| christian grantham | |||
| Christian Grantham was a student activist in the late 90s and later a consultant to domestic policy forums for the Clinton Administration as well as events for HRC and GLAAD. | |||
|
|
|
||
March 02, 2005
Please forgive Porter. He didn't realize there was so much work involved.
In a rare public appearance Wednesday, CIA Director Porter Goss said he is overwhelmed by the many duties of his job, including devoting five hours out of every day to prepare for and deliver intelligence briefings to President Bush."The jobs I'm being asked to do, the five hats that I wear, are too much for this mortal," Goss said. "I'm a little amazed at the workload."
[CIA Director Goss Amazed at His Workload - AP - 03-02-05]
This man told us he wasn't qualified way before Republicans foisted this job upon him, whether he was qualified or not. Click Porter's face and listen to him say it himself a year ago tomorrow. I believed Porter Goss then, and I believe him now. Isn't honesty worth anything in this Administration?
INTERVIEWER: [Y]ou come from intelligence. This is what you did, this is what you know.REP. GOSS: Uh, that was, uh, 35 years ago.
INTERVIEWER: Okay.
REP. GOSS: It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50's to approximately the early 70's. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.
[Rep. Porter Goss - 03-03-04 - Washington, DC]
filed under: Catastrophic Success
January 25, 2005
Andrew Sullivan is right about the integral part torture plays in Bush's foreign policy of "expanding freedom." And who is left but fawning Republican apologists to argue otherwise? That said, torture hardly plays as significant a role in the expansion of freedom in Iraq as killing.
Some values between enemies are more common in war than in peace. In the absence of any sound foreign policy vision beyond war, let's all be thankful that most people prefer their enemies dead than tortured alive, with some exceptions.
Hey, sometimes "military necessity" requires you to pummel a detainee. That's what the president said, wasn't it? In that memo distributed as part of the war-plan. And he's promoted all the architects of that policy, right? And no Republicans are going to complain, are they? Torture is, after all, an integral part of the expansion of freedom across the globe. Hooah.
[AND NOW IT'S NORMAL - Andrew Sullivan - 01-25-05]
filed under: Catastrophic Success
January 17, 2005
"Miscalculations"
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.
[Transcript of Bush Interview - Washington Post - 01-16-05]
"Bring It On"
Insurgents bent on sabotaging Iraq's Jan. 30 elections unleashed mortars and bombs and opened fire in several cities Monday, killing at least 22 policemen and soldiers and targeting polling stations.Witnesses said burned bodies were scattered in a police compound in Baiji after a car bomb killed at least 10 people in the oil refining town in the Sunni Muslim heartland north of Baghdad. At least 20 people were wounded, mostly police.
Near Baquba, another guerrilla stronghold northeast of the capital, gunmen opened fire at a checkpoint and killed eight soldiers, a National Guard officer said.
[At Least 22 Die in Iraq in Pre-Election Violence - AP - 01-17-05]
filed under: Catastrophic Success
January 13, 2005
The hindsight of conservatives on the Bush Administration's miscalculations with the war in Iraq has now become as clear as the foresight of the rest of the world. How blind-drunk on partisan lust were conservatives to help spin dramatic re-interpretations of decades-old intelligence into imminent causes for war? How can conservatives honestly tell the families of America's dead that the cost over the past two years and to come was far more worth the time it would have taken to flex our nation's diplomatic strength with a world allied against the global security threats of terror?
We can and should have debates about whether we ever had enough troops to do what we needed to do after initial victory. I'd say it's obvious that Shinseki was correct. Should we have gone to war under the circumstances then prevailing? Probably not. Given the lack of urgency with regard to Saddam's WMDs (yes, this is hindsight, but so is all of this), we obviously should have waited.
[The Post-War Mess - Andrew Sullivan - 01-09-05]
filed under: Catastrophic Success
January 12, 2005
If CBS had stooped to the level of accountability in the Bush Administration, Dan Rather would still have a job.
