Prosecuting Torturers

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) Calls for Independent Counsel to Investigate Cheney and Rumsfeld for Violating Torture Laws

Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York has urged Attorney General Michael Mukasey to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other senior Bush administration officials for violations of the law relating to the torture of prisoners in US custody. Nadler is the chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/23/rep_jerrold_nadler_d_ny_calls

Cheney's Clear Priorities

However much commentators like Jon Stewart – primary jester to the court of George the Deuce – might deride Richard Cheney for his secrecy, his man-sized safe, his cool arrogance, or his flippant disregard for the Constitution, let it never be said that our current co-president is inconsistent when prioritizing his tasks.

While a substantial number of high-ranking Republicans juggled their time between wringing their hands in trembling hope that Mother Nature would spare them a repeat of the excoriation of the Bush administration’s lack of concern (empathy, being the current talking-point), the rank incompetence of FEMA and the resultant PR debacle associated with the Hurricane Katrina calamity three years ago, and staging the over-blown, over-funded pep rally in the Twin Cities, VP Cheney was buttering some bread in the former Soviet states in the Caspian Sea area.

"President Bush has sent me here with a clear and simple message to the people of Azerbaijan and the entire region: The United States has deep and abiding interests in your well-being and security.", Mr Cheney stated, as if anyone at this point actually believes that he serves at the behest of Mr Bush.

Azerbaijan, which borders Georgia and Iran and sits along the Caspian Sea, is an oil- and gas-rich nation and a key U.S. ally in the region. Why this tiny nation should be considered a ‘key U.S. ally in the region’ might be a question worth a journalist’s time to ask but no explanation beyond ‘oil and gas-rich nation’ seems to be required or expected from Mr Cheney.

To double-under-score the true meaning of America’s ‘deep and abiding interest’ in ‘Azerbaijan and the entire region’ of the Caspian, Cheney held meetings with Azerbaijan representatives of oil giants, British Petroleum and Chevron. Perhaps this was a modest effort by the VP to earn the reported one million dollars paid him annually by Halliburton as their beloved former CEO. Only after getting the more important business of oil and gas production out of the way did ‘Our Man Dick’ squeeze in a meeting with Azerbaijani president, Ilham Aliyev.

Apparently thinking no one would notice with the stories of the nonsensical spectacle of the RNC and a hurricane threatening the Big Easy dominating the ‘news’, Cheney took this occasion to pontificate, "One of the basic foundations of security and peace is respect for national borders, a principle that is endangered today.” That the Co-president managed to utter this without emitting an ironic chortle or displaying a facial twitch or eye-wink that might indicate he was pulling our collective leg was not reported by those journalists in attendance.

That non sequitur aside, Cheney went on to proclaim “The United States strongly believes that together with the nations of Europe, including Turkey, we must work with Azerbaijan and other countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia on the additional routes for energy exports that ensure the free flow of resources.”

Without follow-up queries from competent journalists, one cannot be certain what Mr Cheney is implying but one can reasonably assume that he envisions an imperial, NATO-like organization, dominated by the USA, which spans from the Atlantic to the Caspian and beyond. One might also be lead to assume that the people living in the region are of less concern to him than ensuring ‘the free flow of resources’, presumably to western corporations with which Mr Cheney might have association.

Cheney's trip began as U.S. government sources confirmed the Bush administration plans for a $1 billion aid package for Georgia. An observer might wonder how the American taxpayers, suffering growing unemployment, a stagnating economy, record home foreclosures, a devalued dollar, rising inflation and a continually deteriorating infrastructure feel about tossing another billion US into the rat-hole of ‘foreign aid’ to an enfeebled nation of less than five million people.

It should also be noted that the ‘Straight-talking Maverick’, multi-millionaire John McCain has, as his presidential campaign’s chief foreign policy adviser, lobbyist Randy Scheunemann. Mr Scheunemann is working on the McCain campaign while on hiatus from his DC-based lobbying firm, Orion Strategies. Insofar as McCain has a whole raft of lobbyists working on his campaign, Mr Scheunemann’s involvement isn’t note-worthy in and of itself. What is notable, however, is that one of the most prominent clients of Orion Strategies is the nation of Georgia. (Yes, that one.) It must be considered less than a coincidence that Mr Scheunemann’s Orion Strategies was hired to ‘grease the wheels’ for the admission of Georgia to NATO, another one of the Bush/Cheney pet projects.

So, let the Republican hoity-toity attend to extravagantly mundane party business and feign empty displays of concern for an impending reprise of a natural calamity, all Americans and, indeed, the citizens of the world can rest assured that Richard Cheney has his priorities in order; perverted as that order may appear to those with a sense of justice or decency.

ADDENDUM:

After writing and posting this article - which was based on a CNN on-line article - I read at Kommersant.com, a Russian site that Cheney's meeting with the presidents of Azerbaijan and Georgia did not go smoothly - meaning that Cheney did not get his way. He wanted both countries to cut Russia out of the supply line for gas and oil.

President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan had Cheney cool his heels before meeting with him. Their meeting did not go as Cheney intended despite (or due to) the fact that he and Aliyev have known each other since Cheney was at Halliburton and Aliyev was VP of SOCAR, Azerbaijan’s state-run oil company. Cheney was so miffed at being told 'No!'by Aliyev (and by being met at the airport by personages of lesser rank than the VP himself) that he even refused to attend a banquet in his honor.

Looks like the bloom is off the rose, Dick, old boy.

Also! This just in from Democracy Now!

US Provided Combat Training to Georgian Commandos Prior to Assault

The Financial Times reports the US military provided combat training to eighty Georgian special forces commandos only months prior to Georgia’s army assault in South Ossetia in August. The training was provided by senior US soldiers and two private military contractors—MPRI and American Systems, both based in Virginia.The revelation could add fuel to accusations by Russia that the US had orchestrated the war in the Georgian enclave.

So. maybe that Putin fellow is not exactly blowing smoke about the US playing high-stakes chess in the Caspian.

http://www.kommersant.com/p1020720/Ilham_Aliyev_reluctant_to_fully_support_America/

Notable Quotable from Co-President & CEO-USA, Dick Cheney

“Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn’t do any good if you lose.” Richard B. Cheney.

But, then again Mr Vice-President, what good is a man who has lost his principles? What good is a man without honor? A man who is neither principled nor honorable is not a man worthy of the office of Vice-President of the United States of America or anything else worth winning or losing.

Want to know why our republic is in such perilous straits? Our leaders are men, like Mr Cheney, who have abandoned honor and the principles upon which our nation was founded for their personal gain.

Quote taken from John W. Dean’s ‘Worse Than Watergate’ and attributed to Ron Nessen’s ‘It Sure Looks Different from the Inside’ (Chicago: Playboy Press, 1978), p 230

Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Iran's Nuclear Program

Those beating the drum about Iran’s nuclear program should be made aware that the United States has been complicit in the Iranian program since the Ford administration. Then Secretary-of-State, Henry Kissinger offered a ‘strange deal’ to Pakistan that had been formulated by Richard Cheney, Ford’s Chief -of-Staff and Donald Rumsfeld, Ford’s Defense Secretary according to an extremely well-researched and copiously foot-noted book by Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark entitled, ‘Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons’.

