "these mistakes are in the past"... but the truth is that these failures are the results of hubris and poor judgement. The facts were rigth in front of them, but they preferred to believe forged documents from Niger and Curveball instead.

These are the same types of mistakes we continue to see from this administration over and over again, from Katrina to Dubai. Ignoring mine safety, and muzzling Scientists while pushing forward the Intelligence Design agenda. These lies continue to poison the well of Democracy in Iraq with endless Bad Faith from this President and this Administration - leading it increasingly into a a Civil War which will continue to cost Iraqi and American lives and drain the U.S. Treasury.

And the lies just keep coming...

Vyan

The Red-State of Mind

Crossposted on Dailykos

Yesterday I called up the Senate to support the motion to Centure President Bush. I was actually happy to find that I couldn't get through to Senator Feinstein, Kerry or Feingold as their lines were too busy. I did speak with the staffer with Senator Graham (who has publically doubted the legallity of the NSA program) and finally Senator Reid's Office.

After making my point, as ask him just what kind of calls they had been receiving and whether the all volume was exceedingly high or not (compared to say the Alito Confirmation Calls). His reponse was that the call volume was about equal to Alito, but that they were receiving a variety of responses.

1) Support for Senator Feingold's Censure Resolution.

2) Opposition to Censure because it would hinder the War on Terror and let Al Qaeda communicate freely within the U.S.

I have to ask myself, who put forth position 2? Who the hell are these people who are trapped in this Red-State of Mind?

I admit that I laughed out loud at his second answer, because it's such a gross distortion of the facts and the truth. Asking the President to abide by the Law and the Constitution by getting a WARRANT FIRST does not help al Qaeda, it protects all of us. That Republicans can routinely make claims of Treason against someone like Feingold yet block Democratic attempts to genuines improve our Port Security, is clearly no laughing matter.

The results of informal my question are clearly mirrored by the results of the First Poll on Censure. (46% Support, 44% Opposition).

Even though the Nation rose up and spoke with nearly one voice on the Dubai Ports Deal (80% Opposition), it has yet to do this in the NSA Wiretaping. This despite the reports that the FBI have designated Pacifists (Not to mention Quakers and Vegans) as subjects of International Terrorism Surveillance. ACLU Attorney Ben Wizner hit the nail on the head on yestesday's Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

WIZNER: You know, we have to look at the broader picture here also. I mean, we have released other documents, this is not the first one, where the FBI has labeled the Catholic Worker group as advocating a communist-like redistribution of resources, that talk about vegans, that talk about Quakers.

And when the administration says, with respect to the NSA spying that you led with, that we don`t have to worry about it, this is a terrorist surveillance program, and therefore we don`t need permission of courts, we don`t need oversight from Congress, whose definition of terrorism are they using? Are they using this one?

If they`re using this one, then the program may be a lot more troubling than people even think. I mean, terrorism is defined here so broadly, as anyone really opposing the administration`s war policy, that I think it really highlights the need for both the courts and for Congress to play a little bit more of a role.

Ya think?

This seems quite obvious to many of us - but is far less than obvious to those who oppose our efforts to bring this Presidency and Congress under control.

I don't think it's because of Faux News. It's not Limbaugh's fault, it's not Hannity or O'Reilly.

The other day when Ann Coulter (on Hannity) was able to completely shut-down arguments about the legitmacy of the Iraq War, claiming that Democrats are weak on National Defense because John Kerry called for the inspections to continue, then completely bypassing the WMD issue by proclaiming we did it to end the "Rape Rooms".

Colmes and the nominal Faux-macrat guest had nothing to say in response, but the comeback is easy... The Iraq War Resolution as written by the Bush Administration required that the President Wait until all Diplomatic Options were Exhuasted to have Saddam abide by the UN Resolutions to disarm his WMD's (which he had already done, and the Inspectors Knew it) -- but it didn't say anything about "Rape Rooms"!.

The simply fact is that this President violated the terms of his own resolution by not letting the inspectors complete their job before HE declared war (Something Kerry has been saying for years), and the result is that where in the middle of an endless, intractable and increasing violent Civil War in Iraq.