President George W. Bush
"I felt like we would find weapons of mass destruction ... like many -- many here in the United States, many around the world," Bush told ABC's Barbara Walters, according to excerpts from an interview airing on Friday.
Bush said "we need to find out what went wrong in the intelligence gathering," and that the invasion was "absolutely" worth it even if there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Bush and other U.S. officials cited the grave threat posed by Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and Baghdad's efforts to acquire a nuclear arms capability as a central justification for the March 2003 invasion. No such weapons have been found.
[U.S. Wraps Up Search for Banned Weapons in Iraq - Reuters - 01-12-05]
Vice President Dick Cheney
"The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."
[Transcript: Vice Presidential Debate - Washington Post - 10-06-04]
"We know [Saddam Hussein's] out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization."
[Meet The Press - Dick Cheney - 03-16-03]
[Meet The Press - Dick Cheney - 09-14-03]
National Security Advisor Condi Rice
In the run-up to the March 2003 war, Rice said in a television interview in 2002 that the Iraqi president was trying to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes to rebuild his nuclear weapons program. The tubes, she said, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs."
On Sunday, Rice acknowledged she was aware of a debate within the U.S. intelligence community about whether the tubes were intended for nuclear weapons. "I knew that there was a dispute. I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute," Rice told ABC's "This Week."
[Rice Defends Comments on Iraq Nuke Threat - AP - 10-03-04]
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction," Rumsfeld said Monday in the speech to the foreign affairs group. "Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail."
[Rumsfeld Doesn't Expect Civil War in Iraq - AP - 10-04-04]
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people.
The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.
[Paul Wolfowitz DoD Press Conference Transcript - 05-09-03]
Potential 2008 Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani
"No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"
[Rudy Giuliani - Today Show - 10-28-04]
filed under: Catastrophic Success
December 20, 2004
It's not so much the results that matter as much as the impact he had on our daily lives that made George W. Bush TIME's "Person of the Year." Whether you voted for him, voted against him, or didn't vote at all while whining about him, Bush's offensive agenda put you on the defense.
"For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years, we name George W. Bush as TIME’s Person of the Year for 2004," writes managing editor Jim Kelly in a letter to readers.
[TIME: "2004 Person of the Year" George W. Bush - TIME - 12-19-04]
filed under: Catastrophic Success
December 15, 2004
Has this pattern of conservatives eventually coming around to reality getting boring, or what? Conservative columnist and FOX News contributor William Kristol has finally, FINALLY, had enough of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It wasn't the 1000+ dead American soldiers sent on a liberating mission that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz himself said "is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk." No, it was just the public relations problem created by a slip of the tongue.
Conservatives handwringed and obstructed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, then conceded and claimed it was their idea. They handwringed and obstructed Intelligence reform, then conceded to the will of the American people under intense pressure. They handwringed and obstructed approaching the United Nations for support before the war in Iraq then conceded and heralded unanimous votes as their making. They stubbornly made wild claims on intelligence, then conceded only after they've committed a nation to war. They prematurely claimed the mission was accomplished in war, then conceded to terrible "miscalculations." They claimed the numbers of opposing candidates for office don't add up, then conceded to the nation's largest deficit spending in history.
When will conservatives ever take a breather from huffing the perpetually wet paint on this ugly pig?
"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a town hall meeting with soldiers at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, Dec. 8.Actually, we have a pretty terrific Army. It's performed a lot better in this war than the secretary of defense has. President Bush has nonetheless decided to stick for now with the defense secretary we have, perhaps because he doesn't want to make a change until after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.
[The Defense Secretary We Have - Washington Post - 12-15-04]
filed under: Catastrophic Success
October 28, 2004
Bush-Cheney '04 spokesman Rudy Giuliani thinks America should blame the troops, not President Bush, for George Bush's "miscalculations" and missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Rudy and fellow Republicans wouldn't dare ask the un-American questions of President Bush, "Did you send enough troops? Didn't you send enough troops?"
