The Trail of Premeditated War

The Iraq War - Music by Edwin Starr



Many of us already know this story and know it well. But a new article on CommonDreams.org by Dr. Richard Behan amazingly pulls together all the strands which succinctly explain the behavior of the Bush Administration and it's deliberate, headlong, relenteless march into war with Afghanistan and Iraq.

The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were not simply justified and honorable retaliations to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They couldn’t possibly have been that, because both of them were premeditated—conceived, planned, and prepared long before September 11, 2001.

A bold claim, but not one made without ample evidence...

Behan notes correctly that Iraq and Afghanistan are far from the first premeditated war engaged by the United States. There have been many others, from Panama, Granada to Kosovo, but rarely have the true rationale and justifications for a War been to heavily cloaked, and the public so deliberately and viciously misled into War.

To best tell this story, let begin - at the beginning.

The opening chapter of the story reveals a photograph dating to the Reagan years of Donald Rumsfeld cordially shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. We supported Saddam in his war with Iran. But history convulses: on January 26, 1998, Mr. Rumsfeld and 17 others, members of the Project for a New American Century, wrote a letter to President Clinton, urging the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime. If we fail to do so, they were candid in asserting, “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will be put at hazard.

(In addition to Mr. Rumsfeld, 10 others of the [PNAC] signatories would serve in the Bush Administration: Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, William Schneider, Jr., Robert Zoellick, and Paul Wolfowitz.)

This desire to set our national and foreign policy based on access and control of larger and larger portions of the worlds oil supply became a defining mantra of the Bush Administration, brought about in no small part by the top heavy representation of U.S. Oil executives among high ranking positions within the Bush Administration.

When George W. Bush took office, a concern for the “significant portion of the world’s oil supply” was never far from view, because the Administration’s personal linkages to the oil industry were intimate, historic, and numerous. The president and vice president were just the first examples: eight cabinet secretaries and the national security advisor were recruited directly from the oil industry, and so were 32 others in the secretariats of Defense, State, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget.

From his very second week in office, Bush's focus on Energy Policy was evident as Dick Cheney chaired his secret "Energy Task Force" (the full meeting minutes and attendee list is still clouded in secrecy, but we do know that the late Enron Felon Kenneth Lay was in attendence).

One this is known at this point, the task force focused heavily on Oil reserves available in Iraq and proceeded to carve up it's oil fields like a Thanksgiving Turkey, and examine all "foreign suitors" for harvesting that oil.

Not a single U.S. oil company, however, was among the “suitors,” and that was intolerable. Mr. Cheney’s task force concluded, “By any estimation, Middle East oil producers will remain central to world security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy.”

Condoleezza Rice’s National Security Council, meanwhile, was directed by a top secret memo to “cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered melding two seemingly unrelated areas of policy.” The NSC was ordered to support “the review of operational policies towards rogue states such as Iraq and actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”

As 2001 rolled forward and the California rolling blackouts - engineered by Bush's Top Fundraiser Ken Lay on Enron while the Bush Administration itself sat on it's hands - would throw that state into a $Billion debt which would sweep their Democratic Governor Gray Davis from office mid-term to be replace by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Energy Policy devised by Lay and Cheney would dovetail directly into National Security under former Oil executive Condoleeza Rice.

Condoleezza Rice’s National Security Council, meanwhile, was directed by a top secret memo to “cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered melding two seemingly unrelated areas of policy.” The NSC was ordered to support “the review of operational policies towards rogue states such as Iraq and actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”

But then there was one little roadblock to this plan to "capture Iraqi Oil Fiends", international Law regarding the declarations of War. How would Bush navigate this -- let us again return to the writings of the PNAC as they described in 1997 the process by which our Military Infrastructure could be rebuilt and transformed (PDF)...

Indeed, Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

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.

Simultaneous to Bush's aims for Iraq Oil, was a parrallel track happening regarding Afghanistan dating back to a little known pipeline contract between the Taliban and an Argentinian Oil company named Bridas.