It's just common sense - but that simply isn't good enough to cute the Red-State of Mind. The people we are fighting with continue to not know this fact because it's not what they want to believe. They want to believe Coulter because it's comforting.

When the President says...

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

They want to believe it. So Feingold puts forth his measure to Censure the President for this blatant lie (amongst others) their response is...

Never ceases to amaze me By: Shaggy Dog

No matter how bad things get for the Bush admin from time to time, we can always count on the Dems to squander it. Looks like they're about to come through once again.

A little advice to Feingold & Co.- if you ever want to win elections again, you might want to try at some point to convince the country that you are even 1% as interested in defeating Al Qaeda as you are in defeating President Bush. This "Censure" motion is not the way to accomplish that.

President violating the Constution and the Law? It simply doesn't matter to them. When Democrats claim that this Administration and Congress drowning in a Sea of Corruption they ignore it... even when you put it right in front of their face.

List of Recently Arrested and Indicted GOP Officials

I Lewis "Scooter" Libby - Vice-President Cheney's Cheif of Staff, Indicted and Arrested for Purjery and Obstrution of Justice in CIA Leak Case
Claude Allen - Bush's Top Domestic Policy Advisor, Arrested for Theft
David Safavian - Bush's Top Procurement Official, Arrested for Lying about his Business Ties to Jack Abramoff
Mike Scanlon - Lobbyist and Former Delay Spokesman charged with a Conspiracy and Bribery of Government Officials
Jack Abramoff - Lobbyist Conspiracy and Wirefraud
Randy "Duke" Cunningham - GOP Congressman arrested for Accepting $2.4 Million in Bribes from Defense Contractors
Tom Delay - Former GOP House Majority Leader indicted for Money Laundering

Other GOPers still in the cross-hairs.

Bob Ney - GOP Congressman who set up Jack Abramoff's Defense Fund, is himself under investigation for Connections to Abramoff
Bill Frist - GOP Senate Majority Leader under SEC Investigation for Stock Fraud
Karl Rove - White House Deputy Chief of Staff under investigation for his connections to CIA Leak Scandal

When they read this stuff, their mind immediately looks for the excuses.

"It's just a coincidence. It's just Democrat Prosecutors trying to get payback for the Clinton Impeachment."

Never mind the fact that prosecutors like Patrick Fitzgerald are Republican. They refuse to recognize that the problem here is a pathology of entitlement. It's unbridled greed, selfishness and self-aggrandizement of Neo-Con/Artists deeply embedded within the Republican Party.

People who simply don't believe in Government can not be trust to Run the Government, unless the target is to run it miles into the ground. Take the money, get the contracts, get the cushy lobbying jobs and run like hell.

That's today's GOP.

That's what these people calling the Senate and telling them to support warrantless wiretaping, torture and death squads in Iraq are saying - meanwhile they're claiming that it's all because we eliminated the "Rape Rooms". No we didn't, we simply changed the personel in charge of the Rape Rooms.

Most signs point to a probably Landslide Democratic Victory in November, but we can not afford to become complacent.

The GOP is as powerful as they are not because Democrats are weak and ineffectual (although they often are), they are who they are because there are literally Millions of hard core wing-nuts out there who jump as high as the GOP wants whenever they push a hot-button cultural issue like Abortion or Gay-rights. The hate, intolerance, self-righteousness and greed of these people is real. It's palpable. When Mike Scanlon said...

"Simply put," Scanlon wrote, "we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them. The wackos get their information from the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the Internet and telephone trees."

He was dead right.

Make no mistake, this upcoming November we will be in the fight for the soul of this nation. Do we allow the kind of corruption and gross negligent disgregard that left thousands of American stranded after Katrina to go on... or do we go a different path. Do we start fighting the Terrorist Smart - rather than Hard? Do we start abiding the by Constitution, and rejoin the International Community on issues such as Human Rights and War Crimes? Do we get those people who are currently sitting on the sidelines and letting the game whiz-by them - to Stand Up and get involved?