While focusing on Pakistan’s nuclear program and the Reagan administration’s turning a blind eye to it and General Zia’s blood-thirsty military rule while recruiting and funding the Afghani Freedom Fighters (better known as the mujahedeen, a.k.a. Al Qaeda), ‘Deception’ references the unlawful proliferation of nuclear technology by the United States to Iran under the Shah.

The ‘strange deal’ that Cheney and Rumsfeld devised and which Kissinger offered to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Pakistan’s Prime Minister (before Zia had him executed), was an effort to persuade Pakistan to forego its plans to pursue a nuclear program. In 1976, Kissinger begrudgingly proposed that if Bhutto terminated Pakistan’s own nascent uranium enrichment project, the United States would arrange to supply Pakistan with its needed enriched materials from a facility, funded and supplied by the US, and based in Iran.

Cheney and Rumsfeld had master-minded the scheme, arguing that Iran – even though awash in oil and gas - would need a nuclear program to meet its future energy needs. This plan was to be the first nuclear deal with Iran and would have been extremely lucrative for US corporations such as Westinghouse and General Electric “which stood to earn $6.4 billion from the project”. (The plan to lead Iran into the Nuclear Age was supported by Kissinger although the offer to involve Pakistan was not to his liking, hence his reluctance to propose the plan to Bhutto.)

Furthermore, according to an article in the Washington Post, written by Dafna Linzer, published on March 27, 2005, confirms “US involvement with Iran’s nuclear program until 1979” which involved “large-scale intelligence-sharing and conventional weapons sales”. The Linzer article goes on to assert that “Even with many key players in common” (editor’s note: such as Cheney and Rumsfeld), “the U.S. government has taken opposite positions on questions of fact as its perception of U.S. interests has changed.”

The compete Washington Post article can be read at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

Although publicly opposed to President Bush’s hard-line stance on Iran and while favoring diplomacy over force of arms, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, has voiced her dismay over Iran’s nuclear program. It has been reported by Cheryl Biren-Wright at OpEdNews.com that Madam Pelosi stated at a recent event that Iran has received "a lot of technology from China, from Pakistan, probably from Russia and other places…”.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Nancy-Pelosi-Book-Signing-by-Cheryl-Biren-Wrigh-080807-772.html

It would be very surprising, indeed, ludicrous to think Madam Speaker was not aware that the United States – one of those ‘other places’ - had initiated the proliferation of nuclear technology in Iran. Moreover, it is not surprising that Ms Pelosi purposely omitted reference to the US role in the unlawful proliferation of nuclear technology. By avoiding a mention of the US complicity in Iran’s nuclear program, Pelosi avoided the obvious pit-falls of obfuscation and deflected attention to tried and true adversaries past and future; the People’s Republic of China, Pakistan and the Russian Confederation.

Once again, the chickens - hatched by brood hens obsessed with imperial foreign policies - are coming home to roost. What is more, they once again carry nuclear eggs in flimsy baskets.

Post Script: A truly illuminating speech given at the World Affairs Council of Northern California by ‘Deception’ co-author Adrian Levy can be viewed at FORA.TV. http://fora.tv/2007/10/30/Pakistan_and_the_A_Q__Khan_Network

An Open Letter to Those Who Still Support the Bush Doctrine

I find it truly dismaying that you cling to the belief that George W Bush, Richard Cheney and their administrations have not lead the United States to very dire straits with a growing litany of failures not only of policy but of moral rectitude.

Surely you must admit that considering…

1. the de-valuation of the dollar,
2. the sky-rocketing national debt
3. the worrisome American indebtedness to the PRC,
4. the astronomic rise in oil and food prices,
5. the sub-prime crisis,
6. the housing crisis,
7. rising unemployment,
8. the despicable, loathsome shyster-like lexical dissembling attempted by the Bush administration to justify the torturing of ‘detainees’,
9. the kidnapping and ‘torture-by-proxy’ program of ‘Special Rendition’
10. the waiving of ‘Habeas Corpus’ as a matter of policy
11. the illegal spying on American citizens conducted by the government,
12. the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that continue to devastate those countries and our economy,
13. the horrific loss of life due to those conflicts,
14. the growing clamor for investigation of war profiteering by Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel and other corporations with ties to members of these administrations,
15. the unlawful politicization of the Justice Department,
16. the loss of prestige by America in the international community of nations,
17. and the nose-thumbing at international efforts to address global climate change, have all happened on George W. Bush’s ‘watch’ – surely you must admit that he and his administrations have not exactly been a boon for our nation or the world.

It is sad and dismaying that any of you would prefer to pass off all of the above mentioned catastrophes as partisan smoke-screens set by 'liberals' to salve their sense of pride about not winning the political beauty contests of 2000 and 2004.

It is understandable that you would prefer to do that rather than face the truth about the horrific, disastrous political and economic situation that is the legacy of George W Bush and his administrations, but it is sad.

It is sad and dismaying that you actually believe that there remains the possibility of there being anything remotely close to what might be even loosely construed as a military victory in Iraq - a deplorable military mis-adventure that the Pentagon's premier military educational institute, the National Defense University, called a 'debacle' in its April, 2008 report. (I say 'believe' because it must be faith, there being no logical argument or rational thought or consideration of substantive data involved.)

This deeply felt dismay has been brought on by the lying, conniving, obfuscating, dissembling, misrepresenting, mis-informing, dis-informing clutch of greedy, self-serving ultra-nationalists 'serving' in the US government (such as Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, David Addington, etc) whose actions have resulted in an illegal invasion and violent military occupation of a sovereign nation, the reduction of the 'Cradle of Civilization' to a bombed-out shell of a looted museum ruled by murderous force of arms, the continued occupation of another ruined wreck of a third-world nation, the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis, an estimated 4.7 million Iraqi refugees, the eviscerating of US banking regulations that took the legal restraints off of ‘predatory lenders’ (aka loan sharks) leaving thousands of Americans bankrupt and homeless.

It is sad and dismaying NOT because the vast majority of Americans who presently disapprove of Bush’s policies hold you personally responsible. It is sad and dismaying that you have swallowed the Neo-Conservative propaganda, hook, party line and sinker.

It is sad and dismaying that many of you continue to denounce as ‘unpatriotic’ those who didn’t take the bait.

It is sad and dismaying that you do not see that the clay feet of your 'heroes' are crumbling in a rising tide of irrefutable evidence of stark criminality and arrogant disregard for the fundamental values of this nation and the expressed will of the people.

No one would expect you to admit publically that the past 7 and a half years have been ruinous to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan. No one would expect an admission by you that you chose badly in placing your trust in Bush and Cheney. No one expects you to change your political stripes.

What is dismaying is that you would choose to place your sanity and your own moral rectitude in peril by not at the least admitting to yourself that the band-wagon you've been riding on in a high dudgeon of patriotic fervor is on fire and headed over the cliff with millions of people, millions of your fellow Americans, in tow.

That is cause for much sadness and dismay.

