Edgeing

Real News: Ex-CIA Agent Ray McGovern on Obama's 'New World'

2008-07-22T16:54:00.000-07:00

Transcript here.

McGovern: "The game is over with Iraq and so the question is how does this strategic change affect the real players in the area. The Israeli right wants a confrontation with Iran to keep US forces in the region. The US military leadership is against a "third front" but has to contend with Cheney.

Raymond McGovern is a retired CIA officer. McGovern was a Federal employee under seven US presidents for over 27 years, presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the White House for many of them. McGovern was born and raised in Bronx, graduated summa cum laude from Fordham University, received an M.A. in Russian Studies from Fordham, a certificate in Theological Studies from Georgetown University, and graduated from Harvard Business School's Advanced Management Program.

Obama states near the beginning of the speech...

"...we will keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq, targeting any remnants of al-Qaeda, protecting our service members and diplomats, and training and supporting Iraq's security forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress."

protecting our service members?

What? Is his "residual force" not going to be composed of service members?

so long as the Iraqis make political progress?

What right does Obama or anyone else in Washington have to determine what is Iraqi "political progress"?

A relevant quote from Armando at Talkleft this morning:

Why Should The Iraqi Gov't Need Leverage To Have US Troops Leave?

If you understand Iraq is a sovereign country, then you should understand that they should not have to have leverage at all in telling the United States to leave. The United States has no right to have troops in Iraq. Indeed, the ostensible purpose of the troop presence in Iraq is to assist the Iraqi government. Suppose the US, in good faith, disagrees with the Iraqi government's assessment of the situation. So what? If they ask you to leave, then you leave.

But of course the most amazing part of this is that the American People as well as the Iraqi government wants the United States to leave Iraq, but for the Bush Administration and John McCain, it does not matter what the people want.

Neither, for that matter, does it seem to matter to Barack Obama what the Iraqi government or the American people want.

Obama talks of keeping 'Residual Forces' in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda.

For anyone interested in fully informing themselves, I recommend Andrew Tilghman'a October 2007 article from The Washington Monthly...

The Myth of AQI
Fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq is the last big argument for keeping U.S. troops in the country. But the military's estimation of the threat is alarmingly wrong.
By Andrew Tilghman

By now, many in Washington have learned to discount the president's rhetorical excesses when it comes to the war. But even some of his harshest critics take at face value the estimates provided by the military about AQI's presence. Politicians of both parties point to such figures when forming their positions on the war. All of the top three Democratic presidential candidates have argued for keeping some American forces in Iraq or the region, citing among other reasons the continued threat from al-Qaeda.

But what if official military estimates about the size and impact of al-Qaeda in Iraq are simply wrong? Indeed, interviews with numerous military and intelligence analysts, both inside and outside of government, suggest that the number of strikes the group has directed represent only a fraction of what official estimates claim. Further, al-Qaeda's presumed role in leading the violence through uniquely devastating attacks that catalyze further unrest may also be overstated.
Having been led astray by flawed prewar intelligence about WMDs, official Washington wants to believe it takes a more skeptical view of the administration's information now. Yet Beltway insiders seem to be making almost precisely the same mistakes in sizing up al-Qaeda in Iraq.
...
How big, then, is AQI? The most persuasive estimate I've heard comes from Malcolm Nance, the author of The Terrorists of Iraq and a twenty-year intelligence veteran and Arabic speaker who has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq. He believes AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," according to Nance, "is a microscopic terrorist organization."

Maliki Endorses Obama's Withdrawal Plan

2008-07-21T09:58:00.000-07:00

According to the German magazine Spiegel, Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed Obama's plan for US withdrawal form Iraq. (link to TPM)

"US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months," said al Maliki "That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Subsequent to this article, there was an effort by the Bush administration to claim that Maliki was mistranslated. However, the audiotapes of his interview support Spiegel's claim.

Regarding Obama's commitment to withdrawal from Iraq, here is his recent speech before Netroots Nation.

The Real News: "Obama and the Cold War Mentality"

2008-07-19T09:25:00.001-07:00

Gareth Porter: Will Obama be truly post-Cold War? [Transcript here.]

Historian and author Gareth Porter discusses with Pepe Escobar the positioning of Senator Barack Obama relative to the power of the national security establishment in the US; the legacy of JFK; the feasibility of the US refusing to occupy Muslim lands; and what it takes to be elected president of the United States.

Change You Can Believe In... or Honestly, Would I Lie To You?

2008-07-15T19:10:00.001-07:00

In efforts to strengthen his somewhat faltering presidential bid after last weeks shuffle ~~to the center~~ to the right in his reversal of a long held campaign promise with his support for ~~preemptively pardoning~~ retroactively legalizing years of Bush criminal behavior and expanded domestic surveillance at the low, low price of gutting your fourth amendment rights, Barack Obama has made more major position "adjustments" with changes to his campaign website today.

The AP reports about an hour ago: Obama Web site removes 'surge' from Iraq problem

Barack Obama's aides have removed criticism of President Bush's increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat's written war plan to reflect changing conditions.
...
McCain said Obama is failing to acknowledge success. "Today, we know Sen. Obama was wrong" to oppose the surge, McCain said.

As first reported Tuesday by the New York Daily News, Obama's campaign removed a reference to the surge as part of "The Problem" section on the part of his Web site devoted to laying out his plan for Iraq.

The change was part of many broader changes that Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said were made to reflect current conditions.

Designed to appeal to the ~~center~~ right likely in hopes of drawing voters away from the McCain camp, which he'll need to replace progressive support lost over FISA, Obama takes more steps towards offering another "Bush Third Term" coke or pepsi choice between himself and McCain to voters this year.

The AP article continues...

The change was part of many broader changes that Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said were made to reflect current conditions. She provided the full text of the old site and the updated version, which includes a new section on the recent resurgence of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and another on this year's negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement that would detail the legal basis for the ongoing presence of U.S. military forces operating in Iraq.

The changes stress that Obama's plan to end the war is responsible and designed to improve national security. They include:

_ An updated Obama quote at the top of the page. The previous quote stressed how Obama had the judgment to oppose the "rash war" from the start. This was a popular message among Democratic voters and was meant to draw distinctions with primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who initially supported the war. The new quote focuses on how ending the war will make Americans safer — a message aimed at general election voters who are more likely to trust McCain on issues of national security, according to polling.