The strategic location of Afghanistan can scarcely be overstated. The Caspian Basin contains some $16 trillion worth of oil and gas resources, and the most direct pipeline route to the richest markets is through Afghanistan.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the first western oil company to express interest and take action in the Basin was the Bridas Corporation of Argentina. It acquired production leases and exploration contracts in the region, and by November of 1997 had signed an agreement with General Dostum of the Northern Alliance and with the Taliban to build a pipeline across Afghanistan.

Not to be outdone, the American company Unocal fought Bridas at every turn, even spurning an invitation from Bridas to join an international consortium in the Basin. Unocal wanted exclusive control of the trans-Afghan pipeline, and hired a number of consultants in its conflict with Bridas: Henry Kissinger, Richard Armitage (now Deputy Secretary of State in the Bush Administration), Zalmay Khalilzad (a signer of the PNAC letter to President Clinton) and Hamid Karzai. (Eventually Bridas sued Unocal in the U.S. courts, and won.)

The goal was to break the Bridas contract with the Taliban and ensure Unocal's exclusive control of the pipeline. Many meetings between Taliban leaders were held at Unocal headquarters in Texas.

Unocal and the Clinton Administration hoped to have the Taliban cancel the Bridas contract, but were getting nowhere. Mr. John J. Maresca, a Unocal Vice President, testified to a House Committee of International Relations on February 12, 1998, asking politely to have the Taliban removed and a stable government inserted.

The East Africa Bombings attributed to Osama Bin Laden in 1998 led to the Clinton Administrations retaliatory cruise missle attack on Afghanistan, but also to an executive order freezing all trade with the Taliban and effectively putting a hold on Unocal's attempt to cancel the Bridas contract. This changed as soon as Bush came into office in 2001.

Immediately on taking office, the new Bush Administration actively took up negotiating with the Taliban once more, seeking still to have the Bridas contract vacated in favor of Unocal. The parties met three times, in Washington, Berlin, and Islamablad, but the Taliban wouldn’t budge.

Behind the negotiations, however, planning was underway to take military action against the Taliban. The State Department sought and gained concurrence from both India and Pakistan to do so, and in July of 2001 three American officials met with Pakistani and Russian intelligence people to inform them of planned military strikes against Afghanistan the following October.

State Department official Christina Rocca told the Taliban, at their last pipeline negotiation in August of 2001, just five weeks before 9/11, “Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”

In this context, Condolezza Rice's blowing off George Tenet in mid 2001 as he urgently attempted to indicate grave warnings concerning al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Ladin begin not to look like simple ignorance, but instead deliberate negligence as part of larger National Security Strategy to foster a "New Pearl Harbor" as an excuse to roll out the "Carpet of Bombs".

When President Bush assumed office three other members of the Project for a New American Century joined his administration: Richard Cheney, Douglas Feith, and Lewis Libby. Pre-emptive, premeditated war was formally adopted when the President signed the National Security Strategy early in his tenure.

Yes, it was in all likelyhood, Premediated War.

Look at the facts:

George Bush's responding to the August 6th PDB with "Now you've covered your ass" begin to ring more ominously. His sitting and staring at "My pet goat" when he was told, "The Nation is under attack" - seems far more disturbing.

The Bush Administartion did not even try to stop 9-11, yet less than one week after it finally occured... they were looking at taking control of Iraq's Oil fields.

In the first hours of frenetic response, fully aware of al Qaeda’s culpability, both President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld seek frantically to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks, we know from on site-witnesses. They are anxious to proceed with their planned invasion. And less than a week later, at a meeting of the National Security Council, President Bush ordered the Defense Department to be ready to handle Iraq, “possibly occupying Iraqi oil fields.”

We now have the Senate Intelligence Committee report which has clearly revealed that Bush Manipulated the Facts surrounding our involvement in the Iraq war. We also have Col Lawrence Wilkerson who saw the efforts to maniplate reasons to invade Iraq as a "Cabal" (between PNAC Signatory) Cheney and Rumsfeld. Fixing the Facts to Fit the Policy is never just a misnomer over the British definition fo "Fixed".