Sincerely,

DC Rapier

The Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University (NDU) Report for April, 2008.

Winning the War in Iraq

There’s no ‘winning in Iraq’.

This illegal conflict cannot be considered in terms of hopeful ‘win-win’ euphemisms and silver-lining slogans.

There is no ‘up-side’ to the war in Iraq.

Bush, Cheney, Rice, McCain and any other politico gas-bags sounding off with such absurd rhetoric should take a look around.

The war in Iraq is a debacle. Any attempts to paint rosy pictures of the war and any promises of happy endings involving honorable victory are pathetic delusions or the callous manipulation of public fear by those at fault for this catastrophe.

The invasion of Iraq was a psychotic nightmare scenario whipped up by power-mad socio-paths who think in terms of the ‘Grand Strategy’, the ‘Great Chess Match’ and other fantastic delusions that are brought on by monumental egos and class-based megalomaniacal self-confidence that they are the sole arbiters of truth and the rightful Masters of Mankind.

There’s no ‘winning in Iraq’.

‘The Surge was successful!’ cry the Dogs of War who have unlawfully taken control of our government and thrust us by devilish deception into this lethal calamity.

‘The Surge was successful!’ they bay in dissonant unison. Successful for the bottom-lines of Exxon-Mobile, BP, Total, Shell, Halliburton, KBR, Lockheed, Boeing, Rockwell and all of the Senators, members of Congress and those colluding with the Bush/Cheney cabal? – Yes! Resoundingly so.

We, the people, do not live our lives by the de-humanized rubrics of the corporate board-room. Yet, we have been thrust into this lethally untenable, calamitous conundrum by those who have vowed and taken oath after oath to protect our Republic, uphold the Constitution and act in accordance with the will of the people.

They have failed us and criminally dishonored their oaths of office.

Should the hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians who have been slaughtered during this ‘Campaign for Democracy’ for the sake of ‘National Security’ consider the ‘Surge’ successful? Or the 4,000+ American troops?

The ‘Surge’ was a short-term rudimentary change in tactics and nothing more. ‘Send in the Reserves!’ Now the reserves are spent and there are no more to be called on for more senseless sacrifice either in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

Our ‘Troops’ are coming back from staring down Death and dealing out Death for so long - tour after tour, rotation after rotation in a ‘hot’ zone - that they are returning to the ‘Land of the Free’ and committing suicide at an unprecedented rate for combat veterans. These deaths, like the number of Americans injured or incapacitated are not generally known to the public. Neither is the number of Iraqi civilian dead, wounded, missing and displaced. That is official policy; the perpetrators of this nightmare want to keep us in the dark and under wraps lest we know the extent of their debacle and rise up in arms, bearing torches and demanding a righteous pound of flesh.

There’s no ‘winning in Iraq’.

There is no such thing as a successful exit strategy from Iraq or Afghanistan. There never was. There never will be. No matter how or when the US (or NATO or the ‘Coalition’) removes its troops and its mercenaries from these nations, people will lose their lives for a venal, dishonorable, ignoble enterprise engendered by despicable people to serve their insatiable greed for power, glory, fame and riches beyond the dreams of avarice.

There is no happy ending. Not for the Iraqi people. Not for the American people. Not in the short term. Not for another generation, at least.

There’s no ‘winning in Iraq’.

Cheney's 'Genius'

“I think Cheney’s true genius is that he lets George Bush wake up every morning and actually think he’s president.”

John Dean, White House Counsel under Nixon, in an interview with Robert Scheer, Los Angeles, California, 6/12/08

Kirchick's Unwitting Deception Defense

“Bush never lied to us about Iraq.”

That’s the claim passionately made by James Kirchick, an assistant editor of the New Republic, in an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times dated June 16, 2008. To forestall any uncertainty about his declamation, the subtitle reads, “The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.”

Mr Kirchick, with studied, journalistic style, opens his piece with a reference to former Michigan governor, George Romney’s Johnny-come-lately renunciation of the illegal US war in Indo-China – the Vietnam War. (In 1967, after tossing his hat into the presidential ring, Romney claimed he had been duped into thinking the war right and just.)

Ironic that Mr Kirchick should choose to refer to the claim by a former Republican governor and presidential candidate that he had been deceived about US involvement in another very unpopular and very illegal war. One can only assume that Mr Kirchick contends that such a claim, even coming from a privileged member of the upper echelon of government, loses veracity if used to exonerate or excuse oneself from complicity. Then again, one must be wary of piling assertions upon assertions. A caveat to which, unfortunately, Mr Kirchick pays little heed as a Bush apologist.

“Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception.”

Apart from inferring that ‘unwitting deception’ is a morally tenable notion, Mr Kirchick might be commended for manning the wall against all of the many thousands of poor, deluded members of the US population whom he assumes do not understand what a lie is. (We all must have been out of the room when they explained that.) His commendation for setting the rest of us straight will have to wait until Mr Kirchick learns the corollary to that simple definition: once one realizes or is informed that what one has stated is in error, the statement must be apologized for (at least in polite company), a correction made to rectify the statement in question and if necessary, retribution paid if inconveniences or unpleasantries were caused by the non-factual information. So far, we’ve heard nothing remotely of the sort from Bush and company. (Maybe they and Mr Kirchick missed that part of the class on honesty.)

Additionally, if, after one learns that a statement one has made is false, contains falsehoods, or is misleading and then continues to affirm the truthfulness of the known falsehood, this affirmation is, most assuredly, a deliberate act of deception. A lie. And that is not putting too fine a point on the matter even for a kindergartener. The adult citizens of the United States should expect nothing less from their elected and appointed representatives than they do from their own children.

In an attempt to make lying and deception a partisan issue, Mr Kirchick recommends the following:

If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.”

Here one must ask, “Does Mr Kirchick mean the CIA which brought zero credible evidence to the Bush war planners of the presence of WMDs, a nuclear program, or any but the most gossamer of connection between Saddam and Al Queda? Does he mean to lump the CIA in with the rest of the US Intelligence network that were told to ‘cherry-pick’ and ‘stove-pipe’ information and politicize reports so as to support, contrary to available substantive evidence, the decision, which the administration had made years before September 11^th, 2001, to invade Iraq? The self-same CIA, whose experts on the Iraq and Middle-east desks told the Bush administration that the assertions about WMDs, a nuclear program and Baathist ties to Al Queda were fantasy? THAT CIA?”

One must strive for clarity, after all. One would not wish to see the Democrats ‘vent their spleen’ against the wrong party.

Mr Kirchick continues his lesson:

“This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.”

“Ancient history”? Either this is clearly the expression of raw, brass-balls condescension by Mr Kirchick towards his readers or Mr Kirchick’s long-term memory has undergone some unfortunate trauma, leading him to actually think that 5 years ago is a very, very long time. Perhaps he’s pitching this passage to a fifth grade civics class somewhere; perhaps one of the classes which also missed learning the definition of ‘lie’. One can only speculate, of course.