_ A description of Obama's plan as "a responsible, phased withdrawal" that will be directed by military commanders and done in consultation with the Iraqis. Previously, the site had a sentence that has since been removed that flatly said, "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq." Morigi said that his plan hasn't changed, but they wanted to expand the description. "There's not an intent to shift language," she said.

_ A new sentence that says Obama "would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."

Only one of his plan's subheads remains unchanged, the first one — "Judgment You Can Trust." That's a message the campaign wants Americans to embrace.

..................

So, Osama Walks into This Bar, See?

...and ~~Bush~~ Obama says, "Whad'l'ya have, pardner?" and Osama says, "Well, ~~George~~ Barack, what are you serving today?" and ~~Bush~~ Obama says, "Fear," and Osama shouts, "Fear for everybody!" and ~~George~~ Barack pours it on for the crowd. Then the presidential bartender says, "Hey, who's buying?" and Osama points a thumb at the crowd sucking down their brew. "They are," he says. And the two of them share a quiet laugh.

^{Hat Tip to Greg Palast}

CenterShot: The Myth Of The Middle

2008-07-05T02:49:00.000-07:00

Lately there has been a growing and increasingly loudly voiced call from some of the more extreme centrists and from the DLC itself pushing the idea that to win elections - the upcoming 2008 presidential election comes to mind for some strange reason - and gain power Democrats will have to move sharply to the right, and that liberals and progressives are dooming America to successive republican administrations.

Sunday morning, March 11, 2007 in "Where Is America's True Center?" David Sirota wrote that:

The purported proof of such an assertion by Democratic Leadership Council mouthpieces Elaine Kamarck and Bill Galston was this finding:
"In 2004, only 21 percent of voters called themselves liberal, while 34 percent said they were conservative. The rest, 45 percent, characterized themselves as moderate."
The Washington media joined with Kamarck and Galston in billing this as an extraordinary finding that proved once and for all that Democrats must become more "moderate" or "conservative" because so few voters labeled themselves "liberal."

Sirota also went on in the same post to note that:

[C]onservative pundit James Joyner shows exactly what I'm talking about. Responding to a new Gallup poll showing more Americans label themselves conservative rather than liberal, Joyner admits:
"This is especially interesting considering that the public seems to continue to demand liberal policies, opposing even nominal market-based reform of Social Security, continuing to push for the socialization of health care, expecting instant bail-outs for poor financial decisions, and generally wanting more federal spending on a variety of social programs."

Put another way, all that corporate front groups inside the Democratic Party really prove when they cite polls on "liberal" vs. "moderate" vs. "conservative" labeling is how well the right has vilified the term "liberal" and how nebulously appealing and Apple Pie-ish a term like "moderate" is - but they prove nothing about where the public actually is on issues. That the Washington media goes out of its way to ignore this by, for instance, continuing to label as "fringe" antiwar Democrats representing the antiwar position of most Americans is a testament to how powerful the Beltway status-quo-defending propaganda system really is.

So what do the numbers really show us about where the mainstream of America is on the political spectrum? Well, in late 2004 and early 2005 Pew Research conducted an in depth Political Typology study of American society: Beyond Red vs. Blue. It's Principal Findings, among other things, were that:

Coming out of the 2004 election, the American political landscape decidedly favored the Republican Party. The GOP had extensive appeal among a disparate group of voters in the middle of the electorate, drew extraordinary loyalty from its own varied constituencies, and made some inroads among conservative Democrats. These advantages outweighed continued nationwide parity in party affiliation. Looking forward, however, there is no assurance that Republicans will be able to consolidate and build upon these advantages.

Republicans have neither gained nor lost in party identification in 2005. Moreover, divisions within the Republican coalition over economic and domestic issues may loom larger in the future, given the increasing salience of these matters. The Democratic party faces its own formidable challenges, despite the fact that the public sides with them on many key values and policy questions. Their constituencies are more diverse and, while united in opposition to President Bush, the Democrats are fractured by differences over social and personal values.

And as Profiles of the Typology Groups break down, Liberals [Liberal Democrats/Seculars/60's Democrats] comprise the largest group at 17% of General Population and 19% of Registered Voters, followed by Conservative Democrats at 15% of Adult Population and 15% of registered Voters.

Enterprisers [Staunch Conservatives] made up only 9% of Adult Population and 10% Registered Voters, tied with Pro-Government Conservatives on both scores.

Liberals have swelled to become the largest voting bloc in the typology.

And since Pew Research did their study there have been a couple of curious occurrences. Just anomolous blips, obviously. Probably mean very little, if anything. Heh. One was the November 2006 mid-term election rout of the republicans. That was a good indication of a strong rightward shift, no? What the hell could people have been thinking? Didn't they know? Hadn't anyone told them that they were supposed to move to the right? Jesus, just how in the hell are you going to run a proper democracy unless people do what they're told? Things would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship, right George?

George? Well, since the 2006 midterm elections George W. Bush's job approval ratings have continued the same calamitous slide towards falling off the bottom edge of the page. (see Historical Bush Approval Ratings)

Liberal progressives as a group are beating the rest of 'em, hands down.

Sirota concluded with the observation that:

Democrats major problem in recent years has been their willingness to listen to the tired - and inaccurate - rhetoric of people like Kamarck and Galston who have continued to push the party away from America's true center.

And Obama is the guy who is going to get us out of Iraq?

Updated: "Kucinich’s Articles of Impeachment: A Three-Part Guide"

2008-06-27T04:00:00.000-07:00

An "FYI" post. The 35 articles are quite dry and time consuming to read.

Elizabeth de la Vega has done a wonderful job of simplifying them for easier consumption and understanding, and they enumerate all of George Bush's crimes since he took office.

Maybe more people will understand these articles and comprehend the nature of Bush's offenses now, not having to wade through the legalese.

de la vega translates them into plain english that no one has any excuse for not getting, now.

Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment: A Three-Part Guide
By Elizabeth de la Vega
The Public Record
Saturday, June 14, 2008

It is entirely possible to be a reasonably well-informed citizen of the United States and not know that on June 9, 2008, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D. Ohio) took to the floor of the House of Representatives and spent over four hours reading thirty-five Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush.

