Evelyn Pringle April 25, 2007
When President Bush announced "Mission Accomplished," and the end of the war in May 2003, he also said we would help the citizens of Iraq rebuild their country. "Now that the dictator's gone," he stated, "we and our coalition partners are helping Iraqis to lay the foundations of a free economy."
Apparently he was referring to the Coalition Provisional Authority that took up residence in Saddam's luxurious palace in May 2003, with the newly appointed King, Paul Bremer. The CPA was granted the authority to award reconstruction contracts in Iraq and it used that authority to implement what will go down in the history books as the most blatant war profiteering scheme of all time.
In large part, the masterminds of the reconstruction disaster that would occur after the CPA took over Iraq were Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and Undersecretary of Defense, Douglas Feith.
But to ensure control of the contracting process on the ground in Iraq, Bush filled the top slots of the CPA with the administration cronies. For instance, a friend of Cheney's, Peter McPherson, took a leave of absence as president of Michigan State University to serve as Bremer's economic deputy.
The leader of the CPA's private development sector was Thomas Foley, an old college classmate of Bush, who served as finance chairman for his Presidential campaign in Connecticut and also raised more than $100,000 for Bush.
Relatives of the administration were also given jobs, such as Ari Fleischer's brother Michael, and Simone Ledeen, the daughter of Michael Ledeen. Cheney's daughter Liz, also did a short stint. However, it should be noted that none of them lounged around for too long in what soon became a hellhole in Iraq.
On May 16, 2003, the CPA issued its first regulation and described its authority in no uncertain terms stating:
"The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be exercised under relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, including resolution 1483 (2003), and the laws and usages of war. This authority shall be exercised by the CPA Administrator."
With one swipe of the pen, Bremer granted himself the authority to run the government ministries, appoint Iraqi officials and award contracts for reconstruction. Next he fired 500,000 Iraqis, most of them soldiers, but pink slips also went out to many doctors, nurses, teachers and other public employees as well.
For the most part, the CPA financed its activities with billions of dollars that belonged to the Iraqis. On May 22, 2003, a UN Security Council passed a resolution that directed the proceeds from Iraqi oil to be placed in a Development Fund for Iraq, and the CPA was granted authority to control the fund and decide which profiteers would get contracts.
During the year that Bremer controlled the purse strings, the Iraqi Development Fund received $20.2 billion, including $8.1 billion from the UN's oil-for-food program, $10.8 billion from Iraqi oil, and the rest from repatriated funds, vested assets and donations.
The CPA accounting system was cash and carry and a steady stream of cash was flown into Bagdad from the US. Inspector General, Stuart Bowen later said that he knew of one $2 billion flight.
A report released by the House Government Reform Committee in February 2007, shows that in the 13 months that Bremer ruled, from May 2003 to June 2004, the Federal Reserve Bank in New York shipped nearly $12 billion in a cash to Iraq.
One can only imagine the Bank service charges associated with these shipments because to accomplish this feat, according to the Democratic chairman of the Reform Committee, Henry Waxman, the cash weighed 363 tons and the Bank had to count and pack 281 million individual bills, including more than 107 million $100 bills, and then load them onto wooden pallets to be shipped to Bagdad on C-130 cargo planes.
Inspector Bowen later said that he determined that some of this cash went to pay salaries for thousands of "ghost employees" and Iraqi civil servants who did not exist.
Within a few months of the CPA's arrival in Iraq reports of corruption in the contracting process began appearing in the media. A British adviser to the Iraqi Governing Council told the BBC that officials in the CPA were demanding bribes of up to $300,000 in return for contracts.
Reports of flat out-fraud remained steady throughout Bremer's reign in Iraq. One audit showed that the CPA Ministry of Finance could not provide documentation for about $17 million spent on employee salaries in February 2004, and a CPA Advisor to the Ministry of the Interior said the Ministry was paid for 8,602 guards but only 602 could be verified.
A CPA advisor to the Ministry of Finance was so concerned about payroll corruption that he submitted a formal complaint that stated in part: "Of the 1.6 million government employees currently on payroll, credible estimates put the number of ghost workers at somewhere between 250,000-300,000 employees."