Kirchick then makes the bold claim that ‘it matters’ what happened five years ago, thus truly insulting and patronizing his readers further. That Mr Kirchick should feel it necessary to point out that the official actions of and by the Chief Executive of the United States and his administration ‘matter’ (waging war, for example) - even those enacted in the ‘ancient history’ of five years ago – reveals an astounding contempt for the readers of the New Republic and the public in general. Even the readers of the on-line version of the New Republic could not be so dense, so intellectually challenged that such a rudimentary truism would escape their understanding without Kirchick’s writing it on the wall in crayon. This evident presumption that his readers are vacuous fools is unworthy of anyone beyond middle-school claiming to be a journalist.

Then again, here it seems is the crux of the biscuit: this is not journalism. Mr Kirchick, as evidenced by this editorial, does not concern himself with understanding the facts or seeking the truth; what any journalist worth their salt most assuredly aspires to. He is content, instead, to recite the proscribed myth of ‘Dubya and the Evil-doers’, as fabricated by the Administration’s cadre of P.R. spin-sters, no doubt gaining, at least for Mr Kirchick, ‘comfort in a world of significant dangers’.

Ignorance is bliss, everybody. Go back to sleep while ‘the Decider’ decides on how best to ‘smoke ‘em out of their holes’ while using the smoke as cover to gut the Constitution.

If Mr Kirchick were concerned with historicity, as a responsible journalist should be, must be, he would cite some of the following incontrovertible facts:

“…President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis …”

The US was Saddam’s chief supplier of arms and armament during Saddam’s eight-year war with Iran, leaving upwards of a million casualties. The slaughter on both sides did nothing to discourage the US from selling arms or providing support to Saddam during the administrations of Reagan and Bush the First. It is well-known that the US supplied the technology and the know-how to build arsenals of WMDs, during Saddam’s reign. This support, furthermore, included whatever nuclear capability Saddam had. As long as he was holding the Iranians in check and rebuking Soviet influence, Saddam was ‘our man’ deserving of favor and support as an ally and a client. Once he decided to use his US-supplied military might for conquest un-authorized by Washington (i.e. invading Kuwait) he fell from favor.

His vicious suppression of the Shi’ite and Kurdish rebellions by utilizing US supplied poison gas and other WMDs following the First Gulf War – rebellions which had been publically and privately encouraged by the US leadership – was met with little more than hand-wringing from Washington in the calamitous aftermath. There’s little reason to think that the cabal led by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, having been key players in the Reagan/Bush years before during and after Gulf War One and having returned to power with Bush the Younger, had had a change of heart regarding the desperate plight of the Iraqi people in the intervening years.

“…to remain in possession of what he (Bush) believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program…”

As mentioned before and substantiated in numerous reports, the intelligence network of the United States had no verifiable evidence that Saddam had any active weapons programs or viable caches of WMDs. UN weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter both contend that Saddam had no substantial stock-piles of WMDs nor any active weapons programs nor the capacity or capability of reviving or initiating weapons programs. After an 8-year stalemate with Iran, a crushing defeat by US and coalition forces in Gulf War Mark 1 and more than 10 years of crippling sanctions and UN inspections, all that was left of Saddam’s US supplied WMDs and weapons programs was what was found after the invasion and after victory in Iraq was declared by our tin-pot Potentate-in-Chief - NOTHING! Nada. Zilch. Bupkis.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had an agenda set well before 2001to finish the job they felt Bush Senior had botched back in 1991 by not getting rid of the recalcitrant Hussein and replacing him with a different, more amenable strongman. The calamity of September 11 gave them the opening they needed. Ahmed Chalabi was to be the replacement despot for Saddam, apparently. Chalabi was also, quite neatly, a prime source of the disputable evidence of Saddam’s WMDs – evidence long since proven false and repudiated as rank, self-serving, wanton, malicious fiction upon which the Bush-ites built much of their case for the invasion of Iraq.

“…in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions…”

As for those long-standing violations of UN resolutions as a just, compelling reason for invasion, one need only look at records of the Security Council and the General Assembly to realize that Iraq was not the only member state on the list of violators. (The United States, itself, would be on that list were it not for its omnipotent veto power by which disagreeable resolutions are stricken from the record and thence sent disappearing down the memory hole.) Israel has held in contempt any and all resolutions that have escaped the US veto regarding Palestine for decades without suffering the threat of US invasion.

On the contrary, Israel is the foremost beneficiary of the US State Department and American tax-payer-funded largesse, amounting to billions of dollars worth of military hardware each year with which they have brutally oppressed the Palestinians and invaded and occupied their Arab neighbors. (To cite just one example; Israel has invaded Lebanon 5 times in 30 years, killing an estimated 20,000 people during the 1982 invasion.) Israel is also the only country in the Middle-east that actually has a functioning and readily deployable nuclear arsenal – one surreptitiously supplied by the US, by all accounts. None of these acts of aggression, nor the presence of WMDs have merited US sanction, reproach or more than the occasional finger-wag of disapproval from Washington.

Further examples of other nations in violation of UN resolutions are easily discovered by anyone interested in knowing the facts. One must conclude Mr Kirchick is not to be counted as one of those. Otherwise, one would assume he would have attempted to utilize some factual evidence to support his preposterous assertion that “Bush never lied to us about Iraq”. He did not. He chose to build a ‘straw man’ and accuse the Democrats of “glossing over this history”; history that he himself distorts in his own feeble gloss in an attempt to purposefully mislead any reader gullible or ignorant enough to swallow such obvious bilge. (That fifth-grade class comes to mind.)

Given Mr Kirchick’s pathetic, fatuous arguments in support of his ‘Dear Leader’ amid the growing avalanche of testimony from reputable sources regarding the Bush administrations’ felonious finagling, one can safely conclude therefore that Bush did, indeed, lie about Iraq. Repeatedly. One must, as a result, soberly consider the unpleasant likelihood that George W Bush continues to prevaricate, equivocate, obfuscate, dissemble, and mislead the American people.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Bush's Murderous Vision

Can anybody be so naïve as to persist in the belief that Bush/Cheney et al. actually had a ‘grand vision’ of delivering ‘Democracy’ to the people of Iraq by going to war, particularly in light of the demands by the US which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq; immunity for American troops and contractors, a free hand to conduct military operations without Iraqi approval, control of Iraqi airspace, and maintaining fifty-eight permanent military bases in Iraq?

Apparently, yes.

Despite his nagging conscience which prompted him to write his expose, Scott McClellan, given his “deep affection for the president”, still clings to the nonsensical illusion that George W Bush’s intentions in Iraq were altruistic.

Here is an exchange from an interview with McClellan conducted by Amy Goodman on ‘Democracy Now!’:

Goodman: Scott, you said you believed the President was pushing for democracy in Iraq and that you still believe that, and yet Bush and Cheney’s closest allies were the authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. How could you believe they were pushing for democracy?

McClellan: Well, I came to learn that by sitting in on meetings with the President. He cares very passionately about this vision. I think that’s what he put his hopes in, and that’s what he looked at as a chance to really achieve a lasting legacy of greatness.

Talk about denial. Or maybe that’s indicative of how everybody in the Bush administration plays fast and loose with reality.