Even worse, it is not merely possible, but likely, that the vast majority of people who have been more than willing to ignore or ridicule those charges have not read them. Or, if they have read them, they have found the allegations and citations so overwhelming they just switch off their minds. Perhaps surprisingly, I understand this phenomenon quite well. I spent many years attempting to present complex and disturbing information to people in the context of criminal indictments and cases. And the truth is that legal documents are confusing to everyone, including lawyers. Much as I hate to admit it, for example, I have never been able to plow through our family will, so for all I know, our very meager estate has been designated by my husband to be held in trust for the care and feeding of ferrets.

But the House Judiciary Committee does not, of course, have the luxury of being so cavalier. For the past seven years, we have watched as evidence of President Bush’s deceit, contempt of Congress and abuse of power has piled up like rank seaweed on a beach. We cannot, in this summer of 2008, simply step around it and pretend it’s not there. There is a constitutional process to follow and we must follow it. If the threat of terrorism is not a reason to disregard the constitution – and it is not – then surely neither is an election.

So I have decided to offer some help, a modest contribution in the one area I know best: the presentation of charges. It’s a Three-Part Guide to the Articles of Impeachment. There is nothing fancy here -- no sarcasm, no vitriol and no cynicism. Part I is a chart that itemizes the Articles of Impeachment with a subheading and a longer description. Part II is also a chart which itemizes U.S. and international laws that are implicated by the charges in the Articles of Impeachment. (Quite properly, not every impeachable offense is based on a specific legal violation.) In Part III I present an opening statement setting forth - just as a prosecutor would do before a trial - what the evidence would show with regard to these allegations.

Forward them around, if you would. At the very least – before we decide to ignore it --we should all clearly and unflinchingly apprehend the nature and scope of this executive misconduct and its consequent human misery and damage to our country.
Part I: http://www.pubrecord.org/docs/vega/kucinich-bush-articles-of-impeachment.pdf
Part II: http://www.pubrecord.org/docs/vega/kucinich-bush-articles-of-impeachment-violations.pdf
[Updated June 27, 2008 4:00 AM PST]
Part III: Opening Statement to the House Judiciary Committee Regarding the Articles of Impeachment

I want to speak to you about the Articles of Impeachment Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced on June 9, 2008. There are, as you know, thirty-five of them and they allege violations of just about as many U.S. and international laws.

When I first sat down to write this statement, I planned to discuss the evidence and the law that relates to some of those violations, just as I would do if I were presenting a case to a jury at the beginning of a trial. But I've decided not to do that. Instead, I am going to follow the wise counsel Abigail Adams gave to her husband John and just speak plainly.

I believe that most of you know what the evidence would show.

You know that the President has admitted violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. You know that the President of the United States has admitted committing a crime, but there has been no consequence.

You know that the President has caused his subordinates and agents to refuse to comply with duly-authorized subpoenas from Congress. It has happened over and over again.

And many of you are lawyers, some former prosecutors and even judges: You know what the law says about criminal responsibility. Under the law of the United States, anyone who "willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another" or who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" the commission of an act is just as culpable as the person who commits the act. That is not some strange legal theory -- it's what your professors would have called "black-letter law."
I'm thinking about this elementary rule of criminal law as I write today -- June 26, 2008. Because I'm listening to some of you question the infamous former Office of Legal Counsel Attorney John Yoo and the Vice-President's lawyer David Addington. And even as you ask tough and often heated questions about secret legal opinions memos and definitions of torture, I have no doubt most of you know that none of this horrific reign of terror on the part of the United States would have occurred if President Bush had not signed a memo on February 7, 2002 declaring that Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners would not be protected by the Geneva Conventions.

I know, in other words, that most of you are well aware that the President is responsible -- factually, legally and as a matter of common sense -- for the torture and abuse of prisoners that has occurred as a result of his authorization.

You also know that the President has himself deceived us and caused others to deceive us about this torture and so many other things: nuclear weapons in Iraq, Iraq and 9/11, the alleged threat from Saddam Hussein, a possible threat from Iran, illegal detentions, nuclear weapons, money, death and injury to our own soldiers, government contracts, the response to Hurricane Katrina, our civil liberties, our voting rights, the cost of Medicare, the firing of U.S. Attorneys, the very air that we breathe.

And throughout nearly eight years of these frauds and machinations, we have heard parsings of White House statements, and arguments about "literal truth" ad nauseum --even though, as most of you know, these legal-sounding discussions were almost entirely beside the point and, of themselves, a sham. The law of fraud is very clear and well-established. It makes no difference whatsoever whether the President did or did not make statements that were literally untrue. Literal truth is only a defense to a perjury charge. It is irrelevant to the crime of fraud which -- reflecting our everyday experience -- prohibits all kinds of deceit: false pretenses, outright lies, representations that are misleading even if they are literally true, deliberate concealment of material information, half-truths, and statements made with reckless indifference to the truth. These are principles that prosecutors advocate to jurors every day as they try to convict people who have used fraud to steal government funds, take families' homes, or deprive the elderly of their life savings.

I believe that most of you -- from both sides of the aisle -- understand and appreciate all too well what the nature and scope of this President's law-breaking, deceit and abuse of power has been. And it is precisely because you know all of these things that you would like nothing better than to just forget about it and move on.

Please do not do that.

Why do I say this? Because the continued success of government in this country, including, of course, the criminal justice system, depends upon a most fundamental and simple precept: No person is above the law. When I first started as a prosecutor, judges would sometimes phrase it more archaically: The law is no respecter of persons. But however it's phrased, this basic premise has never changed. In the United States of America, regardless of a person's station in life or political affiliation, he is entitled to be judged -- and must be judged -- according to the same laws as every one else.

What happens to this fundamental principle if after all these congressional investigations revealing widespread fraud, legal violations and gross misconduct by the President, Congress decides to do nothing?

What happens is that you will have chosen to up-end the bedrock upon which this nation has stood for over two hundred years. You will be telling the world that the 110th Congress has decreed that the President of the United States is not subject to the same laws as every one else. From now on, this radical, if unspoken, about-face will never be far from the minds of prosecutors, defense attorneys, defendants, victims and jurors when they hear a judge declare that a verdict must be rendered in accordance with the law, and without bias or sympathy towards either side. All of us who depend upon the fairness of the criminal justice system -- and upon whom the fairness of that system depends -- will know, in short, that it's rigged.

