Right you WERE, Dick!

** No one else could say it better.




https://pol.moveon.org/donate/cheneyvideo.html?r=2879&id=10983-6585567-Ztj_GB

A Tenet of Disbelief

** George Tenet's new book kicks back at Cheney/Bush for blaming the Iraq war on his "slam dunk" remark. (See reactions at end)

WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

The 549-page book, “At the Center of the Storm,” is to be published by HarperCollins on Monday. By turns accusatory, defensive, and modestly self-critical, it is the first detailed account by a member of the president’s inner circle of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the decision to invade Iraq and the failure to find the unconventional weapons that were a major justification for the war.

Complete article here, but may require subscription.

COMMENTARIES
Arianna Huffington: Why didn't he just resign?
From former colleagues at the CIA

The fall of Tom Friedman - to me

**I must confess I have been a fan of Tom Friedman for many years. I read both The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The Earth is Flat and thought they were both insightful and prescient about the new world order powered primarily by the internet and technology. I had casually accepted the premise that it would be a good thing for the Middle East to become democratic. Shame on me. It's easy to assume that what one is used to is easily accepted by people who don't share your background or preferences. But in recent months I've come across commentaries about Friedman that suggest that he isn't the visionary I thought he was. His unqualified promotion of "globalism" seems to ignore the real human costs in favor of unrestrained corporate expansion. The following critique by "Hunter" at dailykos.com strikes me as perceptive and is certainly thought-provoking. But judge for yourself:

Think Progress presents the comedy stylings of Iraq War advocate Tom Friedman:

FRIEDMAN: I’m really sorry. Next time — Next time Ishwar [caller], I promise, I really promise, I’ll be a better liberal. I’ll not in any way support any effort to bring democracy to a country ruled by an oil-backed tyranny. I promise I will never do that again. I promise I’ll be a better liberal. I will view the prospect of Arabs forging a democracy as utterly impossible. They’re incapable of democracy. I agree with you on that now.

Estimates put the number of Iraqi dead above half a million people. Even the most conservative (cough) estimates confess the number to be in the multiple tens of thousands.

That's more people than Thomas Friedman will ever shake hands with in his entire life. That's more people than he will ever exchange direct eye contact with. That's more people than will ever serve him a drink or take his plate away in every speaking arrangement he's ever done and billed for. And every six months (or "Friedman Unit") the number of dead again increases by five figures.

They're dead because Thomas Friedman and people like him thought they had a great idea, and wouldn't listen to any of the experts telling them they were wrong. He was convinced that reforming the Middle East via American military attack would be a brilliant and necessary strategy, convinced by his own goddamn notions of what the Middle East should look like and how many bullets it would take to get it there.

And now he hides behind the notion that the only problem, in all of this, was that the damn liberals wouldn't clap hard enough for the transparently puerile "plan". He doesn't have a problem with any of it, except for the criticism he personally gets as a result of the chaos. No, the whole problem was either that the damn Arabs didn't sufficiently greet us as liberators and get on with reshaping their country according to his plan, or that the liberals had the audacity to point out that his "plan" was idiotic.

How to get support for any war

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Iraq war: a street level view

Most Americans' view of the Iraq war is heavily filtered (no cameras at Dover) and mediated by politicians, pundits and the nightly news. Yet few get an "on the street" view. Lara Logan, CBS's chief foreign correspondent, produced such a view in a documentary that CBS won't air. Instead, it is available only on the Web. This AlterNet story gives the details:

The segment in question -- "Battle for Haifa Street" -- is a piece of first-rate journalism but one that appears only on the CBS News website -- and has never been broadcast. It is a gritty, realistic look at life on the very mean streets of Baghdad and includes interviews with civilians who complain that the U.S. military presence is only making their lives worse and the situation more deadly.

See for yourself what the controversy is all about. You can watch the video here (RealPlayer required):

Text of the email from Lara Logan:

From: lara logan
Subject: help

The story below only appeared on our CBS website and was not aired on CBS. It is a story that is largely being ignored, even though this is taking place every single day in central Baghdad, two blocks from where our office is located.