"No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"
[Rudy Giuliani - Today Show - 10-28-04]
watch the video: Atrios
filed under: Catastrophic Success
October 20, 2004
700 Club's Televangelist Pat Robertson said the Lord told him their would be casualties in Iraq. When he told the President, Robertson said Bush defied the Lord and told him there wouldn't be any casualties. The White House and the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign are both denying claims made by Robertson. Who is telling the truth?
A White House spokesman denied Wednesday that President Bush told Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson that he did not expect casualties from the invasion of Iraq."The president never made such a comment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Senior Bush campaign adviser Karen Hughes, a longtime confidant of the president, said she was "certain" Bush would not have said anything like that to Robertson.
"Perhaps he misunderstood, but I've never heard the president say any such thing," Hughes said on CNN's "Inside Politics."
[No casualties? White House disputes Robertson comment - CNN - 10-20-04]White House political adviser Karl Rove told reporters that Bush never said he did not expect casualties. "I was right there," Rove said of the president's conversation with Robertson.
[Bush Predicted No Iraq Casualties, Robertson Says - Washington Post - 10-21-04]
filed under: "W" is For Wackos
, Catastrophic Success
October 20, 2004
Pat Robertson conveyed a message from the Lord to President Bush before the war, and President Bush ignored it.
ZAHN: He's been posed repeatedly in debates, what mistakes have you made? He's been asked that on the campaign trail and he hasn't come up with any.ROBERTSON: I met with him down in Nashville before the Gulf War started. And he was the most self-assured man I ever met in my life.
You remember, Mark Twain said, he looks like a contended Christian with four aces. He was just sitting there, like, I'm on top of the world, and I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties.
Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties. Well, I said, it's the way it's going to be. And so, it was messy. The lord told me it was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy. And before that, I had deep, in my spirit, I had deep misgivings about going into Iraq.
[PAULA ZAHN NOW - CNN Transcript - 10-19-04]
filed under: "W" is For Wackos
, Catastrophic Success
October 18, 2004
A record of not listening to his own people. A record of failure.
Wolfowitz: -- "there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it."
[Paul Wolfowitz - DoD Press Conference Transcript - 05-09-03]"I don't think you can win it," Bush said in the interview on NBC's Today show. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
[Bush: 'I don't think you can win' war on terror - St. Petersberg Times - 08-31-04]In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, the council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the wartorn country and determined that — at best — a tenuous stability was possible, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
[Group Offers Bush Bleak Iraq Assessment - AP - 09-16-04]"The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We’re conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It’s so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."
[Gen. Joseph Hoare, former head of the U.S. Central Command - Guardian - 09-16-04]"We’re in a lot of trouble… We gotta be honest with ourselves, as I said yesterday, the worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we’re winning. Right now we’re not winning… it isn’t good enough to just say, well we just have to stay the course…"
[Sen. Chuch Hael (R-NE) - MSNBC - 09-17-04]"We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders… [Bush has been] perhaps not as straight as maybe we’d like to see… It’s very serious. The situation is deteriorating."
[Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) - FOXnews - 09-19-04]"The CIA laid out several scenarios that said life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better," Bush said. "And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like. The Iraqi citizens are defying the pessimistic predictions."
[Bush shrugs off his CIA skeptics - Newsday - 09-22-04]On Sunday, Rice acknowledged she was aware of a debate within the U.S. intelligence community about whether the tubes were intended for nuclear weapons. "I knew that there was a dispute. I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute," Rice told ABC's "This Week."
[Rice Defends Comments on Iraq Nuke Threat - AP - 10-03-04]"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction," Rumsfeld said Monday in the speech to the foreign affairs group. "Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail."
[Rumsfeld Doesn't Expect Civil War in Iraq - AP - 10-04-04]"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."
[Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels - Washington Post - 10-05-04]"The analysis shows that despite Saddam's expressed desire to retain the knowledge of his nuclear team and his attempts to retain some key parts of the program, during the course of the following 12 years Iraq's ability to produce a weapon decayed," Duelfer said.
[Iraq Had no Weapons Stockpiles or Nuclear Program, CIA Says - Bloomberg - 10-06-04]The top U.S. commander in Iraq complained to the Pentagon last winter that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened Army troops' ability to fight, according to an official document that has surfaced only now.
In what appears to be a plea to top officials to spur the bureaucracy to respond more quickly, Sanchez concluded, "I cannot sustain readiness without Army-level intervention."
[General Reported Shortages In Iraq - Washington Post - 10-18-04]The national security adviser under the first President Bush says the current president acted contemptuously toward NATO and Europe after Sept. 11 and is trying to cooperate now out of desperation to "rescue a failing venture" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[Scowcroft slams Bush over Iraq - Salt Lake Tribune - 10-17-04]
filed under: Catastrophic Success
October 18, 2004
On the campaign trail, George Bush continues to blatantly lie to the American people on troop levels in Iraq.
BUSH: "There are 100,000 troops trained: police, guard, special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year."
[First 2004 Presidential Debate - Transcript - 10-01-04]REALITY: The documents show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as "untrained," and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its new goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force.
[Key Bush assertions about Iraq in dispute
- Washington Post - 09-26-04]
With the same level of confidence the Bush Administration presented known questionable intelligence as definitive causes for war, President Bush continues to say he will oppose a draft. President Bush has admitted to making a "misclaculation" in Iraq. What is his plan for troop level needs? The answers are, yet again, no where to be found.
view Bush and The Draft: Quicktime | Windows Media
filed under: Catastrophic Success
, Fuzzy Math
October 17, 2004
The most feared militant group in Iraq, the movement of terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, declared its allegiance to Osama bin Laden on Sunday, saying it had agreed with al-Qaida over strategy and the need for unity against "the enemies of Islam."
The declaration, which appeared on a Web site often used as a clearinghouse for statements by militant groups, began with a Quranic verse encouraging Muslim unity and said al-Zarqawi considered bin Laden "the best leader for Islam's armies against all infidels and apostates."
[Zarqawi Movement Vows al-Qaida Allegiance - AP - 10-17-04]
filed under: Catastrophic Success
October 16, 2004
Who is more credible on the prospects of instituting a draft in America?
"With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft. Because if we go it alone, I don't know how you do it with the current overextension" of the military, Kerry said.
[Kerry Warns Draft Possible if Bush Wins - AP - 10-16-04]
In the first Presidential debate, Bush unleashed "one of those exaggerations" when he said:
"There are 100,000 troops trained: police, guard, special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year."
[First 2004 Presidential Debate - Transcript - 10-01-04]
Yet another "miscalculation" and blatant misrepresentation. The official plan is to have the administration's goal of 135,000 fully trained police by July 2006, not December 2004 [Key Bush assertions about Iraq in dispute - Reuters - 09-26-04]. Here is the truth.
The challenges to the United States in training and deploying that many officers are considerable, officials acknowledge. Currently, about 82,051 Iraqi police officers are on the payroll, but only 32,880 have received training under U.S. guidance, according to figures provided by Capt. Steven Alvarez, an Army officer working with the Iraqi Interior Ministry. Of that number, Congress was told last week that only 8,200 had received the eight-week training; the rest got a more basic course for three weeks or less.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage described the latter group as "shake and bake" trainees, saying in congressional testimony last week that they were mostly former police officers under Saddam Hussein's government being trained "primarily in human rights, respect for law, things of that nature."
[U.S. Says More Iraqi Police Are Needed as Attacks Continue - Washington Post - 09-28-04]
Despite these facts, The Republican National Committee presents the case for censoring discussions of a draft in a "cease and desist" letter to Rock The Vote.