Or do we continue on this long slow slide into debt and criminal decadence that began as soon as George W. Bush was (s)elected in 2000?

This isn't about George Bush. Bush is simply an enabler for PNAC Neo-Con ("F-ning Crazies") like Cheney, Rumseld, Bolton and hundreds upon hundreds of theocrats who have an agenda to rape and pillage our national treasury, then escape all scrutiny or accountability.

Saying these guys are "Gangsters" is an insult to the Mob.

Call your Senator toll free at (888) 355-3588 and let them know what you think.

Vyan

Revisiting History

John Lovchik of Democratic Underground has produced an excellent timeline of events leading us into and through the Iraq War which go many miles into debunking the President and his cronies argument that his opponents have been "Rewriting History".

Focused on Saddam from the Start:

"See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way..."

These are the instructions given by George W. Bush to Richard A. Clarke, then the chairman of the Counterterrorism Security Group of the National Security Council on September 12, 2001. When Clarke responded "But, Mr. President, al Qaeda did this," Bush insisted "I know, I know, but... see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred..." This exchange was described by Clarke in his book Against All Enemies.

Why, on the first day after the devastating attack of September 11, 2001 by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, was Bush so focused on Iraq and Saddam Hussein? The answer to this question should be obvious to everyone, but for the benefit of those who still entertain some doubts, I would like to do a chronological review of events.

I will begin with a comment Bush made in 1999 to Mickey Herskowitz, an author who had many conversations with Bush while he was preparing to assist him in writing his autobiography. According to Herskowitz, Bush told him:

"My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it."

Some people have suggested that Bush had a vendetta against Saddam Hussein because Hussein had tried to have Bush's father assassinated. This comment to Herskowitz would suggest that George W. Bush was more interested in how he might acquire, and use, the popularity that his father had enjoyed during the first Gulf War. This may have been just a casual comment to a ghostwriter long before Bush became president, but most people would admit that "If I have a chance to invade" was an unusual choice of words.

Something that is definitely not just a casual comment is the 90 page document titled "REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" prepared in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Many of the people who were involved in PNAC are currently in the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. This report, which was prepared four months before Bush took office, includes this statement about the Middle East:

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The section titled "Repositioning Today's Force" discusses the U.S. military presence in the Middle East over the last decade and includes this statement:

"From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene."

There is no question that the strategy envisioned by PNAC includes a permanent U.S. military presence worldwide, and particularly in the Middle East.

On January 30, 2001, ten days after Bush took office, the National Security Council met for the first time. Former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill provided an account of that meeting to author Ron Suskind for his book The Price of Loyalty. According to O'Neill, the entire meeting was about Iraq, and Condoleezza Rice began by noting that Iraq was destabilizing the region and that it might be the key to reshaping the entire region.

It should be noted that while Bush was having his very first and many subsequent NSC meetings focused on Iraq - months before 9/11 - Counter-Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke was unable to get a meeting and briefing scheduled on al-Qaeda for nearly 8 months.

Planning the Invasion Begins - March 2001.

The next meeting of the National Security Council was held on February 1, 2001 and again it was about Iraq. In summarizing the discussions, O'Neill said this:

"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"

Suskind writes that by March, "Actual plans, to O'Neill's astonishment, were already being discussed to take over Iraq and occupy it - complete with disposition of oil fields, peacekeeping forces, and war crimes tribunals - carrying forward an unspoken doctrine of preemptive war."

Also by March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group, generally referred to as the Cheney Energy Task Force, was conducting meetings. As a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a number of the documents used by the Energy Task Force have been released to the public. Included in those documents were a map of the Iraqi oilfields, pipelines and refineries and a two page chart with the heading "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects. Both were dated March 2001.

September 11, 2001 - The Catalyst for War

Then on September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacked the United States. Bob Woodward, in his book Plan of Attack, says that Bush wrote in his diary that night "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." The PNAC report, written one year earlier, had already used the Pearl Harbor analogy:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Woodward also tells us that the next day, September 12, "in the inner circle of Bush's war cabinet, Rumsfeld asked if the terrorist attacks did not present an 'opportunity' to launch against Iraq." As noted earlier, that was the same day Bush instructed Clarke to try to connect Iraq to the attack.