The march to war was clearly inevitable, not as noble cause to spread peace and democracy or to combat global terrorism, but as a cover to gain control of Iraqi Oil and access to the Caspian Sea energy reserves via Afghanistan - it's also clear just how much the Bush Family and many of his cronies now in our Government have to gain from such a plan.

Also common to both lines of dots [linking Iraq, Afghanistan and U.S. Foreign Policy], and integral to the overall story, is the historic, intimate, and profitable relationship across several generations between the Bush family and the royal family of Saudi Arabia. It can be seen today in the Carlyle Group, a Washington-based investment company focused primarily in the arms, security, and energy industries. Both George H.W. and George W. Bush have been deeply involved in Carlyle, and so have a number of the Saudi royalty. (And so, incidentally, has the family of Osama Bin Laden.)

Talk about playing both sides against the middle.

Carlyle has profited immensely from the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars. Its legal matters are handled by Baker, Botts—James Baker’s law firm in Texas. Mr. Baker also has a personal interest in Carlyle, amounting to some $180 million. (Baker, Botts defended Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Defense Minister of Saudi Arabia, who was sued by the families of Trade Tower victims for alleged complicity in the attacks.) Another client of Baker, Botts is Exxon-Mobil.

So let me get this straight, the guy who is currently co-chairing the Iraq Survey Group - whose recommendations on Iraq are due tommorrow - has direct financial ties to an oil, energy and weapons investment group which has raked in $Billions as a result of this War? Conflict of Interest much?

But Baker certainly isn't the only one who stands to gain enormous riches as the spoils of war.

the two “seemingly unrelated areas of policy” had been “melded,” so here was an epic opportunity to bait-and-switch--and the opportunity was not missed for a moment. Conjoining the terrorist and the state that harbored him made a “war” plausible: it would be necessary to overthrow the Taliban as well as to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. (As it turned out, of course, the Taliban was overthrown instead of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice, but the energy policy goal was achieved, at least. And years later President Bush was astonishing in his candor, when he admitted “Osama bin Laden isn’t important.”)

Of course he isn't, bin laden and ending terrorism has never been the goal - they have only been an excuse. If bin Laden actually were caught or killed, as he should have been at Tora Bora, and al-Qaeda truly dismantled the excuse for all Bush done to amass power onto himself and riches onto the Oil Industry, would soon fade.

The first monstrous and intentional deception—the declaration of a “war on terror”—took place. There was no talk of contracts, pipelines, or Argentinian oil companies. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were cleverly, ingeniously conflated, and there was only talk of war.

On October 7, 2001 the carpet of bombs is unleashed over Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy—Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq.)

The Afghanistan President, and both the Afghan and Iraqi Ambassadors - all former Unocal Consultants. Coincidince? I think not.

With the Taliban banished and the Bridas contract moot, Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan meet on February 8, 2002, sign an agreement for a new pipeline, and the way forward is open for Unocal once more.

Mission Accomplished!

Now is all of this nothing more than speculation, a mere connecting of truly unrelated dots which have led us to the near genocide we are currently experiencing in Iraq, while the Taliban resurface in Afghanstan?

Time will tell.

The story told here has to be considered “circumstantial.” None of it results from testimony under oath, none of it has been admitted as legal evidence in a jurisprudential undertaking, and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven remains axiomatic. And we might well reiterate the humane and civil plea, heard frequently after 9/11: what we need is justice, not vengeance.

We should not proceed directly to impeachment. At the very least, however, the story of George Bush’s premeditated wars raises questions of presidential dereliction as grave as any in our history.

We need to know the truth and all the truth. The time has come, as well as the opportunity, for formal, Congressional investigations, based on subpoenas, sworn testimony, and direct evidence about 9/11 and about the created reality of the “war on terror.”

Indeed, this story needs to unravelled fully and told succinctly to the American People. They need to understand exactly what has taken place and why. And in this case, as in so many others - much can be learned by simply following the money.

Vyan

Lynn Cheney does the Torture Tango

In the wake of this weeks inadvertant admissions by Dick Cheney that the U.S. has engaged in Water-boarding of terrorist detainees, his wife Lynn Cheney went on CNN to dance around the corpse of Democracy in our front yard defend her husband and the administration. In the process she yet again broke the emergency glass on that old Conservative Canard - Liberal Media Bias...