Yet, as you must be aware, this urban myth regarding a draft has been thoroughly debunked by no less than the President of the United States, who explicitly stated, 'We don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer Army is working..." as well as the Vice President, who explained, "And the notion that somebody's peddling out there that there is a secret plan to reinstitute the draft, hogwash, not true." Additionally, the Secretary of Defense, "heatedly denied yesterday that the military plans to bring back the draft and boost reserves and National Guard call-ups after the November election. 'That is absolute nonsense,' [Donald] Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'It's absolutely false that anyone in this administration is considering reinstituting the draft.'"In light of the above statements, the only conclusion to be drawn is that your Rock The Vote "draft Your Friends" camapign is being conducting with malicious intent and a reckless disregard for the truth. As a "non-partisan" organization that enjoys the benefits of being formed under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code, you have an obligation to immediately cease and desist from promoting or conducting your "Draft" campaign.
[Letter to Rock The Vote - RNC - 10-13-04 - (view PDF)]
BS TRANSLATOR: "The President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense have shown great respect and care for the facts and the truth regarding the war in Iraq. They would never misrepresent the facts. Our mission was accomplished last year, and America shares an equal burden with a vast coalition of allies. Our Armed Forces are not stretched thin. With that said, cease and desist with your un-American questioning of their authority and their version of reality, or face government censorship."
filed under: Catastrophic Success
October 12, 2004
When Kerry suggested he'd convene a summit to attract support for the work ahead in Iraq, President Bush and conservatives bristled at the idea. What could Kerry possibly do that Bush didn't? Try diplomatic leadership.
Germany would certainly attend, Mr Struck said. "This is a very sensible proposal. The situation in Iraq can only be cleared up when all those involved sit together at one table. Germany has taken on responsibilities in Iraq, including financial ones; this would naturally justify our involvement in such a conference."
[Germany in rethink on Iraq force deployment - Financial Times - 10-12-04]
filed under: 2004 Debates
, Catastrophic Success
, For The Record
October 12, 2004
President Bush thinks it's silly for John Kerry to believe our best hope is to reduce terror to a nuisance.
FLIP: ''I couldn't disagree more,'' Bush said. ''Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive.''
The Bush campaign also takes on the ''nuisance'' comment in a new television ad. And Vice President Dick Cheney, campaigning in Medford, N.J., called Kerry's remarks ''naive and dangerous.''
[Bush mocks terror-as-nuisance view - Chicago Sun-Times - 10-11-04]
But Bush thought differently just weeks ago.
FLOP: "I don't think you can win it," Bush said in the interview on NBC's Today show. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
[Bush: 'I don't think you can win' war on terror - St. Petersberg Times - 08-31-04]
When have the facts ever stopped Bush from flip-flopping and deriding his own ideas? Bush also mocked the advice of Gen. Brent Scowcroft, his father's National Security Advisor, to consider the facts prior to engaging Iraq through a policy of pre-emptive war. General Scrowcroft also shares Kerry and Bush's view that our challenge in the war of terror is to reduce it to being "less acceptable" or a "nuisance."
"There is going to be no peace treaty on the battleship Missouri in the war on terrorism, but we can break its back so that it is a horrible nuisance and not a paralyzing influence on our societies," Scowcroft told the U.S. Institute of Peace.
[Bush, Kerry Campaign in West Before Debate - AP - 10-11-04]
also read: SlantPoint, Powerline, Blogs For Bush
filed under: Catastrophic Success
, Flip-Flops
October 08, 2004
As President Bush scrambles to publicly present new justifications for war, the truth lurks beneath the sand and hides in undisclosed locations.
As CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney despised sanctions that banned his company from doing business with dictators and evil-doers. So his company set up off-shore subsidiaries that went around the sanctions.
That subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd., is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands – a building owned by the local Calidonian Bank. Halliburton and other companies set up in this Caribbean Island, because of tax and secrecy laws that are corporate friendly.Halliburton is the company that Vice President Dick Cheney used to run. He was CEO from 1995 to 2000, during which time Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. Today, it sells about $40 million a year worth of oil field services to the Iranian government.