Our crew had to be pulled out because we got a call saying they were about to be killed, and on their way out, a civilian man was shot dead in front of them as they ran.

I would be very grateful if any of you have a chance to watch this story and pass the link on to as many people you know as possible. It should be seen. And people should know about this.

If anyone has time to send a comment to CBS -- about the story -- not about my request, then that would help highlight that people are interested, and this is not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore.

Many, many thanks.

Poetry is a witness

** Gary Kamiya, in a Salon.com article, includes a statement about the function of poetry in a time of war:

Poetry, as the great Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz once wrote, is a witness...
Poetry, perhaps even more than pictures, makes war live. We understand the true horror of World War I not because of newsreels, but because of the searing words of Erich Maria Remarque and Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. And Iraq has produced its own poet, Brian Turner, who was an infantry team leader there for a year. In 2005, he published a collection of poems, "Here, Bullet," that is destined to endure long after the shrill arguments about the war have been forgotten.
...

2000 lbs

A flight of gold, that's what Sefwan thinks
as he lights a Miami, draws in the smoke
and waits in his taxi at the traffic circle.
He thinks of summer 1974, lifting
pitchforks of grain high in the air,
the slow drift of it like the fall of Shatha's hair,
and although it was decades ago, he still loves her,
remembers her standing at the canebrake
where the buffalo cooled shoulder-deep in the water,
pleased with the orange cups of flowers he brought her,
and he regrets how much can go wrong in a life,
how easily the years slip by, light as grain, bright
as the street's concussion of metal, shrapnel
traveling at the speed of sound to open him up
in blood and shock, a man whose last thoughts
are of love and wreckage, with no one there
to whisper him gone.

Sgt. Ledouix of the National Guard
speaks but cannot hear the words coming out,
and it's just as well his eardrums ruptured
because it lends the world a certain calm,
though the traffic circle is filled with people
running in panic, their legs a blur
like horses in a carousel, turning
and turning the way the tires spin
on the Humvee flipped to its side,
the gunner's hatch he was thrown from
a mystery to him now, a dark hole
in metal the color of sand, and if he could,
he would crawl back inside of it,
and though his fingertips scratch at the asphalt
he hasn't the strength to move:
shrapnel has torn into his ribcage
and he will bleed to death in minutes,
but he finds himself surrounded by a strange
beauty, the shine of light on the broken,
a woman's hand touching his face, tenderly
the way his wife might, amazed to find
a wedding ring on his crushed hand,
the bright gold sinking in flesh
going to bone.

When silence is betrayal - John Edwards speech

** Every second the warfare in Iraq continues - I won't call it a war because there really is no "enemy, just fighting - we support the murderous and suicidal actions of our government. John Edwards, a presidential candidate, articulates our moral obligation in terms of vision of the 20th century's moral giant, Martin Luther King, Jr. Opposing this country's actions doesn't mean we have no obligations to the country we destroyed in the process of trying to save it (which we weren't really trying to do anyway). But it does mean we need to stop supporting our aggressive killing of Iraqis. The following is from HuffPosts's Ari Melber.

To celebrate Reverend Martin Luther King this week, John Edwards delivered a stern anti-war speech at Harlem's Riverside Church, where King famously spoke out against the Vietnam war. Edwards cited Rev. King's anti-war legacy, clasped hands with his son, Martin Luther King III, and called on Congress to stop funding the war.

"If you're in Congress and you know this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options and keep your own counsel. Silence is betrayal. Speak out, and stop this escalation now," said Edwards.
...
But is this really the way to celebrate Reverend Martin Luther King? With political speeches, war debates and arguments over what his legacy means?

In a word, yes.

Reverend King was a politician and an activist. He knew the only way to solve America's most fundamental problems was through protest and political debate. As Americans commemorate his leadership and courage this week, we should continue his tradition of protest, politics and social change.