CHENEY: Well, you know, right there, Wolf, "BROKEN GOVERNMENT." Now, what kind of stance is that? Here we are. We're a country where we have been mightily challenged over the past six years. We've been through 9/11. We've been through Katrina. The president and the vice president inherited a recession. We're a country where the economy is healthy. That's not broken. This government has acted very well.

The ridiculousness of Cheney's performance can not be understated. She proclaimed, in response to the recent Jimm Webb Novel controversy that her novel "Sisters" did not contain lesbian love scenes.

BLITZER: Here's what the Democratic Party put out today, the Democratic Congressional -- Senatorial Campaign Committee: "Lynne Cheney's book featured brothels and attempted rape. In 1981, Vice

President Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, wrote a book called "Sisters", which featured a lesbian love affair, brothels and attempted rapes."

CHENEY: No.

BLITZER: "In 1988, Lynn Cheney wrote about a Republican vice president who dies of a heart attack while having sex with his mistress." Is that true?

CHENEY: Nothing explicit. And actually, that was full of lies. It's not -- it's just -- it's absolutely not a...

BLITZER: Did you write a book entitled "Sisters"?

CHENEY: I did write a book entitled "Sisters."

BLITZER: It did have lesbian characters.

CHENEY: This -- no, not necessarily. This description is a lie. I'll stand on that.

See, there you go - it's all a pack of lies from the Liberal Left. Nothing to see here - move along.

Except maybe this from the New York Daily News:

Choice scenes adapted from "Sisters" included one in which two female characters write to each other: "Let us go away together, away from the anger and the imperatives of men. We shall find ourselves a secluded bower where they dare not venture. There will be only the two of us, and we shall linger through long afternoons of sweet retirement."

One of Cheney's characters swoons to a Sapphic love letter: "How well her words describe our love - or the way it would be if we could remove all impediments, leave this place, and join together ... Then our union would be complete. Our lives would flow together, twin streams merging into a single river."

Now, let me be clear - I don't have any issue with Lesbian Love Scenes - I have a problem with people, like Cheney, who think everyone else is so dumb that they'll let them get away with such a blatant lie.

But then again, the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy must be to blame for it. Yeah, it's all the fault of those crazed liberals and their media front men like Blitzer.

Cheney, in response to CNN daring to tell the story of a former detainee who had been apprehended in England, rended to Pakistan, Afghanistan, then Gitmo and finally - stated:

CHENEY: You know, I think that you might be a little careful before you declare this as a person with clean hands.

BLITZER: You're referring to the CNN "BROKEN GOVERNMENT" special.

CHENEY: I certainly am.

BLITZER: This was the one that John King reported on last night.

Here's the detainees story from "Broken Government":

Meet Moazzam Begg from Birmingham, England. He vividly remembers when he was taken into custody: A midnight knock at the door soon after he had relocated from Afghanistan to Islamabad, Pakistan.

"I opened the door to be faced with people, several of them, pointing guns and electric stun guns. None of them said anything," Begg said. "They didn't ask me any questions, they didn't identify themselves. ... I was made to kneel, my hands were shackled behind my back. My legs were shackled. And the last thing I saw -- they put a hood over my head -- was them walking towards the room where my children were."

During a tense van ride, he would come face to face with his captors -- and the reach of Bush's executive powers in the post-9/11 world.

"Somebody lifted the hood off my head," Begg told CNN. "And I heard an American voice speak to me. And I saw him, and he produced a pair of handcuffs. And he said, 'These handcuffs were from a widow of a September 11 victim' -- given to him in order for him to capture the perpetrators."

Begg spent nearly three years in U.S. custody -- in Pakistan, Afghanistan and then the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. To this day, the CIA and FBI consider him a threat to the United States, but he was released from custody after appeals from British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He now lives back in his hometown.

Three Years. Held that entire time without charges, without explaination, without access to counsel.