[Doing Business With The Enemy - CBSnews - 04-29-04]
These sanctions, which Vice President Cheney's energy task force later sought to lift for American energy companies at the table, stood in the way of doing business with tyrants.
"Cheney said oil and gas companies must explore where the reserves are, and that means doing business in countries that may have policies that the U.S. does not like." Cheney said, "The long-term horizon of the oil industry is at odds with the short term nature of politics." The next year, Cheney ratcheted up his campaign, once again criticizing the U.S. security policy on foreign soil. According the Malaysian News Agency reported, "Cheney hit out as his government for imposing economic sanctions like the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act." He told the state news agency on a visit there that U.S. sanctions on Libya are "ineffective, did not provide the desire results and are a bad policy."
[Government by and for Halliburton - American Progress - 01-16-04]
The lives of more than 1,100 American soldiers must have been at odds with Cheney's view of the "long-term horizon of the oil industry," too.
When sanctions against Iraq prevented American companies from multi-billion dollar oil contracts, such as a massive $40 billion, 10-year economic cooperation pact announced August 19, 2002 between Russia and Iraq, Dick Cheney's dramatic public interpretations of decade old intelligence began painting a picture of Saddam Hussein that warranted war. War would certainly scuttle these deals. The only thing standing in the way of war was the truth.
As we now know, Dick Cheney's selective interpretations and false presentations of certainty were dubious, but the end result of war scrambled all foreign oil deals placing Halliburton in the middle of renegotiating Iraqi's oil riches.
Like those pesky sanctions Cheney avoided against Iran, contracts like the one announced by Russia in August 2002 threatened to place a foot-print over Cheney's post-war Iraq map of no-bid contracts for Halliburton. Dick Cheney saw many obstacles to doing business in the Middle East. Sadly, the truth was one of them.
also read: Hullabaloo, Atrios, The Talent Show, Roof Top Report
filed under: Catastrophic Success
October 07, 2004
In the wake of a cold dose of reality over President Bush's "miscalculation" in Iraq, President Bush presented a brand new reason for the war. According to our Commander-in-Chief, America went to war because Saddam Hussein was cheating the U.N. Oil For Food program.
The new justification after the fact "is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it." Does that sound familiar? That's because President Bush's architect of the war in Iraq, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, said that. I guess President Bush lost the debate over Iraq to him, too.
President Bush and his vice president conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they tried to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue - whether the invasion was justified because Saddam was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.Ridiculing the Bush administration's evolving rationale for war, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry shot back: "You don't make up or find reasons to go to war after the fact."
[Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs - AP - 10-07-04]
filed under: Catastrophic Success
, For The Record
October 07, 2004
Hey, if Dick Cheney can tell a few lies to move us into war, what's to say he can't lie his way into 4 more years of staying the course?
Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, who found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991, justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war.
[Cheney: Weapons Report Justifies Iraq War - AP - 10-07-04]
What does Dick Cheney care about the facts?
One by one, official reports by government investigators, statements by former administration officials and internal CIA analyses have combined to undermine many of the central rationales of the administration's case for war with Iraq -- and its handling of the post-invasion occupation.The release of yesterday's definitive account on Iraq's weapons -- and its conclusion that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction years before the U.S.-led invasion -- is only the latest in a series of damaging blows to the White House's strategy of portraying the war in Iraq as being on the cusp of success.
[War's Rationales Are Undermined One More Time - Washington Post - 10-07-04]
filed under: Catastrophic Success
October 06, 2004
Among the rotating reasons presented by President George Bush for liberating Iraq was the protection of our ally, Israel. Maybe President Bush didn't peer into Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's eyes long enough the last time he was here, because the new Iraq deems Israel an "enemy state."