Full text
Video excerpts of Edwards speech

5 steps out of the Iraquagmire

Deepak Chopra puts forth 5 initiatives that could be a REAL way forward. Democrats in need of something concrete to offer should study these:

1. Apologize to the world at the U.N. and plead for help in keeping a fragile peace in Iraq, on the model of keeping the peace in Bosnia.

2. Federalize the country so that each sect has its own autonomous region with loose links to a central government.

3. Facilitate the movement of people to their new states, trying to avoid the same bloodbath that took hundreds of thousands of lives when Pakistan was partitioned from India.

4. Form an international agency to restore and run the Iraqi oil industry. This would be temporary until the federal state can divide the spoils without creating deeper rifts between Shia and Sunni.

5. Concentrate on money and jobs. One of the worst fruits of despotism is that the populace remains passive, uneducated, hopeless about the future, and indoctrinated with propaganda. For Iraq to live in peace, all these deficits must be lessened.

Full article.

Oops! "Surge" is purged

This article by Adam Green traces the short history of a current military term.

The Administration keeps trying to put one over on the public and test-drives words to see if we bite. Surge sucks, it turns out. So will we now accept Rice's "augmentation?" Probably not, since it will be as effective as some of the other products in that category.

Hear ye, hear ye!

Let word go out far and wide -"surge" has been purged from the lexicon of the Iraq war debate.

A term that once promised to join the ranks of "personal accounts," "clear skies," "healthy forests" and other Bush Propaganda All Starsmet a quick demise Wednesday when the president decided he could not credibly use the term to describe his Iraq escalation policy.

As you may know, "surge" was a recently invented term - leaked by Bush Administration officials to the press after the November elections that existed nowhere in Department of Defense's official Dictionary of Military Terms. By contrast, "escalation" is an official military term and has been used historically to describe troop increases (see Vietnam).

But for months, proponents of escalating the Iraq war have insisted
on using the term "surge" and the media have gone right along. Did you ever wonder why this word was pushed so hard?

A recent CBS poll lends a clue. Only 18% of Americans support putting more troops in Iraq. But when the question is framed as a "short-term" troop increase, support jumped to 45% (still a minority, but more substantial). And as CNN analyst Bill Schneider points out, "surge sounds temporary."

Some excellent research by Nico Pitney at Think Progress bolsters this theory. Between November 19 and November 22, there was a series of leaks by "senior officials" to the press - linking a possible "surge" to the concept of "short-term."

"Short-term surge," reported the New York Times and MSNBC. "Short period," reported the Washington Post. "Temporary surge," reported the Christian Science Monitor. ABC's Jonathan Karl even reported a "temporary surge of no more than 60 days."

We could win Iraq in 60 days, wow! The media was primed. The public was primed. There was just one small thing standing in the way - the truth.

That truth started coming out a month later - on December 27.

Rest of article from Huffington Post

Byrd says it again

In a post here on February 13, 2003, Senator Robert Byrd eloquently articulated his objection to our invasion of Iraq. Here's what he said back then:

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

He continues the eloquence today. Will someone listen to him this time? We know it won't be the President or his handlers. But will members of the Congress of both parties listen and take ACTION to stop this no longer subtle commandeering of US democracy by a bunch of tyrannical madmen?

Here's the speech delivered on the floor of the US Senate Thursday afternoon, January 11, 2007

Via commondreams.org

A checklist of Bush blunders and lies - thanks Keith!

Crooks and Liars » Olbermann: A Look Backward at the Commander’s Credibility

Any meaningful assessment of the president's next step in Iraq must consider his steps and missteps so far.
So, let's look at the record:

• Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America. Now, he says it is vital for America.
  
  
• He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.
  
  
• He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.
  
  
• He has told us the war is necessary…Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.
  
  
• In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.
  
  
• He sent in fewer troops than recommended.
  
  
• He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government.
  
  
• He short-changed Iraqi training.
  
  
• He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.
  
  
• He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.
  
  
• Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.
  
  
• Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.
  
  
• We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".
  
  
• He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.
  
  
• He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, ¤elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.
  
  
• We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers.
  
  
• As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',
  
  
• The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists.
  
  
• The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.
  