Now, am I suggesting that every time anyone introduces Articles of Impeachment against the President, Congress is obligated to proceed forward with them? Absolutely not. But it does fall to you -- if you are to fulfill your oaths as defenders of the Constitution -- to consider them carefully in light of the applicable law, just as any responsible prosecutor would do when deciding whether to proceed with an investigation.

If you fail to do this -- if you put this roiling mess on the back burner and walk away from the stove -- you will have made a staggeringly-radical and consequential decision to undermine the Constitution and the criminal justice system. And you will have made this choice without discussion or debate -- without, in fact, doing anything at all. It would be, I'm sorry to say, a shameful display for this Fourth of July, 2008.

-----
Copyright © 2008 Elizabeth de la Vega

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and chief of the San Jose Branch of the US attorney's office for the Northern District of California.

The author of "United States v. George W. Bush et al," she may be contacted at ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net or through Speakers Clearinghouse.

Be Afraid. Be very afraid.

2008-06-24T14:33:00.000-07:00

Ever since 9/11 the Bush administration has wanted you to be afraid. Be very afraid. Don't stop to think. Lets give up a little liberty for a little temporary security. Because a horrible thing is coming this way.

Click on cartoon for larger image.

Falsifying Troop Deaths - The Case of Lt. Cmdr. Speicher

2008-06-21T11:26:00.000-07:00

Recently edger has been posting on Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment against George Bush. Among the articles of impeachment were Article X
FALSIFYING ACCOUNTS OF U.S. TROOP DEATHS AND INJURIES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. The two examples provided were Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. However, an even better example can be provided in the case of Lt. Cmdr Scott Speicher.

It is September 12, 2002, the day after the anniversary of September 11. There is still a lot of sympathy and goodwill towards the US among other countries. Most Americans trust the President. President Bush lays out the case for the UN taking action against Iraq.

In one of the little noticed parts of Bush's speech he made the following claim "In 1991, the U.N. Security Council . . . demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. . .. One American pilot is among them." The pilot that Bush was referring to was Lt Cmdr (Michael) Scott Speicher who was shot down in Iraq during the first Gulf War. By making this claim Bush used Speicher for propagandistic purposes to push our country into going to war with Iraq.

Like Bush's claims about Saddam's WMDs, the claim that Saddam was holding Lt Cmdr Speicher captive is now generally believed to be false. It was another example of Bush's "fixing the facts around the policy". Bush used Speicher to help sell his war against Saddam. That the Bush administration would do this to a serviceman who gave his life for our country was, in my opinion, one of the most shameful things that the Bush administration has ever done (and this is a long list indeed).

Here is a brief timeline regarding the Speicher case:

Jan 17, 1991 Speicher was shot down over Iraq during the First Gulf War.

May 22, 1991 after reviewing the evidence the Navy Review Board classified Speicher as KIA/BNR - killed in action/body not recovered.

1999 a defector provided by the now discredited Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress claims that Speicher is alive and being held prisoner in Iraq.

Jan 11, 2001 Secretary of the Navy Danzig changed Speicher's classification from KIA/BNR to MIA. Per Scott Ritter, this was "the first time the Pentagon ever made such a reversal".

March 2002 The Washington Times ran five front page articles based on leaks from the DOD that suggested that Speicher was alive and being held by Saddam.

March 2002 According to Wolfowitz there was hard evidence that Speicher was alive. In response to a question regarding Iraq's claim that they were not holding Speicher captive, Rumsfeld responded "I don't believe much the regime puts out."

September 12, 2002 Almost a year to the day from the first anniversary of 9/11 Bush addresses the UN General Assemby asking to "hold Iraq to account." Among Bush's accusations is that Saddam is holding Scott Speicher captive.

October 2002 Congress authorizes the use of force against Saddam.

October 11, 2002 The Navy changes Speicher's status from MIA to missing in action to missing in action/captured despite intelligence agencies admitting that there was "no known physical evidence that Speicher was captured." According to ABC News, Navy officials were pressured to make this change.

January 10, 2003 Reuters and the Washington Times ran stories leaked by the DOD that Speicher is alive and being held captive.

March 20, 2003 The US invades Iraq.

April, 2003 The initials "MSS" are found on a wall in a prison in Iraq. DNA of hair fibers do not match Speichers.

June 24, 2003 In a news conference Rumsfeld admits that "nothing turned up" regarding the whereabouts of Scott Speicher.

July 16, 2003 The Washington Times reports that there are now doubts about the credibility of the defector.

May 25, 2004 According to Newsweek "Though the INC and other (Iraqi) exile groups stoked prewar rumors among U.S. conservatives that Speicher was alive and being held by Saddam's regime in a secret Iraqi prison cell, most U.S. intelligence officials, including senior DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) officials, believe that Speicher probably died years ago. Current and former U.S. intelligence officials say that the DIA concluded shortly after major combat operations ended in Iraq last year that Speicher almost certainly was dead and that prewar reports from exiles and defectors that he was still alive were probably hoaxes."

Please note how this works. The Bush administration spreads the lie about Ltr Cmdr Speicher being held captive. Not coincidently, this lie occurs during a period of time when they were trying to convince the country that we should go to war with Iraq. What better way to make Saddam Hussein into an even greater villain than by claiming that he was secretly holding an American pilot captive from the first Gulf war. The mainstream media assisted the Bush administration by spreading these rumors instead of conducting an investigation to confirm their veracity. Only after the invasion do "doubts" about this story pop up.

Nor was this the first time that an administration has falsified the existence of POWS. According to author H. Bruce Franklin (M.I.A. Mythmaking In America), during the Vietnam war, the Nixon administration and conservative groups manufactured the POW/MIA issue in order to "deflect attention from American atrocities in Vietnam, to undermine the burgeoning anti-war movement, and to stymie the Paris peace talks, resulting in the prolongation of the Vietnam War for another four years." There are still Americans today who believe that Vietnam is holding Americans captive.

Ltr Cmdr Speicher deserved better. When we use servicemen who have given there life for our country for propaganda purposes we dishonor their sacrifice.