Meanwhile, a former leading figure in the Iraqi National Congress party - the party led by Ahmad Chalabi - remained defiant after an Iraqi court indicted him Sunday for visiting the "enemy state" of Israel.Mithal al-Alusi attended a conference there on terrorism last month and was subsequently expelled from the party.
"What madness is this?" he told The Associated Press on Monday, accusing the interim government of applying laws of Saddam's regime in his case. "They want to put me in prison with terrorists."
[Car bomb kills 10 Iraqis near Baghdad - AP -10-06-04]
also read: Stakeholder
filed under: Catastrophic Success
October 06, 2004
Charles Duelfer, special adviser to the director of Central Intelligence for weapons of mass destruction, dealt a final blow today to years of blatantly selective truths sold to the American people by the Bush Administration. Don't count on Dick Cheney believing a single word.
Iraq did not possess stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and its program to develop nuclear arms was in decay by March 2003, the CIA said in a report that undercuts a central argument by the Bush administration to justify the invasion.Iraqi President Saddam Hussein never abandoned his ambition to develop weapons, the report says. Research and development were stopped in an effort to persuade the United Nations to lift sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War, Charles Duelfer, special adviser to the director of Central Intelligence for weapons of mass destruction, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in testimony on the report.
``The analysis shows that despite Saddam's expressed desire to retain the knowledge of his nuclear team and his attempts to retain some key parts of the program, during the course of the following 12 years Iraq's ability to produce a weapon decayed,'' Duelfer said.
[Iraq Had no Weapons Stockpiles or Nuclear Program, CIA Says - Bloomberg - 10-06-04]
filed under: Catastrophic Success
, For The Record
October 06, 2004
As last night's Vice Presidential Debate illustrated, the Bush Administration's most formidable opponent in the debate over Iraq is itself. On one side of the Bush Administration you have the CIA, Cabinet officials, former Generals, Iraqi Administrators, both U.S. weapons inspectors, and a list of Republican leaders in Congress. On the other side you have Vice President Dick Cheney and those he continues to snow with lies.
Here is a big lie told by Vice President Dick Cheney last night:
[Transcript: Vice Presidential Debate - Washington Post - 10-06-04]
Yet on Meet The Press in March 2003, Dick Cheney clearly states a connection between Iraq and those who attacked us on 9-11.
[Meet The Press - Dick Cheney - 03-16-03]
More recently on Meet The Press in September 2003, Dick Cheney continues to assert a connection between Iraq and those who attacked the United States, defying every conceivable expert and agency at the behest of the United States of America. This pattern of rejecting facts, and then lying about it, is the heart of President Bush's foreign policy.
[Meet The Press - Dick Cheney - 09-14-03]
Dick Cheney's lies didn't stop there. Last Night, Dick Cheney said the VP debate was the first time he had ever met Senator John Edwards. Oh really?
filed under: 2004 Debates
, Catastrophic Success
, Flip-Flops
October 05, 2004
The debate on Iraq continues... among Bush Administration officials. Just hours ago, the White House contradicted the Pentagon. Four more years? Stay this course?
President Bush’s campaign, reacting today to a report that the former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said more troops had been needed to subdue the country, today acknowledged that L. Paul Bremer had disagreed with military leaders on how many troops were needed in Iraq.Said campaign spokesman Brian Jones, "Ambassador Bremer differed with the commanders in the field. That is his right, but the president has always said that he will listen to his commanders on the ground and give them the support they need for victory."
The campaign statement contradicted a senior defense official, who speaking on the condition of anonymity, yesterday denied that Bremer has asked for more troops.
[Bush Campaign Acknowledges Bremer's Criticism - Washington Post - 10-05-04]
also read: Bush v. Bremer on Realities of War | White House Desperately Spinning | Donald Rumsfeld, YOU'RE FIRED!
filed under: Catastrophic Success
October 05, 2004
The debates continue over Iraq... between Bush's own people. President Bush's Ambassador to Iraq, Paul Bremer, recently said we could have used more troops in Iraq. It's not a new concept. Many people said as much, including Bremer months ago.