  
• And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.

It's the oil, stupid

**Interesting thread on HuffingtonPost.com immediately after Bush's "surge" speech last night. In it is an intriguing, though convoluted argument that I feel needs to be set apart for scrutiny later if the events and logic cited actually come to pass.

It is McCain/Lieberman on a ticket for2008! McCain has already filed as a candidate for the Presidency in 2008 (Federal Election Commission). Bush has announced Lieberman to "head" the meetings on the progress with him in the White House on Iraq. McCain made the deal with the bankers of the U.S. several months ago in Europe when he accompanied Rumsfeld on a "briefing meeting on Iraq'". Eversince then, he has been in the loop with the White House (getting groomed).There are two outcomes for when withdrawal from Iraq occurs. Immediate withdrawal means that World Oil and Gas prices tumble and the Middle-East region National Leaders who have production commitments risk their overthrow from their partners within, and then the Bankers will renegotiate their "payoffs" with new oil price models for trading dollars, or second, National leadership over sectarian and extremists factions(which has been going on all the time in fluxuations amonst the various national leaders/players, keep their agreements for oil revenues at a "New Reduced Percentage" from the Banks in concert with the U.S. maintaining surface political stature, oil and gas supply lines, and continued arms/drug trades among the partners, and continued heavy U.S. Military support. McCain is being shown the ropes and Business As Usual. The political spectrum of Democrats will not be and are not of consequence. The Bush Administration (Conglomeration) had figured on losing in 2004, and was hoping to "sabatoge" another Democrat and work underneath the public scrutiny, as they did with Iran Hostages to Carter,and Iran-Contra under Reagan's Alzheimers, but the Poll Experiment worked well enough that they had to scramble for excuses to a false war in Iraq, to get the oil rights percentages up to 75% net. McCain is a willing partner, just remember the elimination of S & L's! He was brought in to that venture enabling the wholesale takeover of over 70% of single family mortgages being purchased by the banks for about 25 cents on the dollar! Vote NO ENCUMBANTS BACK IN OUR GOVERNMENT FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT THREE TERMS!!! Please.

By: spookcatcher on January 10, 2007 at 11:16pm

About midwifing democracy

** The late Jeane Kirkpatrick was appointed by Ronald Reagan as UN Ambassador. She was a major force in neoconservatism, and helped shaped American military, diplomatic and covert actions in the 80s. Here's what she said about the Carter foreign policy at the time:

"Vietnam presumably taught us that the United States could not serve as the world's policeman; it should also have taught us the dangers of trying to be the world's midwife to democracy when the birth is scheduled to take place under conditions of guerrilla war." - Full Text

It's begining to look a lot like...Dem waffles!

** The November victory is still warm and already the Dems are starting to flip-flop on the major mandate of those elections: get out of Iraq FAST. Don't let them back down. Contact your member of Congress now and say hell no we won't go along with funding Bush's war for the rest of his term. Not sure who's your Representative? Use this site to find out.

Here's the scoop from TruthDig.com:

Joshua Scheer: Dennis Kucinich's Showdown With the Democratic Leadership

In an interview with Truthdig research editor Joshua Scheer*, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) criticizes the leadership of his own party for announcing Tuesday that it would support a massive increase in spending for the Iraq war.

Originally posted at Truthdig.com

Truthdig: What was the upshot of [Tuesday's] Democratic caucus meeting?

Kucinich: At this point the Democratic leadership--the speaker and the majority leader and Rahm Emanuel--are all recommending that the Democrats support the appropriation that is going to be brought forward in the spring, for the purposes of [continuing to fund] the war in Iraq.

Truthdig: Why do you think that is?

Kucinich: The leadership feels that they can bring about greater transparency [in spending], that they can bring special committees to look at what's gone wrong with the war, and that there's going to be improved oversight.

Truthdig: Were there dissenting opinions ... ? Do you think this will pass?