While an attack against Iraq was ruled out in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the U.S. military was sent instead to Afghanistan where al Qaeda had their training camps, Woodward notes that two months later, on November 21, Bush instructed Rumsfeld to get started on updating the war plan for Iraq. By December 28, the war plan had undergone three iterations and General Tommy Franks was called to Crawford, Texas to give Bush a personal briefing about the plan.

Shifting Focus.

By March, 2002 Osama bin Laden was pretty much forgotten and Iraq was the entire focus. At a press conference on March 13, 2002 Bush said of bin Laden, "I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him..." About Iraq he said this: "I am deeply concerned about Iraq. And so should the American people be concerned about Iraq. And so should people who love freedom be concerned about Iraq."

In many of his comments about Iraq during this time period, Bush referred to all options being on the table. To some that might seem to indicate that the decision to invade Iraq had not yet been made. A thorough reading of his statements, however, makes it clear that his threats were strong and that he was preparing the nation for more war. His references to all options being considered were infrequent and weak, and seemed intended simply to pacify a public not yet convinced that invading Iraq was appropriate.

A number of British governmental documents from this time period have recently been obtained by the press and released to the public. These documents, commonly referred to as the Downing Street Memos, confirm what many people had already concluded, that the decision to use military force against Iraq was already made.

Enlisting the Brits

In anticipation of a meeting that [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair was to have with Bush in Crawford, Texas, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw requested the thoughts of various government officials for a memo that he would be sending to Blair. In response to that request, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts sent Straw a memo dated March 22, 2002. His comments about Iraq included the following:

"...even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.

US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida [sic] is so far frankly unconvincing. To get public and Parliamentary support for military operations, we have to be convincing that:

- the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for;
- it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."

The memo from Jack Straw to Tony Blair was dated March 25, 2002 and included the following comments:

"The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few. The risks are high, both for you and for the Government. I judge that there is at present no majority inside the PLP for any military action against Iraq, (alongside a greater readiness in the PLP to surface their concerns). Colleagues know that Saddam and the Iraqi regime are bad. Making that case is easy. But we have a long way to go to convince them as to:

(a) the scale of the threat from Iraq and why this has got worse recently;
(b) what distinguishes the Iraqi threat from that of eg Iran and North Korea so as to justify military action;
(c) the justification for any military action in terms of international law;…"

With respect to the legal justification, the memo said this:

"regime change per se is no justification for military action; it could form part of the method of any strategy, but not the goal. Of course, we may want credibly to assert that regime change is an essential part of the strategy by which we have to achieve our ends - that of the elimination of Iraq's WMD capacity; but the latter has to be the goal; ..."

Thus the strategy of using claims of Iraqi WMD capability began to become part of the policy to overthrow Saddam and take over Iraq. Bush and Blair continued to dance around each other.

Three months after the meeting in Crawford, Blair had a meeting with British government officials. A briefing paper prepared by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, in preparation for that meeting included the following comments:

"The U.S. Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.

When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the U.K. would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the U.N. weapons inspectors had been exhausted."

The meeting Blair had with his government officials was held on July 23, 2003. The official minutes of that meeting were also released with the Downing Street documents. The minutes contained the following entries:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action."

Making the WMD Case.

References to Saddam Hussein during this period were infrequent and didn't suggest any significant threat or urgency. In response to a reporter's question on August 10, 2002, Bush said this:

"I think most people understand he is a danger. But as I've said in speech after speech, I've got a lot of tools at my disposal. And I've also said I am a deliberate person. And so I'm - we're in the process of consulting not only with Congress, like I said I do the other day, but with our friends and allies. And the consultation process is a positive part of really allowing people to fully understand our deep concerns about this man, his regime and his desires to have weapons of mass destruction."

On August 16, 2002, he said this:

"There should be no doubt in anybody's mind this man is thumbing his nose at the world, that he has gassed his own people, that he is trouble in his neighborhood, that he desires weapons of mass destruction."