An October 2004, audit performed for the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, created by the UN to monitor the spending of Iraqi money, found one case where a payment of $2.6 million was authorized by a CPA senior adviser to the Ministry of Oil, and auditors were unable to obtain an underlying contract or any evidence that the services had been rendered.
The auditors in this group found 37 cases where files could not be located for contracts worth $185 million all total. In another 52 cases, there was no record that goods had been received for a total of $87.9 million.
People on the ground in Iraq said that doing business with the CPA was reminiscent of the Wild West. Former CPA employees told a congressional committee that sackfuls of cash were tossed around like footballs. Franklin Willis, showed pictures of himself and others holding up bundles of $100 notes totaling $2 million, which he said was used to pay the contractor Custer Battles. "We told them to come in and bring a bag," Willis said.
He also testified that millions of dollars in $100 bills were stored in the basement of the CPA offices and distributed to favored contractors with little accounting discipline. For instance, in the year that the CPA ruled, Custer was awarded contracts worth more than $100 million.
Two former Custer employees ended up filing a lawsuit under the Federal False Claims Act, saying Custer had swindled $50 million from the CPA with scams like double-billing for salaries and repainting the forklifts found at the Baghdad airport and then leasing them back to the US government.
The employees said the CPA paid the Custer $15 million to provide security for Iraq's civilian airline, when no services were needed because the airline was grounded during the time covered by the contract.
These employees said they kept informing the CPA about Custer's fraudulent conduct for more than a year and when they asked why the firm continued to get contracts, they were told: "Battles is very active in the Republican party, and speaks to individuals he knows in the Whitehouse almost daily."
In June 2004, the Government Accounting Office estimated that more than $1 billion in had been wasted due to illegal overcharges by contractors since the war began. A later audit by the Iraqi government found that as much as $1.27 billion was lost to accounting irregularities between June 2004 and February 2005.
Inspector Bowen cited two examples of poor oversight in a November 3, 2005 interview on National Public Radio where $28 million was paid to build 5 power plants and $1.8 million was paid to rebuild a library, but the work was never performed and the money
"simply disappeared," he said.
A recent report by Bowen says DynCorp was paid $43.8 million for a residential camp for police training personnel and has been empty for months and that the company may also have billed $18 million in other unjustified costs.
About $4.2 million, he says, was improperly spent on 20 VIP trailers and an Olympic-size pool and an additional $36.4 million in spending for weapons such as armored vehicles, body armor and communications equipment that cannot be accounted for.
Not surprisingly, Cheney's Halliburton remained the top profiteer under Bremer's rule. A July 23, 2004, audit conducted by Bowen, showed the company had received 60% of all contracts paid for with Iraq money, including 5 no-bid contracts worth $222 million, $325 million, $180 million, and the last 2 together totaled $194 million for the last two. In comparison, the audit showed that the CPA awarded only 2% of the reconstruction contracts to Iraqi companies.
In one example of blatant fraud, an audit found that Halliburton was charging for more than 41,000 meals a day for soldiers when only about 14,000 were served.
By the fall of 2003, the country was realizing that the rational for war was based on lies and that the only ones drawing any benefits were the profiteers. So when Bush asked Congress for another $20 billion for the CPA, Bremer was summoned to Washington to explain where all the money was going and of course he testified in full stonewall mode.
Before the Appropriations Committee on September 22, 2003, Bremer said the CPA had detailed records of all its receipts and outlays that could be audited by Congress. But when he testified before the Armed Services Committee 3 days later he said the Office of Management and Budget was responsible for maintaining the CPA records and that Congress would have to go to the White House to access the records.
That arrogant assertion went over like a lead balloon with many members of Congress. Senator Robert Byrd said he was outraged over the inability to monitor CPA spending. "There is no reason why any arm of the executive branch charged with making such significant spending decisions," he said, "should not be working directly with Congress."
"When we're talking about handing over another $20 billion to the CPA," he said, "there is a real need for Congress to confirm that the CPA has its finances in order and that it is managing the taxpayer's money responsibly."