Kucinich: I think this is going to be a serious test of the Democratic Party. We were put in power because people expected a new direction in Iraq. It goes without saying that they expect greater transparency and oversight, but they also expect us to do something to bring the troops home. Now, if Congress goes ahead under Democratic leadership and votes to approve what some are now estimating as an additional $160 billion for the war in Iraq, bringing the total for the fiscal year to $230 billion, the Democratic Congress will have bought George Bush's war. Now, who would buy a used war from this administration?

Truthdig: Weren't the Democrats elected because of the war in Iraq?

Kucinich: The Democrats came to power because of a strong desire on the part of the voters to get out of Iraq. That's why people voted Democratic. So now, with the Democratic leadership taking a position saying they're going to approve the supplemental budget in the spring, this could be seen by many as a breach of faith.

Truthdig: What can people do?

Kucinich: People first of all need to know about this. People need to know that there is an attempt by our leadership to support the supplemental, and what the consequences are.... The most difficult part of the challenge is to get members of Congress to understand that they themselves voted for a bill which went into effect on Oct. 1 that appropriated $70 billion, which could be used to bring the troops home. Unfortunately, our leadership is saying they're supporting the supplemental as a way of supporting the troops. So if we continue to ignore the money that's there right now to bring the troops home, we're losing an opportunity to bring the troops home now. People are now saying that they oppose the war, but they're continuing to fund it in the name of supporting the troops.

They say they're not going to abandon the troops in the field. We're professing a strange love for these troops by keeping them there, because the money's there to bring them home. So this is going to shape up as a major discussion across this country. People are going to want to know why Democrats would not bring the troops home now, when the money is there now.

Truthdig: For me this is really disheartening, because I feel like I have been lied to, and the American people have been lied to, because the [Democratic] Party was so against extra funds for the war. It's almost like the party has done a bait-and-switch.

Kucinich: I think there's going to be a concern around the country that this does represent a bait-and-switch. I'm hopeful that this position will be reconsidered and that the Democrats will not vote to keep the war going. But at this point, if the Democrats go forward and support a supplemental which by some accounts is now rising to $160 billion, they'll be providing enough money to keep the war going through the end of George Bush's term.

Now, this is a serious moment. I believe the public is largely unaware that this is happening, and I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised to learn that less than one month since this great realignment, that Democrats leaders, who came to power because of widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, are now saying that they will vote to continue funding the war.

Truthdig: Is there any hope to end the war now, and not go for this extra $160 billion in supplemental funds? Was there anything that happened in the room that gave you hope?

Kucinich: There's a type of thinking which equates staying in Iraq as demonstrating strength. There's a type of thinking which equates support for the supplemental with supporting the troops. This type of thinking is inherently flawed. It is circular in its nature. It will keep us in war. It will damn our troops to the horror of getting shot at from all sides. This is the time for Democrats to be uniting to exit from Iraq. And the exit door is already well lit with a sign that says $70 billion. If we support the troops, why in the world would we not use the money to bring them home, instead of spending more money to keep them in? Why would we, when we have money to bring them home right now, appropriate another $160 billion which would keep them there, possibly through the end of George Bush's term?

The Iraq Study Group recognized the perilous nature of this war, and there is no indication that the administration is going to bring the troops home. Every statement that the president has made has been very clear with respect to his intent to continue the U.S. presence. He has basically said, "No timetables," and he hasn't set any call for troop reductions. Now, we have men and women who are dying there, and for what? That's why it's more than disappointing that the Democratic Party is not standing up.

Truthdig: So, again, what can people do?

Kucinich: I think it's important for people to contact their member of Congress, and to let the member of Congress know how they feel. The people are also going to have to work their e-mail lists to pass the word, because not a lot of people know about this. It's going to be important for people to organize. It's going to take a mass movement to change this situation. It's going to take a mass movement to really create such an uproar that approval of the supplemental will be stopped.

Truthdig: Thank you.

*Truthdig interviewer Joshua Scheer worked as an entry-level staffer on Kucinich's state Senate campaign and was later a summer associate in his congressional office. In this weekly interview series, Rep. Kucinich gives his take on the goings-on in Congress in the wake of the Democrats' victory.