I would urge Congressman Kucinich to include the case of Lt. Cmdr Speicher in his articles of impeachment

"Democrats Give White House Another Blank-Check For Iraq"

2008-06-18T18:00:00.000-07:00

Democrats Give White House Another Blank-Check For Iraq
By Jason Leopold, The Public Record, Wednesday, June 18, 2008

A Democratic engineered emergency supplemental bill to continue funding the occupation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan to the tune of $162 billion is expected to win bipartisan support, aides to leaders in the House said late Wednesday.

The bill, as currently drafted, does not contain any conditions for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq nor does it restrict how President Bush can conduct military operations. The legislation ensures both wars are funded well into 2009 and comes nearly two years after Democrats won majorities in Congress and the Senate largely on promises to resist handing the Bush administration "blank-checks" for Iraq and a pledge to immediately bring U.S. troops home.

A spokesperson for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was unavailable for comment.
...
Congressional leaders intend to hand the legislation to the Senate Thursday. The White House indicated Bush will sign the legislation into law if it passes both Houses, which Democratic leaders said is the likely outcome.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told Reuters the bipartisan legislation tackles "important domestic needs" in addition to the war funding. Hoyer and House Minority Leader John Boehner, (R-Ohio), announced the compromise between their political parties.

The latest round of funding comes two weeks after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued a scathing prewar Iraq intelligence report that accused Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other senior administration officials of knowingly lying to the public and Congress about Iraq's arsenal of chemical and biological weapons as well as its ties to the terrorist group al-Qaeda in order to win support for a U.S. led invasion. (More at TPR...)

Asked about her "greatest mistake," Pelosi said

"Why don't you tell me? 'Cause I think we're doing just great." Remember when Georgie stumbled over a similar question and couldn't recall any mistakes? It seems Our Only President is not the only one so afflicted.

"Unavailable For Comment"

For those illegally held in jail we have a court decision to hail…

2008-06-13T13:18:00.000-07:00

…because, unbelievably bush's SCOTUS has ruled that the constitution of the US still means something and that all those illegally detained persons being held by the government may challenge their confinement in US Courts.

THE RULE OF LAW WON. There is hope for America after all!

See this article from the NYT that has the details:

Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in United States courts, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security.

“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.[…]

In a harsh rebuke of the Bush administration, the justices rejected the administration’s argument that the individual protections provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 were more than adequate..

“The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody,” Justice Kennedy wrote, assuming the pivotal role that some court-watchers had foreseen.

The issues that were weighed in Thursday’s ruling went to the very heart of the separation-of-powers foundation of the United States Constitution. “To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say ‘what the law is,’ ” Justice Kennedy wrote, citing language in the 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison, in which the Supreme Court articulated its power to review acts of Congress.[…]

The ruling on Thursday focused in large part on the centuries old writ of habeas corpus (“you have the body,” in Latin), a means by which prisoners can challenge their incarceration. Noting that the Constitution provides for suspension of the writ only in times of rebellion or invasion, Justice Kennedy called it “an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers.”[…]

The head of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of prisoners at Guantánamo, hailed the ruling. “The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation’s most egregious injustices,” Vincent Warren, the organization’s executive director, told The Associated Press.[…]

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, applauded the ruling. “Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what almost everyone but the administration and their defenders in Congress always knew,” he said. “The Constitution and the rule of law bind all of us even in extraordinary times of war. No one is above the Constitution.”

In the words of a well-known actor, "Yippee kiyay, motherf*cker!"

This puts the final nail into the coffin of gw bush's illegal detention of so-called "enemy combatants,", restores habeas corpus, and means that as these people are heard in our courts all the other illegal acts of bush, such as endless torture, will be dragged out into the light of day so all Americans and the world will see bush for exactly what he is: a cruel, petty despot that wanted more power than any king or emperor in history, at least since 1200 A.D. and the signing of the Magna Carta, upon which in many instances our own constitution is based.

This is the BIG ONE for the Rule of Law and all Americans owe a debt to the US Supreme Court.

Cross posted from Vidiotspeak

You Must Be Mad, Or You Wouldn't Have Come Here

2008-06-10T14:04:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, June 09, 2008...

Ohio Congressman and former Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush Monday evening, stating the commander-in-chief is guilty of numerous crimes, including launching a war on false pretenses, and spying on American citizens, and should be removed from office.

"The House is not in order," Kucinich said to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who has said impeachment "is off the table."

Pelosi pounded her gavel.

Kucinich came up with 35 good reasons to remove George Bush from office.

Out of those 35 articles, #'s 9 and 10 are worth very close reading in spite of the dry legal language.

Article IX.
FAILING TO PROVIDE TROOPS WITH BODY ARMOR AND VEHICLE ARMOR

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, has been responsible for the deaths of members of the U.S. military and serious injury and trauma to other soldiers, by failing to provide available body armor and vehicle armor.

While engaging in an invasion and occupation of choice, not fought in self-defense, and not launched in accordance with any timetable other than the President's choosing, President Bush sent U.S. troops into danger without providing them with armor. This shortcoming has been known for years, during which time, the President has chosen to allow soldiers and Marines to continue to face unnecessary risk to life and limb rather then providing them with armor.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Pelosi pounded her gavel.

Article X
FALSIFYING ACCOUNTS OF U.S. TROOP DEATHS AND INJURIES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, promoted false propaganda stories about members of the United States military, including individuals both dead and injured.

The White House and the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2004 promoted a false account of the death of Specialist Pat Tillman, reporting that he had died in a hostile exchange, delaying release of the information that he had died from friendly fire, shot in the forehead three times in a manner that led investigating doctors to believe he had been shot at close range.

A 2005 report by Brig. Gen. Gary M. Jones reported that in the days immediately following Specialist Tillman's death, U.S. Army investigators were aware that Specialist Tillman was killed by friendly fire, shot three times to the head, and that senior Army commanders, including Gen. John Abizaid, knew of this fact within days of the shooting but nevertheless approved the awarding of the Silver Star, Purple Heart, and a posthumous promotion.

On April 24, 2007, Spc. Bryan O'Neal, the last soldier to see Specialist Pat Tillman alive, testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he was warned by superiors not to divulge information that a fellow soldier killed Specialist Tillman, especially to the Tillman family. The White House refused to provide requested documents to the committee, citing "executive branch confidentiality interests."