The top American administrator in Iraq, confronting growing anti-U.S. anger and guerrilla-style attacks, is asking for more American troops and dozens of U.S. officials to help speed up the restoration of order and public services.Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld was reviewing the request from L. Paul Bremer, U.S. officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
[Bremer requests more troops as violence, tension escalate - Mercury News - 07-01-04]
Despite this fact, the Pentagon is now claiming Bremer never asked for more troops. Can you believe the audacious capacity of this Administration to continue to lie to the American people?
A senior Defense Department official said that Bremer never asked for more troops and expressed annoyance the ambassador appeared to be second-guessing the advice of military officials. Bremer stepped down after the June 28 handover to an interim Iraqi government.
[Bremer: More troops were needed after Saddam's ouster - CNN - 10-05-04]
White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to say whether Bremer had pleaded with Bush for more troops. "We never get into reading out all the conversations they had," McClellan said.
[White House Won't Say if Troops Sought - ABCnews - 10-05-04]
also read: Atrios
filed under: Catastrophic Success
October 04, 2004
While President Bush lost the debate over foreign policy and the war in Iraq last week, Bush continues to lose the debate with his own people in these last four weeks before the elections.
What does former U.S. Administrator Paul Bremer know about Iraq that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't and apparently never did? A LOT.
"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."Bremer's comments were striking because they echoed contentions of many administration critics, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion. Bremer has generally defended the U.S. approach in Iraq but in recent weeks has begun to criticize the administration for tactical and policy shortfalls.
[Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels - Washington Post - 10-05-04]
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction," Rumsfeld said Monday in the speech to the foreign affairs group. "Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail."
[Rumsfeld Doesn't Expect Civil War in Iraq - AP - 10-04-04]
also read: Dr. Condi Rice, YOU'RE FIRED!, Stakeholder, Atrios, Kicking Ass
filed under: Catastrophic Success
October 03, 2004
President Bush lost the 2004 Presidential debate over Iraq last week, but that wasn't exactly the end of the debate. Now the Bush Administration is loosing the debate over Iraq to itself.
On Sunday, Rice acknowledged she was aware of a debate within the U.S. intelligence community about whether the tubes were intended for nuclear weapons. "I knew that there was a dispute. I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute," Rice told ABC's "This Week."
[Rice Defends Comments on Iraq Nuke Threat - AP - 10-03-04]
B.S. TRANSLATOR: "I knew I said this was 'irrefutable' in 2002 and 2003, but my boss would have killed me if I told you the truth. Every sleazy car salesman knows that, and don't get me started on trying to sell used cars before August. That gives a discerning public way too much time to kick the tires. Know what I'm saying?"
filed under: Catastrophic Success
September 29, 2004
To President Bush, those that know better about matters of war and Iraq are just "pessimists." That makes it easier for President Bush to dismiss reality and what intelligence has to say about committing troops to war in Iraq.
"The CIA laid out several scenarios that said life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better," Bush said. "And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like. The Iraqi citizens are defying the pessimistic predictions."
[Bush shrugs off his CIA skeptics - Newsday - 09-22-04]
Oh really? Here is what the "pessimists" told President Bush before the war. Why did the President of the United States mischaracterize these assessments to the American people?
The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council, an independent group that advises the director of central intelligence. The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.One of the reports also warned of a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or American-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein's government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare, the officials said. The assessments also said a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, at least in the short run, the officials said.
The contents of the two assessments had not been previously disclosed. They were described by the officials after two weeks in which the White House had tried to minimize the council's latest report, which was prepared this summer and read by senior officials early this month.
[Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions - New York Times - 09-28-04]
Don't count of President Bush listening to the architect of our war in Iraq, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, either. Wolfowitz simply makes too much sense for President Bush's prefered reality.
Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people.The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.
[Paul Wolfowitz DoD Press Conference Transcript -