No one in their right mind could conclude, after looking at the facts, that the primary goals of the Bush administrations’ waging the illegal invasion and ruinous occupation of the Republic of Iraq had anything to do with promoting democratic values or political freedom. The primary, over-riding purpose for this war was control of the oil. Note: the war was not about guaranteeing US access to oil but rather full, absolute US control of the resources of Iraq.

Considering the previous statement as the generally accepted truth of the matter, Bush’s war is a calamitous, disastrous failure. The war has not left US in control of Iraqi oil. Furthermore, the US has less access now to Iraqi oil than before the war due to the destruction of the infrastructure of the petroleum industry in Iraq as a direct result of the conflict.

And Bush’s ‘passionate vision’ to deliver Democracy to the people of Iraq, like a 16-inch pizza?

Perhaps Messrs Bush, Cheney and McClellan should ask the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, the estimated millions of Iraqis wounded, the millions of displaced Iraqis and the millions of justifiably bitter survivors of this illicit war if they appreciate their high-minded gift.

Or they could ask the 4000+ US servicemen and women who have given their lives for Bush’s ‘lasting legacy of greatness’. Or the 300,000 returning veterans the Rand Corporation estimates suffer from emotional and mental disorders such as post traumatic stress disorder. Or the 6,256 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom who ended their emotional and mental torment by killing themselves in 2005 – the victims of the ‘suicide epidemic’ that has been discovered by a CBS News investigation.

Yet, our Commander-in-Chief has proclaimed that he has “no regrets” about his decision to invade Iraq.

Really, George? No regrets? Not even for the fact that your ‘lasting legacy’ will be in the infamous, exclusive company of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Suharto as the most heinous mass murderers in history?

Impeach Bush.

Impeach Cheney.

Bring all of the complicit war criminals and war profiteers to justice. It won’t bring back the dead but it will provide a desperately needed sense of comfort to the survivors of the Neo-con-men scourge not only in the US and Iraq but around the world.

Maybe that’s being naïve.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/11/former_white_house_former_white_house

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/bush.europe/index.html

Kucinich Calls for Impeachment of Bush

Written by Matthew Hay Brown for the Swamp

Posted June 9, 2008 8:44 PM

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who introduced legislation last year to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, is now aiming higher.

On the House floor this evening, the Ohio Democrat proposed impeaching President Bush. In language similar to that in the articles of impeachment he raised against Cheney, Kucinich sought support for a 35-count indictment charging Bush with misleading Congress and the American people into war with tales of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Democratic House leaders have opposed impeaching Bush or Cheney as an unhelpful distraction. They were nearly embarrassed last year when Republicans voted to take up Kucinich's effort against Cheney in order to force a debate; they are unlikely to let the matter get so far this time.

Bob Fertik, president of Democrats.com, one of the groups pushing for impeachment congratulated Kucinich on his "historic leadership."

"We've waited seven years to find one Member of Congress brave enough to stand up for our Constitution, for which generations of Americans have fought and died," Fertik said. "We are thrilled and honored that Dennis Kucinich has chosen to be that one genuine patriot."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/kucinich_pushing_for_bush_impe.html

Mr Bush, May I Have a Moment?

On Wednesday 28th May 2008, George Monbiot, columnist and author, attempted a citizen’s arrest of John Robert Bolton, former Under-Secretary of State, US State Department, for the crime of aggression, as established by customary international law and described by Nuremberg Principles VI and VII.

He was unsuccessful, having been stopped by Bolton’s security detail.

Mr Monbiot, however, encourages people everywhere to attempt a citizen’s arrest of the principal instigators of the Iraq war; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfelt, Bolton, Rice, Wolfowitz, Powell, Blair, et al. for the supreme international crime: a war of aggression. Even though the arrest itself may not be successful, the action would draw attention to the issue of holding these greedy, soulless bastards to accounts for their deeds.

In an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, Mr Monbiot outlined his plan and the reasoning behind the charges he was planning to file against Mr Bolton. He states that the war was not simply errors in judgment but rather were calculated steps to deceive the world in an attempt to justify a war of aggression against a much weaker nation.

“This is not an ordinary political mistake which was committed in Iraq. This was the supreme international crime, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Those people were not killed in the ordinary sense; they were murdered. And they were murdered by the authors of that war, who are the greatest mass murderers of the twenty-first century so far.”

The video and the complete text of the interview are at the following link.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/30/alleging_war_crimes_british_activist_writer

Here are the charges he was planning to file against Mr Bolton. They can also be read at Mr Monbiot’s site.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/27/arresting-john-bolton/

These state the following:

“Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

…

“Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”

The evidence against him is as follows:

1. John Bolton orchestrated the sacking of the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Jose Bustani. Bustani had offered to resolve the dispute over Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and therefore to avert armed conflict. He had offered to seek to persuade Saddam Hussein to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, which would mean that Iraq was then subject to weapons inspections by the OPCW. As the OPCW was not tainted by the CIA’s infiltration of UNSCOM, Bustani’s initiative had the potential to defuse the crisis over Saddam Hussein’s obstruction of UNMOVIC inspections.

Apparently in order to prevent the negotiated settlement that Bustani proposed, and as part of a common plan with other administration officials to prepare and initiate a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties, Mr Bolton acted as follows:

In March 2002 his office produced a ‘White Paper’ claiming that the OPCW was seeking an “inappropriate role” in Iraq.

On 20th March 2002 he met Bustani at the Hague to seek his resignation. Bustani refused to resign.

On 21st March 2002 he orchestrated a No-Confidence Motion calling for Bustani to resign as Director General which was introduced by the United States delegation. The motion failed.

On 22nd April 2002 the US called a special session of the conference of the States Parties and the Conference adopted the decision to terminate the appointment of the Director General effective immediately. Bolton had suggested that the US would withhold its dues from OPCW. The motion to sack Bustani was carried. Bustani asserts that this ‘special session’ was illegal, in breach of his contract and gave illegitimate grounds for his dismissal, stating a ‘lack of confidence’ in his leadership, without specific examples, and ignoring the failed No-Confidence vote.

In his book Surrender is Not an Option Mr Bolton describes his role in Bustani’s sacking (pages 95-98) and states the following:

“I directed that we begin explaining to others that the US contribution to the OPCW might well be cut if Bustani remained”.

“I met with Bustani to tell him he should resign … If he left now, we would do our best to give him ‘a gracious and dignified exit’. Otherwise we intended to have him fired”.

“I stepped in to tank the protocol, and then to tank Bustani”.

Bolton appears, in other words, to accept primary responsibility for Bustani’s dismissal.

Bustani appealed against the decision through the International Labour Organisation Tribunal. He was vindicated in his appeal and awarded his full salary and moral damages.

2. Mr Bolton helped to promote the false claim, through a State Department Fact Sheet, that Saddam Hussein had been seeking to procure uranium from Niger, as part of a common plan to prepare and initiate a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties.

The State Department Fact Sheet was released on the 19th December 2002 and was entitled ‘Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United States Security Council’ . Under the heading ‘Nuclear Weapons’ the fact sheet stated –

“The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.

Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?”

In a US Department of State press briefing on July 14th 2003 the spokesman Richard Boucher said “The accusation that turned out to be based on fraudulent evidence is that Niger sold uranium to Iraq” .

Bolton’s involvement in the use of fraudulent evidence is documented in Rep. Henry Waxman’s letter to Christopher Shays on the 1st March 2005. Waxman says “In April 2004, the State Department used the designation ‘sensitive but unclassified’ to conceal unclassified information about the role of John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, in the creation of a fact sheet distributed to the United Nations that falsely claimed that Iraq sought uranium from Niger”.

“Both State Department intelligence officials and CIA officials reported that they had rejected the claims as unreliable. As a result, it was unclear who within the State Department was involved in preparing the fact sheet”.

Waxman requested a chronology of how the Fact Sheet was developed. His letter states –

“This chronology described a meeting on December 18,2002, between Secretary Powell, Mr. Bolton, and Richard Boucher, the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Public Affairs. According to this chronology, Mr. Boucher specifically asked Mr. Bolton ‘for help developing a response to Iraq’s Dec 7 Declaration to the United Nations Security Council that could be used with the press.’ According to the chronology, which is phrased in the present tense, Mr. Bolton ‘agrees and tasks the Bureau of Nonproliferation,’ a subordinate office that reports directly to Mr. Bolton, to conduct the work.

“This unclassified chronology also stated that on the next day, December 19, 2003, the Bureau of Nonproliferation “sends email with the fact sheet, ‘Fact Sheet Iraq Declaration.doc,’” to Mr. Bolton’s office (emphasis in original). A second e-mail was sent a few minutes later, and a third e-mail was sent about an hour after that. According to the chronology, each version ‘still includes Niger reference.’ Although Mr. Bolton may not have personally drafted the document, the chronology appears to indicate that he ordered its creation and received updates on its development.”

Both these actions were designed to assist in the planning of a war of aggression. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that “to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime”.

Grandpa McCain's Psychotic Fairy Tale

Grandpa John McCain, on the stump in Columbus, Ohio, shared a little fairy tale about his vision of “victory” in Iraq.

Papa John calmly intoned the following:

“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom.”

Ah, ain’t that sweet?

We can all rest better knowing that America will “be secure in her freedom” at some time in the future if we only have the iron-willed determination to offer the youth of our nation in bloody sacrifice on the altar of corporate greed and rapaciousness by invading, destroying and subjugating each and every nation which has exploitable resources and a government, democratic or totalitarian, that does not explicitly do the bidding of the State Department or the White House.

One may ask, however, what Papa John means by ‘freedom’, so I will.

What restraints on our freedom had Saddam’s regime ever placed on the American people?

None.

What condition of slavery, detention or oppression has been rectified in the US by the destruction of Iraq?

None.

Have the people of the US attained further political independence, possession of additional civil rights or been liberated from unlawful authority as a result of this war?

No.

Are the US people now exempt from such onerous conditions as hunger or disease because Saddam has been over-thrown?

No.

In point of fact, the American people are less ‘Free’ now than we were before the attacks on September 11^th or the wars in Southwest Asia and whatever further restraints to personal freedom the people of the US are currently subject to have been placed on us by the hysterical railroading of legislation in the wake of the 2001 attacks - such as the cynically misnamed ‘Patriot Act’- which have been calamitous to civil liberties and the general good.

So much for the 'freedom' side of this fairy tale but Papa John’s pathetic little fantasy continued:

“The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension.”

Now, one may ask, “The Iraq war was fought and won for whom?”

The Iraqis? Hardly.

Has any serious commentator or observer of the invasion or its aftermath claimed the Iraqis better off now than under Saddam’s brutal dictatorship when, with callous disregard for the well-being of the Iraqi people, the Bush administration dismantled and debilitated all of the institutions of national stability, disbanding the armed forces, designating all Baathists as anathema and resulting in the on-going chaos of violence and depravity which is observed today and which in all likelihood will dominate Iraq for a generation?

By what measure, in 2013 or any year, could any rational person claim a victory, Johnny Mac?

With more than 4,000 American forces killed and an estimated Iraqi death toll well over a million during the first 5 years of the war, what will the body count be after another half decade of this insanity? Will all of the spirits of the dead assemble to bestow blessings on what you and Dubya’s complicitous cohorts proclaim as ‘democracy’ in Iraq?

Thanks but no thanks, Grandpa John. Keep your absurd and contemptible fantasy about Iraq to yourself. It offers nothing but an eerie insight to your very warped and disturbed mind.

End the War Now!

Impeach Bush!

Impeach Cheney!

Impeach Scalia!

Indict and prosecute the war profiteers and war criminals to the fullest extent of the law. Make them all pay the price for their greed, their arrogance, their disdain for the rule of law and their disregard for humanity.

The rest of us already have.

Doug Feith and Obfuscation

Doug Feith served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Bush administration from July 2001 until he resigned from his position effective August 8, 2005.

Currently, he is hawking his book, ‘War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism’ a polemic refuting the generally accepted opinion that the Bush administration lied to the American people about the necessity of invading Iraq.

On the Daily Show, Feith stated that “I think the Administration had an honest belief in the things that it said. Some of the things that it said about the war that were part of the rationale for the war were wrong, but errors are not lies.”

True enough, Dougie, but the transmission of errors which are known to be errors is, most definitely, lying.

It has been shown and documented repeatedly that much of what Rummy, Cheney and other members of the administration were telling the Congress, the American people and the world to justify the invasion were known by them at the time to be falsehoods, deceptions and unsubstantiated conclusions.

Call it ‘cherry-picking’ or ‘stove-piping’ if you wish but what was offered as justification for war, my friend, was bald-faced obfuscation.

Lies.

One of the lies that Mr Feith continues to espouse is that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the region, to the United States and to Israel. This is malarkey. After the devastating Iraq/Iran war, Desert Storm and 10 years of crippling UN sanctions, Saddam was a threat to no one but his own people.

Lies.

Impeach Bush.

Impeach Cheney.

Indict and prosecute the war criminals and war profiteers.

Defend our Constitution from the onslaught of the neo-con fascists.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=168543

1984, 17 Years On

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/13/fmr_military_intelligence_officer_reveals_us

In this broadcast exclusive on Democracy Now!, Army Sgt. Adrienne Kinne (Ret.) reveals that as an Intelligence officer and Arabic language specialist, she was assigned the mission to illegally monitor and intercept cell phone calls of journalists, humanitarian aid organizations and non-governmental organizations including the International Red Cross, Red Crescent and Doctors Without Borders. Ms Kinne also discloses that she was personally ordered to eavesdrop on Americans working for news organizations and NGOs in Iraq. She monitored cell phone transmissions from Iraq and Afghanistan between December of 2001 and August of 2003 while stationed at Fort Gordon, Georgia.

This is 1984, folks, 17 years on. It just showed up a little behind Orwell’s schedule.

FYI, United States Signals Intelligence Directive [USSID] 18 prohibits eavesdropping on Americans except in very limited cases when the Attorney General is allowed to grant permission. This little detail – upholding the Constitution and the 4^th Amendment right to privacy - was discarded in the wake of the panic and hysteria which followed 9-11.