Note that this comment, like the one on August 10, simply refers to a desire to have weapons of mass destruction and makes no reference to an imminent threat to the U.S.

Two weeks later, on September 4, 2002, Bush's public attitude regarding Iraq changed dramatically. Following a meeting with congressional leaders, Bush gave the following summary:

"Spent most of our time talking about a serious threat to the United States, a serious threat to the world, and that's Saddam Hussein. One of the things I made very clear to the members here is that doing nothing about that serious threat is not an option for the United States."

What had changed in those two weeks that would explain this dramatic shift in attitude by Bush and his administration? The Washington Post reported that in August 2002 "Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad." So why did it take until September before any change was made? The Washington Post also quoted from a New York Times article regarding an interview with Card where he made the following statement: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

On September 12, 2002 Bush also complied with another of Blair's requirements by seeking a new resolution from the United Nations requiring the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq. In his address to the United Nations General Assembly Bush said:

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."

On October 2, 2002 Bush discussed a proposed congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq if needed to ensure compliance with U.N. resolutions. In that address he made the following statements:

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. … In defiance of pledges to the U.N., it has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons. It is rebuilding the facilities used to make those weapons. U.N. inspectors believe that Iraq could have produce enough biological and chemical agent to kill millions of people. The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do so."

During the weeks that the U.N. and Congress deliberated on their respective resolutions, Bush's speeches repeatedly focused on Iraq and the dangers it posed. In his radio address to the American people on September 28, 2002, Bush said it like this:

"The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

Note the reference to the British government in spite of the fact that the official minutes of a meeting of their highest government officials, held just two months earlier, show that they considered the case against Saddam Hussein to be thin.

In all of his speeches during this time, Bush was careful to assure the nation that he sought the resolutions as a means of pressuring Iraq to disarm, and that war was not inevitable. In the October 5 radio address, which he finished by urging all Americans to call their members of Congress regarding the resolution authorizing the use of force, he said this:

"The United States does not desire military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and we will never seek war unless it is essential to security and justice. We hope that Iraq complies with the world's demands. If, however, the Iraqi regime persists in its defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable."

Some take this as proof that the decision to go to war had not yet been made. It is telling, though, that once the resolutions were adopted, the references to the dangers posed by Iraq continued unabated and with increasing urgency, while the denials of a war decision having already been made became weaker and more infrequent.

The Inspectors Return

On October 11, 2002 Congress approved their resolution and on November 8, 2002 the United Nations approved their resolution. On November 13, 2002 Saddam Hussein accepted the United Nations resolution and approved the return of the U.N. weapons inspectors, and on November 27, 2002 the U.N. weapons inspectors returned to Iraq.

Dr. Hans Blix, the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who led the inspection teams, delivered a number of reports over the next three months regarding their efforts and their findings.

In his report as of January 8, 2003 Dr. ElBaradei included these comments:

"The Iraqi authorities have consistently provided access without conditions and without delay. They have also made available additional original documentation in response to requests by IAEA inspectors. … The IAEA has also started the process of interviewing key Iraqi personnel."

And in his report on January 9, 2003 Dr. Blix made this comment:

"Similarly, if we had met a denial of access or other impediment to our inspections we would have reported it to the Council. We have not submitted any such reports."

Yet in a column written by National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice that appeared in the New York Times on January 23, 2003 she made this statement:

"Iraq is not allowing inspectors 'immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted access' to facilities and people involved in its weapons program."

In the report of January 8, Dr. ElBaradei had this comment about Iraqi attempts to import uranium:

"There have been recurrent reports of Iraqi efforts to import uranium after 1991. The Iraqi authorities deny any such efforts. The matter continues to be pursued by the IAEA."

In her column Dr. Rice said this:

"For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad, …"

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003 Bush referred to Iraq's nuclear threat in this way:

"the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

As it occured, the allegations that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger, were based on forged documents. On March 7, 2003 Dr. ElBaradei of the IAEA reported that:

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded."