Under the just signed Military Commissions Act alien detainees such as Begg no longer have any access to Habeas Corpus. Yes, this means British Citizens too - although they have a perfectly working police force of their own and extradition treaty with the US - we apparently didn't have time for such niceties - we geez only had three years or so to figure out if this guy was really dangerous or not, where you expecting swift justice or something? That's Pre-9/11 Thinking there pal, so you can just stop that right now.

For years the Administration has been running an international kidnapping ring through the CIA, secretly rounding up terrorist suspects - not Actual Terrorists, just Suspects - and shipping them off to Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to be held in hidden prisons outside the view of the international red cross where they have been torture - the kind of facilities that were highlighted in the first season of Keiefer Sutherland's "24". (Remember when they found Dennis Hopper's character in the underground bunker somewhere in LA Country?)

And just for the record, more then a few times - they've gotten the wrong target.

But to Lynn Cheney and her ilk, the concept of Habeas Corpus and the presumption of innocence is something we should be "careful" of? Yeah, something is serously "Broken" in that thinking all right.

The truly frightening part is how desperately the Cheney's of the world will cling to the information forcibly coereced from these "suspects". Particularly Ibn al Shakh al-Libi.

LONDON (AFP) - An Al-Qaeda terror suspect captured by the United States, who gave evidence of links between Iraq and the terror network, confessed after being tortured, a journalist told the BBC.

Ibn al Shakh al Libby told intelligence agents that he was close to Al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and "understood an awful lot about the inner workings of Al-Qaeda," former FBI agent Jack Clonan told the broadcaster.

Libby was tortured in an Egyptian prison, according to Stephen Grey, the author of the newly-released book "Ghost Plane" who investigated the secret US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) prisons that housed terror suspects around the world.

US President George W. Bush confirmed the existence of the network of CIA holding facilities overseas during a September 6 speech defending controversial US interrogation practices.

Libby was apparently taken to Cairo, Clonan told the broadcaster, after being captured in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

"He (Libby) claims he was tortured in jail and that would be routine in Egyptian prisons," Grey said.

"What he claimed most significantly was a connection between ... Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. This intelligence report made it all the way to the top, and was used by (former US secretary of state) Colin Powell as a key piece of justification ... for invading Iraq," he told the broadcaster.

Powell watched a video tape of al-Libbi confession prior to his inclusion of allegations that Saddam Hussein had been working with Al-Qaeda and might pass on chemical/biological weapons technology and training to them. He was key linchpin in the "Don't wait for the mushroom could" strategy.

Unfortunately, al-Libby was a liar.

And his lies, prompted on by his treatment, have led us into an irresponsible War and devastating occupation of an Unarmed Nation.

Yet to this very day, the Adminstration refuses to admit they were wrong about Saddam and Al Qeada.

They refuse to even admit that we employ torture.

Vice President Cheney said yesterday that he was not referring to an interrogation technique known as "waterboarding" when he told an interviewer this week that dunking terrorism suspects in water was a "no-brainer."

Cheney told reporters aboard Air Force Two last night that he did not talk about any specific interrogation technique during his interview Tuesday with a conservative radio host.

"I didn't say anything about waterboarding. . . . He didn't even use that phrase," Cheney said on a flight to Washington from South Carolina.

Earlier in the day, White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters that the vice president was talking literally about "a dunk in the water," though neither Snow nor Cheney explained what that meant or whether such a tactic had been used against U.S. detainees.

"A dunk in the water is a dunk in the water," Snow said.

Why exactly would you "dunk someone in water" during an interrogation - if not to make them think they're about to drown?

What else could it be? The guy was really thirsty - so we gave him the entire bucket all at once? Is this supposed to be like a carnival ride or something? Is anyone on earth buying this bullshit anymore?

The United States Tried and Convicted Japanese Soldiers for the War Crime of WaterBoarding in 1947.

Now our Government employs those - and likely even worse - techniques. Even if they're guilty we can't legally even TRY THESE PEOPLE, because if they've been tortured any guilty statements are inadmissable (except the that MCA also created some loopholes around that little snag). But to people like Lynn Cheney, it's all just 'lies and distortions".