"We don't even know how much of the $20 billion," Byrd said, "will flow to government contractors in Iraq."
"Whatever the amount is," he noted, "we know that the size and scope of the profits being made will be enormous."
"Former Bush Administration officials," he warned fellow Senators, "are even setting up consulting firms to act as middlemen for contractors hoping to take part in the bonanza."
"Are we turning the U.S. Treasury into a grab bag for favorite campaign contributors to be financed at taxpayer expense?" he asked.
The answer was yes, and what a grab bag it was. Media reports revealed that Bush's ex-campaign manager and Feith's former law partner had set up consulting firms to profit off the war by lining up contracts for clients through their partners in crime within the CPA.
Other reports revealed that contracts worth $407 were awarded to a firm called Nour that was formed less than 2 months after the war began. The names linked to the profits from Nour, among many others, included former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, Ahmad Chalabi via a $2 million kickback, his nephew Salam Chalabi as the attorney handling the deal, and the money trail even led to the First Brothers, Marvin and Jeb Bush.
But come to find out, Doug Feith the ringleader on the ground in Washington, had awarded a batch of no-bid contracts to a favored company the month before the war began for the purpose of controlling the media in post-war Iraq.
In October 2003, the Center for Public Integrity obtained copies of 7 contracts awarded to the San Diego-based Science Applications. The total value of the contracts was redacted but the Center was able to determine that they were all awarded in February 2003, and called for the work to be directed by Feith.
However, the Center's most stunning discovery was that when the contracts were awarded, Feith's top deputy at the time, Christopher "Ryan" Henry, had been a senior vice president at SAIC until October 2002.
In addition, one of SAIC's board members was Army General, Wayne Downing, who ran counterterrorism in the Bush administration for almost a year after 9/11, and had even went to the CIA with Cheney to discuss intelligence on Iraq. Downing had also served as an advisor to Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, and was well-known advocate for a war against Saddam.
Some of the SAIC contracts required that specific persons referred to as "executive management consultants" be hired and the pay range listed went as high as $209 and $273 per hour. The Center said congressional sources estimated the value of the media contract as $38 million for the first year and as high $90 million in 2004.
The SAIC had no special expertise to justify the award of these contracts. One company executive, quoted in the media, said the firm's only credential for setting up an independent media, supposedly modeled after the BBC, was military work in "informational warfare"-signal jamming, "perception management," and the like.
Under these contracts, the Iraq Media Network (IMN) was established and journalist, Mark North, who covered the Iraq invasion for National Public Radio, was hired to train Iraqi journalists to report for the IMN.
In one of the many Congressional hearings, North testified about the control of the IMN by the CPA and said CPA officials regularly directed and censored the activities of the news station and provided "a laundry list of CPA activities" to cover in the news reports instead of stories about security or the lack of electricity and jobs
While testifying, he also described the CPA's shabby treatment of Iraqi employees and its refusal to pay their wages. "For the first two months," North said, "the local staff of about 200 journalists and technicians were not paid their salaries."
When the staffers went on strike in attempt to get paid, he said, the CPA told the Iraqis to get back to work or the US Army would remove them from the studios.
All total, the CPA had control of Iraqi money for one year between June 2003 and June 2004, but unfortunately no auditors arrived to take a look at the agency's spending until April 2004, two months before the CPA's rule was scheduled to end.
And as so often happens when it comes to giving solid advice or warnings, the senior Senator from Virginia was absolutely right. It was far too late for audits, because the CPA and its gang of profiteers had already robbed the Iraqis blind.
The favored companies enjoyed a fraud-free-all. For instance, Halliburton said it had lost over $60 million worth of government property including trucks, office furniture and computers. Inspector Bowen reported that 6,975 items valued at $61.1 million were lost, and in June 2005, the Defense Contract Audit Agency reported that the Halliburton had overcharged or presented questionable bills for close to $1.5 billion.
In the end, Bowen's audit concluded that "the CPA's internal controls for approximately $8.8 billion in DFI funds disbursed to Iraqi ministries through the national budget process failed to provide sufficient accountability for the use of those funds."