The Inspectors, contrary to the claims of the Bush administration were not impeded in their investigation of WMD by Saddam Hussein, and during their time in Iraq did manage to find and destroy a number of al-Samoud missles which were in violation of UN sanctions, but did not find WMD materials or facilities which the Bush had claimed were in abundance.

But both Bush in his State of the Union address and Powell in his address to the U.N. Security Council dramatically went through the litany of weapons and biological agents that were unaccounted for with no mention of the measures being undertaken by the U.N. inspectors to determine if they in fact still existed. The message being clearly sent, as intended, was that it was a matter of the weapons being concealed, not an issue of whether they existed.

On March 7, 2003 Dr. Blix issued the quarterly report of UNMOVIC which was dated February 28. The report covered the inspections which had been done during the quarter:

"12. Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002, UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites. Of these 44 sites were new sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was in virtually all cases provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival.

13. The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. ... At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.

14. More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three quarters of these have been screened using UNMOVIC's own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Ongoing Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations [that they possesed no current WMD capability]"

Dr. ElBaradei also gave a report on March 7, 2003 that included the following passage:

"In conclusion, I am able to report today that, in the area of nuclear weapons - the most lethal weapons of mass destruction - inspections in Iraq are moving forward. Since the resumption of inspections a little over three months ago - and particularly during the three weeks since my last oral report to the Council - the IAEA has made important progress in identifying what nuclear-related capabilities remain in Iraq, and in its assessment of whether Iraq has made any efforts to revive its past nuclear programme during the intervening four years since inspections were brought to a halt. At this stage, the following can be stated:

• There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.
  
  
• There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.
  
  
• There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.
  
  
• Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

As I stated above, the IAEA will continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.

And yet, less than two weeks later, Bush notified the inspectors to leave Iraq, and on March 19, 2003 he invaded. As required by the resolution authorizing the use of force, Bush justified his actions to Congress with the following declaration:

"...based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; …"

All of this comes back to the simple fact that there was no legal or reasonable justification to invade Iraq in the first place. Whether it was simply an incredibly incompetent mistake or part of a long and deliberate plan - it was wrong.

Since the invasion occured many have stated that removing Saddam from power was worth it - but when you look at the financial damage this was has caused with nearly $400 Billion spent so far, at the human costs not just in American lives, but in the tens of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqi people, and most importantly at how our actions in this war from Guantanemo, to Abu-Ghraib, Secret Detention Centers, the rise of Iraqi Death Squads, to our use of Chemical Weapons [White Phosporous] in Fallujah have destroyed and undermined our international credibility and increased the stock of al-Qaeda has lead to a world-wide explosion of terrorism causing the deaths of hundreds in Russia, Madrid and London - it most certainly was not worth it. All we needed to do to disarm Saddam, was to simply let the IAEA and UNSCOM inspectors finish their work. But that of course, is exactly what the Bush Administration didn't want.

Although many don't seem to recall it, HJ 114 [the Iraq War Resolution] does include a passage on regime change and the removal of Saddam. However the language used in the resolution is nearly identical to that which was originally used in the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which also called for the removal of Saddam but through peaceful means, not War or invasion.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

It can not be reasonably argued that those who oppose the war are in any way supporters of Saddam -- quite the contrary. During the 20th Century many dictators were removed from power, Pinoche in Chile, Marcos in the Phillipines, Noriega in Panama, Milosovic in Bosnia, but the methods used did not require that America invent an excuse (such as non existent WMD's) to accomplish the goal. In some cases, force was used - but it was a proportional use of force, and done in conjunction with many of our international allies. We didn't invade Bosnia on our own in order to end years of Ethnic-cleanings -- we joined together as 1/3rd of a force that included and equal number of European and Russian troops to keep the peace. Not a single American soldier was killed in Bosnia, while a brutal War of untold horror was ended and a murdering dictator (Milosovec) was brought to justice.

This who opposed this War should ask - if we could do it in Bosnia, why couldn't we do it in Iraq?

The answer to that question is simple: "George W. Bush" is why not.

Vyan