Keep thinking that Mrs. Cheney - right until Election Day and you get a serious wake up call because you know what?

"Reality has a Liberal Bias" - Steven Colbert.

Amen.

Update Wolf Blitzer has further responded to Lynn Cheney's >attack on his patriotism - when she asked Blitzer "Don't you want us to win?"

Today on CNN’s Late Edition, Blitzer said he was “surprised” at Cheney’s “sniping at my patriotism,” and pointed out that CNN had specifically labeled the tape of a U.S. soldier under fire as terrorist “propaganda.” He also said that CNN had made clear to Cheney’s staff “only hours before the interview” that she would be asked questions about politics during her appearance, not just about her children’s book.

It's the kind of attack that is now common place among Conservatives who think only they have the correct answers to terrorism and al-Qaeda. To them it's inapproprate for CNN to broadcast terrorist propaganda (with caveats) - but the RNC can use it to attack Democrats and stir up fear all they like.

Vyan

The Republican War on Fact!

Even before Chris Wallace had his ass handed to him by President Clinton, and even before the airing of the ABC/Disney Smear-umentary "Path to 9-11", Ann Coulter got smacked down by guest Host Kirsten Powers on Hannity and Colmes as she tried to claim...

"As for catching Osama, it’s irrelevant. Things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan.”

Further as I previously posted

In her August 23 column -- "What Part of the War on Terrorism Do They Support" -- Coulter repeated the false claims that Democrats "oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers" and "oppose the Patriot Act." Introducing Coulter on Your World, Buttner stated: "You do a great job in your editorial of ... listing it all out, and when you do, it's very interesting to see -- they're really good at saying what they're against, aren't they?" Buttner later appeared to concur with Coulter's false assertion that Democrats are "against every part of the war on terror," saying: "You've said it well. The problem is that the administration doesn't always go out there and sell this. It doesn't always go out there and say, 'What are the Democrats for in this war on terror?' " Buttner then asked Coulter: "Do you think the getting out there and selling themselves and fighting against the Democrats -- that finally we're going to get the Republicans out there to fight?"

President Clinton called it a "Disinformation Campaign" - and he was precisely correct. Republicans are desperate to hang their hat on the meme that Democrats are "Weak on Terror?", but during the critical time prior to 9-11 where were they?

As Washington Monthly and William Rivers Pitt pointed out in August - they were standing in the way on nearly every initiative that then-President Clinton attempted to implement against growing Global Terrorism.

-- Republicans blocked 1995 bill provisions to allow swifter deportations and court viewing of sensitive evidence
-- Republican controlled congress blocked roving wire taps and new powers to monitor money laundering; Phil Gramm and others lead the effort
-- John Ashcroft and others rejected initiatives to tighten controls on encryption software (encryption used by 1993 bombers and 2001 terrorists)
-- Clinton created the FBI Counter terrorism Center and increased the counterterrorism budget from $78 million to $609 million in four years
-- Clinton signed a National Security Directive in 1998 to destroy al-Quada and seize or assassinate Bin Laden. Multiple assassination attempts were made
-- Clinton's CIA al-Quada unit thwarted bombing attempts in Los Angeles, New York, the UN, and the Israeli embassy in Washington DC. They also neutralized dozens of al-Queda cells overseas -- all of this without any fanfare, then or post 9/11.
-- Clinton was labeled by the Right's Robert Oakely as having an "obsession with Osama". Yet now Republicans attempt to claim Clinton, not Bush Jr, was soft on terrorism and ultimately responsible for 9/11

They find it so easy to declare that America doesn't need to abide by the Geneva Conventions, even though it doesn't produce accurate information, makes it far more dangerous for our troops - and inspires the enemy to keep fighting rather than surrender, making the war more difficult to win. They find it so easy to ignore the courts when it comes to protecting the privacy of Americans -- "All Wiretaps require a court order" (except when they don't feel like asking for one).