The White House and DOD in 2003 promoted a false account of the injury of Jessica Dawn Lynch, reporting that she had been captured in a hostile exchange and had been dramatically rescued. On April 2, 2003, the DOD released a video of the rescue and claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated. Iraqi doctors and nurses later interviewed, including Dr. Harith Al-Houssona, a doctor in the Nasirya hospital, described Lynch's injuries as "a broken arm, a broken thigh, and a dislocated ankle". According to Al-Houssona, there was no sign of gunshot or stab wounds, and Lynch's injuries were consistent with those that would be suffered in a car accident. Al-Houssona's claims were later confirmed in a U.S. Army report leaked on July 10, 2003.

Lynch denied that she fought or was wounded fighting, telling Diane Sawyer that the Pentagon "used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things.... I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember." She reported excellent treatment in Iraq, and that one person in the hospital even sang to her to help her feel at home.

On April 24, 2007 Lynch testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

"[Right after my capture], tales of great heroism were being told. My parent's home in Wirt County was under siege of the media all repeating the story of the little girl Rambo from the hills who went down fighting. It was not true.... I am still confused as to why they chose to lie."

The White House had heavily promoted the false story of Lynch's rescue, including in a speech by President Bush on April 28, 2003. After the fiction was exposed, the president awarded Lynch the Bronze Star.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Pelosi pounded her gavel?

Pelosi pounded whose gavel?

Mukasey Gets New Chance To Cover Up Bush War Crimes

2008-06-09T04:47:00.000-07:00

House Democrats sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey [.pdf] Friday requesting that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether White House officials, including President Bush, violated the War Crimes Act when they allowed interrogators to use brutal interrogation methods against detainees suspected of ties to terrorist organizations.

The letter, signed by 56 Congressional lawmakers, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, who is leading an investigation into the administration’s interrogation practices, says the International Committee of the Red Cross conducted an independent investigation of interrogation practices at Guantanamo Bay and “documented several instances of acts of torture against detainees, including soaking a prisoner’s hand in alcohol and lighting it on fire, subjecting a prisoner to sexual abuse and forcing a prisoner to eat a baseball.”

“We believe that these events alone warrant action, but within the last month additional information has surfaced that suggests the fact that not only did top administration officials meet in the White House and approve of the use of enhanced techniques including waterboarding against detainees, but that President Bush was aware of, and approved of the meetings taking place,” the letter, dated June 6, says. The Justice Department is reviewing the letter, a spokesman said.

However, Mukasey has defended the administration's interrogation policies, and with seven month to go before a new president is sworn into office, it appears unlikely that Mukasey will act on the Democrats' request.

House Democrats Want Bush Administration Investigated for War Crimes
Jason Leopold, The Public Record, Sunday, June 08, 2008

..................
Also at Docudharma

GOP Uses Military for Political Gain

2008-06-02T03:45:00.000-07:00

On one hand:
Per crooks and liars, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen has sent an "unusual open letter to everyone who wears an Armed Forces uniform: stay out of the political arena during the election season."
“The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways,” wrote the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation’s highest-ranking officer. “It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”

On the other hand:
(Per talkingpointsmemo) the Bush administration is "trying to have military tribunals for al Qaeda conspirators timed to run during the final weeks before the November election."

Also on the other hand:
(Per crooks and liars) the McCain campaign is ignoring Adm Mullen's letter by using a picture of General Petreaus in one of their ads.

Can The President Smell His Own BS?

2008-05-28T18:59:00.000-07:00

According to former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Bush "signed off on a strategy for selling the war (in Iraq) that was less than candid and honest." Per McClellan, the Bush administration used a "political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people," and tried to make the "WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable than they were" and downplayed "the possible unpleasant consequences of war _ casualties, economic effects, geopolitical risks, diplomatic repercussions."

Finally, according to McClellan, Bush is "insulated from the reality of events on the ground and consequently began falling into the trap of believing his own spin."

(sarcasm alert) I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. Who would have thunk the Bush administration was like this. Well, one reason that people weren't aware was because the supposedly liberal media was asleep on the job. Per McClellan the media were The news media, he says, were "complicit enablers" who were more concerned with "covering the march to war instead of the necessity of war."

One group that has spoken truth to power has been artists and musicians. Some of them had Bush's number since the get-go. Here are some of my favorite anti-Bush or anti-Bush administration songs.

Bright Eyes "When the President Talks to God"
Todd Snider "You Got Away With It"
The Decembrists "16 Military Wives"
Steve Earle "Transcendental Blues" "The Revolution Starts Now"

Whats your favorite anti-Bush or anti-Iraq war song?

In keeping with Scott McClellan's latest revelations, here is Harry Shearer performing "935 Lies".

PTSD and Suicides Soars

2008-05-27T14:29:00.000-07:00

In Iraq Bush is in a pickle. He needs to use multiple deployments to have the manpower needed to fight his war because a draft would be political suicide. However, mulitple deployments is resulting in a spike in PTSD which is rapidly destroying our military. Bush keeps going to the well by relying on multiple deployments but the time is fast approaching when that well will run dry because of the effects of stress and fatigue.

Bush is destroying our military as these two news stories below illustrate.

Per Reuters (by way of Talkingpoints Memo) the rate of post-traumatic stress (PTSD) among our troops soared in 2007. I've prevously posted on the subject of PTSD here and here. CBS News (found at Middle East scholar Juan Cole's website) also has a story about the rising rate of suicide among servicemembers.

Please keep in mind that the more exposure one has to combat the more likely one is to suffer from PTSD. The intensity of PTSD also increases with increased exposure to combat. That is why there is so much concern among military officers about multiple deployments. Bush is violating the previous policy of one tour and you are out. But Bush doesn't care about our soldiers. To Bush, they are meant to be used and easily disposed of as he sees fit. Our soldiers deserve better.

Memorial Day

2008-05-25T08:12:00.000-07:00

On this Memorial Day let us remember all those who sacrificed their lives for this country. Currently in Iraq that number is 4,081 American soldiers killed. Noone should have to give their life for light and transient reasons. That is why we are opposed to this war.

Here is my Memorial Day cartoon based on the theme song to the 60's television western "Rawhide". I thought a song about cowboys herding cattle to slaughter somehow appropriate for our current "cowboy" President.

Click on cartoon for larger image.