During an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! (which primarily focused on the shelling of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad in 2003) Ms Kinne revealed that her unit’s mission changed after the September, 2001 attacks. She was given a verbal waiver on the Constitution. She and the other members of her unit were told they could listen to Americans and citizens of allied countries from humanitarian aid organizations, journalists and NGOs. Two reasons for this gross violation of the Constitution were given.

First, they were told that US citizens and allies were ‘eyes on the ground’ and if they stumbled upon the location of WMDs, and if they then pass the location of the WMDs over the phone to others, the military would be able to pass that location of the WMDs directly on to military superiors more expeditiously.

Well, there you go, then. We can’t let a little piece of paper like the Constitution stand in the way of efficient military intelligence gathering, can we?

The second rationale to justify spying on Americans is even more preposterous than the first. Sgt Kinne and her fellow eavesdroppers were told that if an American or ally lost their satellite phone, a terrorist could pick it up and start using it. If that happened, Sgt Kinne’s unit would then have to monitor all the phones to make sure that if such a loss (or theft) took place, they would be able to monitor the terrorists.

Huh!? How many hypotheticals can you pile one on top the other?

So, to recap: during Sgt Kinne’s mission, the justification for spying on Americans was that terrorists might steal or find our cell phones and begin using them for evil-doing.

Please, go to Democracy Now! to hear this interview for yourself. Our republic, our Constitution and our rights as citizens are in gravest danger.

Impeach Bush!

Impeach Cheney!

Impeach Scalia!

Prosecute the war criminals and the defilers of our Constitution.

Stop the War with Iran

Stop the War in Iran before it gets started.

Bush and his Boys are not about to let this one go. We won’t be any safer from terrorism – quite the opposite – but their compadres, the CEOs at Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, Bechtel , Exxon-Mobile, etc, ad nauseam would be thrilled to death if the war widens to include Iran along with Afghanistan and Iraq.

CounterPunch.org is reporting President Bush has signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime. Bush’s secret directive covers actions from Lebanon to Afghanistan. Journalist Andrew Cockburn reports the directive is “unprecedented in its scope” and permits the assassination of targeted officials. http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew05022008.html

Of course, actions like this cost money. Not to worry. An outlay of $300 million has been approved with bipartisan support. Way to stand on your hind legs, Dems! So much for will of the people, you bunch of self-serving back-stabbing slackers.

Now, Hill the Pill is declaring she’ll unleash Armageddon on Iran if they attack Israel. Break out the testosterone suppositories! She’s gonna grow her some ‘nads!

'What’s wrong with saying that?', she asks in her campaign delirium.

“Why would I have any regrets? I’m asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for, for all kinds of reasons.”

And stuff like that there…

Lord, Sister Hill, why are you buying into Cheney’s paranoid propaganda? Are you trying to get some wack-o swing votes from McCain supporters who think he’s ‘soft’ on terror? McCain has that area of Psycho-town nailed down with his 100 years in Iraq vision. Meanwhile, he’s getting spa treatments and taking meetings with Carl Rove clones while you and Obama dance the dance from ‘They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?’. Fire your advisors and stop shooting yourself and your party in the foot.

Let's all take a reality break!

As mentioned here a fortnight ago, Iran is in no position at all to attack Israel. They have no nuclear capability according to the current NIE report while Israel has hundreds of active nukes. That would hardly be stepping into a fair fight let alone provoking one. The old saw about bringing a knife to a gun-fight springs to mind.

Oh, and has anybody in the Clinton campaign or anyone else covering the ‘situation’ with Iran looked at a friggin’ map? Just how is Iran planning to attack Israel? (Sure, they’ve blustered about it. Look at all the trash talking coming from Washington and Jerusalem.) Let’s get practical: just how would the Iranians go about attacking Israel? March, unseen, 1200 kilometers across Iraq and Jordan to wage war against the second-best equipped army in the world?

That ain’t gonna happen.

Or would Tehran, just go ahead and toss all caution and sense of self-preservation aside and simply attack Israel with air-strikes – just to start a pissing contest? Right. No matter what the state of Iran’s air force, the US and Israel have them trumped, hands down. Especially when the Israelis have the capability to launch nuclear devices from their specially equipped, American supplied fighters.

Not a single Iranian plane would even be allowed to approach Iraq air-space unchallenged. How in hell would Iranian planes make it across Iraq to Israel? Even the attempt, even the feint of an attempt at such an insane self-destructive act of aggression would mean a shit-storm descending on Tehran.

And does anybody out there really think that given the chance, the Israeli leadership would think twice about letting a couple of tactical nukes find a worthy target or two for the sake of future deterrence? Not that the presence of 300 more nukes just like those aren’t deterrent enough.

I, for one, am inclined to think that Iran would rather err on the side of caution than seek the destruction of its republic and the death of a substantial number of its people.

Call me crazy.

Stop the War in Iran before it gets started.

Our Creepy Veep on the Warpath in Bizarr-o World

It’s time for another visit to Bizarr-o World, my friends. Break out the thorazine, open a fresh party pack of chocolate-covered Prozac and enjoy the fun as America’s zaniest bunch of psychopaths try for the trifecta of World Political Disasters.

Dan Froomkin wrote an article entitled ‘Cheney on the Warpath Again?’ for the Friday, April 11, 2008 on-line edition of the Washington Post. (Imagine that; the press may actually be getting savvy to the fact that Cheney, Bush, and the gang are role-playing ‘Armegeddon’.) In the article, Froomkin quotes our curmudgeonly VP telling Sean ‘the Bean’ Hammity that Iran was filled with nasty apocalyptic zealots who might have a nuclear bomb sometime soon. (Hmm, this rings a bell.) Of course, the only appropriate action hinted at by our creepy Veep is - wait for it - showing them who’s the boss in Bizarr-o World. He started off by sowing his black magic seeds of ‘FEAR!’.

Quothe the Cheney:

"But Ahmadinejad is I think a very dangerous man. On the one hand, he has repeatedly stated that he wants to destroy Israel. … mutual assured destruction in the Soviet-U.S. relationship in the Cold War meant deterrence, but mutual assured destruction with Ahmadinejad is an incentive.”

So, let me get this straight, Dicky-doodle: the president of Iran is even crazier than you are. Is that what you’re saying?

Cuz, he doesn’t have any nuclear weapons. He doesn’t have any fissile material. And he hasn’t even had a weapons program for 5 years according to the latest report by the National Intelligence Estimate. The NIE reported "with high confidence" that Iran did have a nuclear weapons program until 2003, but that this was discovered and Iran stopped it. (Naughty Billies!) It also assessed that the earliest date by which Iran could make a nuclear weapon would be late 2009 but that this is "very unlikely" given that Iran appears "less determined" to develop nuclear weapons than US intelligence had previously thought. In other words, no nukes and nearly a zero level chance of producing one.