Opposing these methods is NOT opposing victory in the War on Terror. This far more of a War of ideologies - than of military might - of competiting theories about the nature and direction of civilization. What Democrats need to do is highlight that difference rather than cower from it. We represent a higher vision of how to fight this war. Using Fact, Logic and doing so within the confines of the Law, the Constitution and our Conscience.

Just as he did prior to the Iraq War, President Bush continues to ignore and dismiss what his own Intelligence Agencies tell him. According to the New York Times, the latest National Intelligence Estimate (which collects the view of 16 different agencies) stated:

he American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks. The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

But According to Bush...

You know, I’ve heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of “we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest” theory. It just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Even though the latest Senate Intelligence Report (PDF) clearly stated that Saddam had tried to Capture Zarqawi - and there was no connection between him and Al Qaeda - Bush Officials continue to claim the exact opposite.

And Bush himself tries to duck and cover by claim he never said there was an "operational relationship" between Saddam and Zarqawi - except that he did.

The Truth is: Saddam Hussein did not attack us. He was not armed with WMD's, didn't have programs in place to create either WMD's or Nuclear weapons - and certain was not about to hand any of these weapons over to terrorists.

But they simply refuse to believe the truth. They can not accept that torture doesn't work, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, that our occupation of that nation is sending more young muslim men into the open arms of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas then ever before.

The Truth: WE. ARE. LOSING. THIS. WAR.

Iraq is falling apart. Afghanistan is going to hell and a hand granade.

Do Democrats have a strategy to win? Well, yeah - the first thing to do is for America to Stop LYING TO itself.

We fucked up. Big time. Bush shouldn't have been given the authority to invade Iraq in the first place. They should have let the UN Inspectors finish their job first. (Once it was made clear that Saddam was already disarmed, he might have become the one with the insurgency problem - not us) They should have used more troops to maintain the peace after the initial attack was over. They shouldn't have let Katie O'Biern's husband hire inexperienced political partisans to oversee (and consquently fuck up) the Iraq Reconstruction Effort, not to mention let $8.8 Billion disappear into the thin air between their ears.

They should have caught or killed Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora.

Coulda. Shoulda. Woulda. Ok, What do we do now?

Again as President Clinton has recently stated, Iraq is in a state much like that of Bosnia and Kosovo. Three distinct ethnic groups are commiting violence against each other, vying for control of the country and it's natural resources. The Loyaties of the Iraqi Army are questionable - but Clinton, with the support of both Russia and Europe was able to bring together a consensus that ended the violence in Bosnia, stopped the ethnic cleansing and brought Slobodon Milosevic to justice.

The same came be done in Iraq, if we reach out and seek help from our allies while insisting that the Iraq People take thier country back from those who would rip it apart. They can't expect us to take the bullet for them forever.

Unfortunately none of that is going to happen under this Administration. But with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President - it just might.

And that's what the Neo-Cons are truly afraid of. They have to maintain this Deliberate Disinformation Campaign, because that's the only way they'll be able to hold on to power. They don't mind losing to Al-Qaeda, or losing to the insurgents in Iraq. It doesn't matter because they can simply spin another set of lies to make it seem like it's someone elses (Clinton's) fault. The way to really get under their skin is to make sure they lose - big time - in November. And then again in '08. It's the only way to bring a little factiness back into our Government.

Win the War at the Ballot Box, then we can finally end the War on Common Sense and Fact.

Vyan

A Collective Contempt for Fact

When describing Neo-Cons after she resigned in protest from the Air Force, leaving a position close to the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, where the Iraq War was planned - Lt. Col Karen Kwaitkowski described them thusly...

the pressure of the intelligence community to conform, the rejection of it when it failed to produce intelligence suitable for supporting the "Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States" agenda, and the amazing things I was hearing in both Bush and Cheney speeches told me that not only do neoconservatives hold a theory based on ideas not embraced by the American mainstream, but they also have a collective contempt for fact.

Today we see just how true that statement is as both Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney choose to reject and/or ignore the findings of the New Senate Intelligence Report that there were No Links Betweeen Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

In an interview she gave to CSU Pomona Lt. Col Kwaitkowski talked openly about how the Iraq War began from her position working in Doug Feith's organization.