"Letters Give C.I.A. Tactics a Legal Rationale"…

2008-04-27T10:01:00.000-07:00

…sez the headline from this article in the NYT. Big Brother just got a big boost in the favored means to extract information from prisoners that may have knowledge of a future 'terrorist attack.'

Excerpt:

The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law.[…]

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.[…]

If the United States used subjective standards in applying its interrogation rules, he said, then potential enemies might adopt different standards of treatment for American detainees based on an officer’s rank or other factors.

“The cumulative effect in my interpretation is to put American troops at risk,” Mr. Wyden said.

Aw, c'mon people! Under these terms any one of us could be snatched off the street and tortured just because your next door neighbor is tired of your barking dog and calls in a report that you are engaged in 'terrorist activity.'

This is an open order allowing the torture of anyone as long as they are tortured in the name of national defense. Everyone 'may' be presumed to pose a threat and thus be subjected to torture. This means ALL of us are prospective torture victims.

Big Brother is not only here, he has unpacked his bags, taken residence in the home of the bush/cheney torture rooms, and awaits his first victim to apply state approved torture, secretly, without benefit of habeas corpus, no attorneys, and the whereabouts of the suspected terrorist unknown to the victim's family.

When will we bring back coliseums, sell tickets, and start feeding terrorists to the lions if they won't talk? Might as well have Roman-style entertainment to enjoy while Caesar bush cheers on the lions. Entertainment for the masses.

And soon, the end of empire.

Pity our poor troops that will face having to endure inhumane torture because of this policy for it is they who pay the price of bad leadership.

Cross-posted from VidiotSpeak

"U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran"…

2008-04-26T10:36:00.000-07:00

…says the headline in the washingtonpost.com.

Excerpt:

The nation's top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq.

It's official, people.

Our itty-bitty ever more irrelevant Fearful Leader has his surrogates taking over the bellicose talk to prepare the nation for yet another war we cannot afford, and one that we may not be able to win.

With all the continuing investment in Iran by Russia and China can anyone reasonably believe they are going to sit on their hands and do nothing while billions and billions of their investments get blown to hell?

It's all over 'cept for the cryin' and die'n.

Cross-posted from VidiotSpeak

When your military just isn't broke enough go and give 'em a lot of guff…

2008-04-26T10:04:00.000-07:00

… which seems to be the purpose of Gates' latest comments slamming the Air Force:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday the Air Force is not doing enough to help in the Iraq and Afghanistan war effort, complaining that some military leaders are "stuck in old ways of doing business."

Gates said in a speech at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., that getting the Air Force to send more surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft to Iraq and Afghanistan has been "like pulling teeth."

Addressing officer students at the Air Force's Air University, the Pentagon chief praised the Air Force for its overall contributions but made a point of urging it to do more and to undertake new and creative ways of thinking about helping the war effort instead of focusing mainly on future threats.

"In my view we can do and we should do more to meet the needs of men and women fighting in the current conflicts while their outcome may still be in doubt," he said. "My concern is that our services are still not moving aggressively in wartime to provide resources needed now on the battlefield."[…]

He likened the urgency of the task force's work to that of a similar organization he created last year to push for faster production and deployment of mine-resistant, ambush-protected armored vehicles that have been credited with saving lives of troops facing attacks by roadside bombs in Iraq.

So in other words Gates is pleading for the equipment they should have had ready before the war commenced, just like body armor, and specially armored vehicles for the troops.

There was no mention of how many of our troops have died needlessly because the bush maladministration failed to properly plan and prepare for war.

And without a single combat-ready brigade available on our continent to defends us in the event of a sudden attack, maybe the Air Force, unlike Gates, bush, and cheney, realizes that some resources should be held back for a fight with a REAL enemy and not the mythical and useless war on terra which has no bounds, will never end, and that is depriving the citizens of America the just attention and monetary policies required of our leadership to actually provide a functioning government of, by, and for the people.

Cross-posted from VidiotSpeak

No need to cheer, food rationing is finally here…

2008-04-26T09:58:00.000-07:00

…which alone should be enough to clue us in that we need to change our ways now that we are a third rate, third world banana republic with no bananas.

Isn't this just another sign on our highway to hell for being such war pigs?

And if the new war pig elected doesn't renounce war and start using all that additional money for the good of mankind instead of conducting genocide to steal oil resources, it will get worse to the point that the only two TRUE superpowers, Russia and China, will eventually either attack and defeat us militarily or break us completely by dropping the dollar as a stable currency upon which the world used to rely. The resultant run on the banks would wipe us out financially.

Maybe Russia or China will put into place better policies that would produce a better life for Americans. At least we could petition them for government aid.

People really don't see any parallels between Russia losing almost everything from over-the-top spending on defense and war-making during the Cold War and where America is now?

Cross-posted from VidiotSpeak

NOTE 4-27-08: When I wrote this I guess I 'assumed' that everyone would be aware that Costco and other warehouse stores were rationing rice, limiting customers to only two 20-lb. bags of rice per customer. I have since realized that this post might not make sense if you were not aware of that fact. I apologize for any confusion, but when one of the world's main staples in food runs short, it is time to start worrying.

"…McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest."…

2008-04-26T09:50:00.000-07:00

So says David Broder in one of the funniest statements of all time, not just today. I know he believes people still take him as seriously as he does himself, but really, this statement has to be the funniest lie I ever heard about or read of John McCain.

Cross-posted from VidiotSpeak

"As the American consumer goes, so goes the American economy."

2008-04-26T09:41:00.000-07:00

"Unfortunately, the direction for the foreseeable future is down."

From a NYT Editorial.

I strongly agree. With his sneaky, insidious, perfidious, secrecy, and outright lying it will be years before we discover just how badly bushco has damaged our economy. Only then will we be able to figure out how to try and recover.

Personally, I don't think America will ever again see the prosperity the country formerly enjoyed after WWII, which ended with greorge w bush, a small, ignorant man trading on fear, war-making, and American Empire.

R.I.P. America. It was a good run while it lasted.

Cross-posted from VidiotSpeak

To justify its aims it is necessary to make ever more shrill claims…

2008-04-26T09:28:00.000-07:00

…such as those now being made by the Israelis, backed up in full by America through the auspices of our itty-bitty ever more irrelevant Fearful Leader bush, both of which countries allege that Syria was building a nuclear plant with the assistance of the North Koreans.