On the other hand, Mr C, at last count - I suspect counting them over and over is how you fall asleep in the wee hours - how many nuclear devices are there currently in the DOD inventory, cringing from your clammy touch? An estimated 5,736 active stockpile warheads scattered round the US (and elsewhere) – give or take. That’s what I’d call a very active nuclear weapons program. It’s been going on since the ’Manhattan Project’ without abatement for over 60 years.

Oh, and not to mention – and in polite, elitist intellectual company one simply doesn’t, you know – courtesy of the super sense of fair play and the hyper-sensitivity to anti-Semitism that are the hallmarks of US foreign policy - the state of Israel is the 5^th largest nuclear power in the world. It has between 200 and 300 nuclear warheads just waiting for the ‘okay’ from Washington should an Arab or Iranian dare look cross-eyed at them.

And you think that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and all of his advisors are crazy enough to try to build a nuclear bomb and use it to destroy the Zionist State precisely, explicitly, because they, the Iranians, would then be annihilated by US and Israeli retaliation, destroying 6,000 years of history, culture and tradition and subjecting the Iranian population of over 70 million to a nuclear holocaust? Even when we’re talking about apocalyptic zealots – and that’s talking way crazy – nuking Israel and assuring self-induced annihilation is straight out looney-tunes. We’re well past thorazine party favors, booby. That’s more of your Bizarr-o world up-is-down, black-is-white, thinking at work there.

What is beyond question is that Vee-Pee Dick (in the role of Iago) leads a faction of officials in the Pentagon, State Department and elsewhere, who argue that before Dubya hands over the keys to 1600 (none too soon), the US should kick some more boo-tay there in oil-rich Asia, destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, punish them for not keeping the Shah in power and thwarting U.S. aims in Iraq.

(Which are what again? Oh, yeah, the ‘democracy’ thing.)

Froomkin added that some observers suspect Cheney of encouraging Israel to attack Iran as a proxy while he was there spreading sunshine and love from an Israeli check-point two weeks ago and accusing Hamas of trying to scuttle ‘peace talks’. (Those words must curdle in the man’s mouth.)

And Twisted Dick thinks Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous man? Oh, yeah…

So, if this Mahmoud joker is actually planning to pull a nuclear weapon out of his burnoose and use it on Israel, he must be without a doubt, top-to-bottom, upside-downside, backwards and forwards a whole lot crazier than you are, Sour-Puss Dick.

And if you think we are stupid enough to fall for that ol’ WMDs gag again, you ought to try re-doubling your dose of Prozac and start thinking how you’re going to spend your yard time in Leavenworth, Dicky-boy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/04/11/BL2008041102216_pf.html

BBC News, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html

Petition to Begin Impeachment Proceedings

The Never-ending War Story - the Prequel

6 months before the US invaded Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root, were building bases and installations in preparation for the invasion.

The PBS documentary ‘Private Warriors’ presented this fact in June, 2005. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/
(Chapter three, ‘Embedded with KBR’; at 5:10)

To repeat:

The decision to invade Iraq had been made and Halliburton had been hired to provide logistical support for an armed assault of Iraq long before the fabricated evidence re: WMDs and Saddam/Al-Qaida connections were presented by the White House to the US people and their greedy, jello-spined representatives.

It might seem beyond credibility, given what we know now, that neither the director, Tim Mangini, nor producers, Marcela Gaviria and Martin Smith thought to pursue a line of questioning pertaining to this fact in this ‘hard look at private contractors’. Too off-topic perhaps. (IMHO, the documentary quickly descends into a ‘human interest piece’. Perhaps the tragic story of ex-Navy Seal, Scotty ‘the Bod’ Helvenston and others was too alluring. Helvenston was one of the Blackwater mercenaries killed, burned and strung up from the bridge in Falluja.)

Call me naïve, but I would have thought that drilling to the core of the investigation to fathom the grand reason why we were truly at war in Iraq and in need of all these private contractors would have been the preferred tact to take. (Call it 20/20 hindsight, if you wish.)

If the reporter was correct, sometime in September, 2002, 6 months before the Bush Administration bullied the US into violating international law by invading the sovereign nation of Iraq on March 20, 2003, contracts had been signed and contractors were on the ground building bases and installations in preparation for the invasion. This presumably included the ‘permanent bases’, and quite likely improvements on what is to be the largest embassy compound in the World. A ‘Vatican City’ to serve as the base of future operations in the Middle-east. Most certainly, they were busy building some of the more than 60 sites that KBR operated in Iraq at the time of this documentary.

In his January 28, 2003, state of the Union address, Bush denounced Saddam as “the dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons” and listed vast quantities of biological and chemical weapons. What Dubya didn’t tell us is that his cabal of war-criminals had already bargained away any peaceful, diplomatic solutions in a no-bid contract to Halliburton/KBR, three months earlier.

Lest we forget, Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA’s Europe division, a 26-year veteran of the agency, revealed to CBS’ Ed Bradley on ‘60-minutes’ which aired on April 23, 2006, that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director, George Tenet that Iraq’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States and was reportedly paid more than $100,000 by the CIA — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0321-09.htm

Mr Drumheller went on to say that the administration didn’t care about this revelation, no matter the source. Of course not, by that time, in September, 2002, the real decisions had been made by the people who truly matter, the high mucky-mucks of corporate America, and the ink was drying on the dotted line. The gravy-train was leaving the station with a full head of steam and no red flag was going to stop it.

You can almost hear an echo from the addled, collective brain-pan of Bush’s Inner Circle, ‘We can’t renege on the deals we’ve made with our friends at Halliburton. That wouldn’t be kosher. A deal is a deal.’ One must suppose that the ‘finder’s fee’ on the estimated umpteen billion dollars in no-bid, cost-plus contracts awarded to Halliburton/KBR would be a handsome one. And if one had similar connections with other corporations that supplied materiel and services to Halliburton and KBR at inflated cost, one could wolf down the slop at both ends of the trough. Hog heaven, as they say.

That’s a mighty temptation. Mountains of cash up front and on the back end, lots of powerful friends who’d be happy to give you a corner office, a princely salary and a diamond parachute when you conclude your ‘service’ in the US government.

Beyond the dreams of avarice.

And all you have to do is undermine the Constitution, betray your solemn oath to uphold and defend the precepts of that document, lie to the US citizens you swore to serve, deceive the world with bald-faced falsehoods and steel yourself to live with the fact that the blood of thousands or even tens of thousands of human beings are on your greedy hands.

Such a deal.

So, General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, when can we expect to bring home our troops and our contractors? When will this war end?

The answer is simple.

The war will end when Dubya, Dicky-boy, Donnie the Rum, Condi, Wolfie, and all those of their sickening ilk can force themselves from the slop of the trough.

Then again, I’m an optimist.

Post Script:
I am very sympathetic to Mr Helveston's friends and family members. I also can understand the reasoning revealed by Mrs Katy Helveston, Scotty’s mom when she told PBS,”When you’ve been in Special Forces for 13, 14 years, you’re trained to do one thing. And there’s not a whole lot of jobs out there for people trained to kill.” Being a private contractor seemed to be a solution to the deteriorating US economy for many of the 10,000 who were in Iraq in 2005.