The normal process of using intelligence to develop policy, just wasn't followed. Among the group of policy makers who were particularly interested in - not just Iraq Police - but ensuring that this invasion of Iraq happened. I mean, it was very much a policy agenda.

I joined the office in May 2002, and it became clear to me the decision to invade Iraq, to topple Saddam Hussein - and it's unclear exactly what afterwards - that decision had already been made by the policy makers. And it was simply a matter of pushing the decision forward through the system. That's not quite the same as having a system that informs policy makers with accurate intelligence and measured analysis in order for them to say "What should we do now?"

They kinda knew what the "Should do", but they were intent on pushing it through - so information was used, intelligence was - I'm going to use the word "Manipulated", I believe it was manipulated. "Cherry-Picked" is a term I've used and others have used, to describe how bits of information about the threat that Iraq posed - about the relationship of Iraq with terrorist groups - the whole array of things we were told about Iraq. If you get down to the intelligence, if you look at the intelligence - it wasn't saying that. It wasn't saying that under Bill Clinton, it wasn't saying that under George Bush.

George Bush is right when he says "Bill Clinton had the same information". Well, yes he did. His assessment was that Iraq was not a threat to the United States, and that was a correct decision.

15 Months after that interview we know how the Senate Intelligence Report indicating exactly what Kwaitkowski has been saying since she left the Pentagon.

Iraq had no WMD's and no connection to Al Qaeda.

Somehow Condi and Dicky just can't seem to bring themselves to see it that way.

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.

Seems to me it would be the job of the National Security Advisor to be aware of such a report - before we went to WAR. A similar conclusion - that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner - was also included as part of the National Intelligence Estimate requested and provided to Congress just days before the votes were cast on the Iraq War Resolution.

Of course that view was not included in the executive summary or in the unclassified versions of the report - but it was there.

From the New York Times November 2005

The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false, and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise.

The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.

So why in the hell is Condi still trying to squirm out of this one? She's like a kid who just stole some candy, got caught and is now trying to claim someone else put the candy in her purse. Whose she trying to kid?

And Cheney is just as bad.

On Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that concluded there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. According to the report, "a CIA assessment in October 2005 concluded that Hussein's government `did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.'" In fact, Hussein tried to capture Zarqawi.

This morning on Meet the Press, Cheney repeatedly cited Zarqawi as the link between pre-war Iraq and al-Qaeda. When Tim Russert mentioned the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Cheney said he "hadn't seen it."

"The Link" is he? Did the dog eat your homework Dickey? Maybe you shouldn't have had Whittington hold it for you.

Look, we all know what's going on here - these people are attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

Saddam wasn't a threat. If anything he was a bulwark against the spread of Islamic Extremism in his region. When Bush decided to begin to War, we had UN inspectors on the ground confirming what we know now - that Saddam Hussein destroyed his Chemical Weapons Stockpiles after the first Gulf War, had ended his Nuclear Program and had no links to allies in Al Qaeda.

Iraqi Defector General Hussein Kamel told the IEAE and UNSCOM this before he was killed in 1996.

Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning to Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had advanced. But Newsweek's John Barry-- who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections for more than a decade-- obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. inspections team known as UNSCOM.

Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them," Barry wrote. All that remained were "hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."

This is why CIA and U.S. has found since found nothing of Hussein former chemical weapons stockpiles but discarded and depleted remains buried in the desert.

If we simply let the inspectors do their job - they would have eventually discovered the truth of Kamel's confession. It would have exposed the fact that Saddam was defenseless. He had last used his chemical weapons to put down the Kurdish rebellion following the first Gulf War -- but if it became known and understood that these weapons were long gone, could he have been able to hold back a new rebellion and Civil War the likes of which we are now smack dab in the middle of?

This could've been Saddam's fate - brought down interally by the same insurgency which has killed so many of our own soldiers. There are some indications that Saddam wasn't captured by U.S. Forced - that the Kurds got to him first and turned him over to us.

Why are we there again?

Oh yeah... "They have a collective contempt for fact".

And reality it would appear.

Vyan