I call B.S. on this entire affair as it is no longer above American or Israel to tell whatever lies that will best suit their aims.

Excerpt from this NYT Editorial:

It is more than a little suspicious that the ever-secretive Bush administration has suddenly decided to go public with what it knows about North Korea’s nuclear connection with Syria. After seven months of refusing to acknowledge Israel’s air strike last Sept. 6 on a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor, the intelligence community has now provided Congress with video images showing North Koreans inside the secret facility.

It is another example of this administration insisting that information be withheld for national security reasons — until there is a political reason to release it.[…]

Israel’s attack has at least ensured that the Syrian reactor will not be a threat.…

This is so utterly asinine it's hard to know where to start, so I'll keep it to a single point.

After impugning bush's integrity and his known penchant for keeping information secret until its release will somehow facilitate one of his aims, the editorial staff blithely backs up and seems to actually vouchsafe the credibility of bush and the Israelis by plainly stating, without a shred of evidence to support the claim that, "…Israel’s attack has at least ensured that the Syrian reactor will not be a threat.…"

No where has there been published anything to support the outlandish claims of the parties involved, but to hold both mutually exclusive suppositions, i.e., "…It is more than a little suspicious that the ever-secretive Bush administration has suddenly decided to go public…" as opposed to the definitive, "…Israel’s attack has at least ensured that the Syrian reactor will not be a threat.…" strikes me as the same as saying, "He suspiciously admits he preemptively beats his wife, you know," followed by, "She deserved it to keep the country safe."

Besides, has anyone besides me noticed that there is not a sign of the gigantic cooling towers needed to help regulate the internal temperatures of the reactor? I'm not a nuclear scientist by any means, but I have always been led to believe that the hugh towers were an absolute necessity for the current nuclear plant design.

Tell me lies, tell me evil, untrue lies…

Cross-posted from VidiotSpeak

Blogswarm: Condi Must Go

2008-04-16T09:39:00.000-07:00

A new campaign and brilliant video from TrueMajority.org, Brave New Films, and Democracy for America. Get thee hither and sign!

CondiMustGo.com

America will not stand for a Secretary of State who approved torture and then misled Congress. We call on the Presidential candidates to ask Secretary of State Rice to resign
1. ABC Broke the Story on Torture
2. We're running a 30 second version of the torture video on ABC right after the debate in Philly
3. ABC is hosting the debate tonight.
Please REC this diary so we can create a blog swarm and get ABC to ask this question at tonight's debate.

Via Buhdydharma @ Docudharma, and Dkos and Ilya Sheyman.(Online Organizing Manager at TrueMajority.org) Please go recommend!

This makes me want to shout, "What a lying, cheap, ridiculous cop-out!"

2008-04-12T11:39:00.000-07:00

In a change of heart the bush maladministration now claims that al-Qaeda is no longer the primary threat in Iraq, that it has been defeated and routed from Iraq, and that Iran now poses the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East. If this is true then it is time to bring our troops home after being victorious against al-Qaeda; the rest of the Middle East can take care of itself.

Excerpt from the washingtonpost.com:

Last week's violence in Basra and Baghdad has convinced the Bush administration that actions by Iran, and not al-Qaeda, are the primary threat inside Iraq, and has sparked a broad reassessment of policy in the region, according to senior U.S. officials.

Evidence of an increase in Iranian weapons, training and direction for the Shiite militias that battled U.S. and Iraqi security forces in those two cities has fixed new U.S. attention on what Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday called Tehran's "malign" influence, the officials said.

The intensified focus on Iran coincides with diminished emphasis on al-Qaeda in Iraq as the leading justification for an ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq.[…]

During their Washington visit, Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker barely mentioned al-Qaeda in Iraq but spoke extensively of Iran.

With "al-Qaeda in retreat and disarray" in Iraq, said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record, "we see other obstacles that were under the waterline more clearly. . . . The Iranian-armed militias are now the biggest threat to internal order."

Partly in response to advice from Petraeus and Crocker, the administration has initiated an interagency assessment of what is known about Iranian activities and intentions, how to combat them and how to capitalize on them. The review stems from an internal conclusion, following last week's fighting, that the administration lacked a comprehensive understanding and a sophisticated approach.

President Bush reiterated yesterday that if Iran continues to help militias in Iraq, "then we'll deal with them," saying in an interview with ABC News that "we're learning more about their habits and learning more about their routes" for infiltrating or sending equipment.

If the administration and army leaders are correct and we have defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq, our mission there is complete, we are victorious, and we have no right to consider attacking Iran, which poses no threat to America or Iraq.

Iraq and Iran have previously, much to bush's dismay, formed a "mutual defense pact" that would require Maliki to turn his armies against Americans in the event that we unlawfully attack Iran. And wouldn't that be a hoot, battling Iran, which is no weakling country as Iraq was and remains, but having Iraqi forces turn on American forces because bush feels like he, still in his "god complex", must bomb Iran at any costs.

bush has already bankrupted us with this ridiculously expensive Iraqi Oil War, to the tune of over 3 TRILLION dollars, and I would wager that bush would spend another three trillion if he attacks Iran.Our military is being rapidly and dangerously depleted, and I don't believe our forces in Iraq could sustain themselves against a dual attack from Iranian and Iraqi forces.

Our country would suffer a multitude of terrorist attacks by from Hamas, the Quds Force, and loyal Iranian sleeper cells already, undoubtedly, in place here in America and around the world should we attack Iran.

Congress needs to yank in bush's chain, forbid an attack on Iran, reduce defense spending that is destroying the "Age of America," and get back down to the business of taking care of the American people and their needs here at home.

I have said it before and I will always maintain that we could have BOUGHT all the oil under Iraq for less than this senseless war will cost in lives and treasure, and attacking yet another Muslim country that poses no threat to America will just reinforce the Muslim worlds belief that America is truly on a new crusade to wipe out Muslims, compounding all our problems exponentially by several orders of magnitude.

bush needs to be hamstrung. Congress should stop action on any bill even resembling authorization or payment of more money for war.

If it were explained to the country by congress that their intent was to hamstring bush, leaving him impotent to pursue war, I believe they would be supported by the vast, vast majority of Americans who are also sick unto the point of death with bush's reckless and dangerous foreign policies and lust for eternal war and American hegemony.

Cross-posted from VidiotSpeak