As of February 2007, according to Bowen, audits of the CPA have resulted in 300 criminal and civil investigations, 5 arrests and convictions, and another 23 cases are currently under prosecution at the DOJ, and he is working on 76 on-going investigations.
One of the convictions involved Robert Stein, a former CPA comptroller and funding officer, who recently pleaded guilty to 5 felony counts including conspiracy, money laundering, and bribery in stealing more than $2 million of reconstruction funds and taking more than $1 million in kickbacks to rig the bids on contracts that exceeded $8 million.
The whistleblower case against Custer Battle went to trial and a jury found that Custer had committed 37 acts of fraud and filed $3 million in false claims, and rendered a verdict with a $10 million penalty. However, the verdict was overturned by Republican appointed US District Court Judge TS Ellis III, who ruled that the CPA was not a US entity and therefore the false claims act does not apply to it.
In the ruling, the judge said Custer's accusers "failed to prove that the U.S. government was ever defrauded. Any fraud that occurred was perpetrated instead against the Coalition Provisional Authority, formed to run Iraq until a government was established."
Legal experts say this ruling is great news for the CPA and contractors because from now on anyone charged with any act of fraud related to the Iraqi money doled out by the CPA in Bagdad will use it in attempt to avoid civil or criminal prosecution.
Showing posts with label Rumsfeld. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rumsfeld. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Make Bush Quit Lying - Kerry Did Not Vote for the War in Iraq
Evelyn Pringle July 16, 2004
Bin Laden must be laughing his you know what off. By calling off the hunt in Afghanistan, to launch a preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to the US, Bush not only sabotaged the capture of bin Laden; he destroyed our credibility, and undermined American security at home and abroad.
By grossly overextending our troops, he has lessened our military readiness to respond to a real threat of terror should one arise. Osama bin Laden himself could not have created the disaster in Iraq any better if he had tried.
Here's a political riddle to solve. Who made the following comments and whom did the comments refer to?
* "Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness."
* "A comprehensive strategy for combating the new dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction must include a variety of other measures to contain and prevent the spread of such weapons. We need the cooperation of friends and allies."
* "Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments."
Source: The year 2000 Republican Party Platform.
So just look at what has happened between then and now. The Republican prophets who posted those comments were absolutely correct. Endless missions, back-to-back deployments, inadequate training, no cooperation of friends and allies, blaming the CIA for political misjudgments, and on and on. It all came true all right, but democrats caused none of it.
Bush's so-called war on terror is a miserable failure, any way you look at it. Retired General Anthony Zinni, former commander of the US Central Command, got it right when he said that by manufacturing a false rationale for war, abandoning traditional allies, propping up and trusting Iraqi exiles, and failing to plan for post-war Iraq, Bush has made the US less secure, instead of safer.
Bush thinks that Iraqi citizens should have welcomed us into the country and thanked us for getting rid of Saddam. Right before the war started, in a March 16, 2003 interview, Cheney said, "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators."
As we now know, he was dead wrong, that did not happen.
But then why would Iraqis thank us? For what? Saddam may be gone, but innocent Iraqis have suffered the same human rights violations at the hands of the occupying forces that they did while Saddam was in power. In addition to the degradation and inexcusable abuse of prisoners, the deaths of at least 34 Iraqi detainees are currently being investigated.
Iraqis still live in fear of torture every day; in fact probably more so. Incidents of murder, rape, and kidnapping have skyrocketed since the war began. Violent deaths rose from an average of 14 per month in 2002 to 357 a month in 2003.
Come to think about it, I don't hear about any good news coming out of Iraq. Its about 120 degrees over there and they don't even have the basic necessities that they had under Saddam. According to a recent report by the GAO, basic services like water and electricity are still operating at lower levels than they were before the war.
Over the past year, joblessness has doubled. According to the Boston Globe, using recent US data, more than half the workers in the country are either without job or making less than a living wage. Only 1% of Iraq's workforce (7 million people) is involved in reconstruction projects.
Bush and his gang of war profiteers made sure the reconstruction contracts went to US companies, rather than experienced Iraqi firms. Democratic Rep Martin Meehan, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, sees what is going on and explains, how "the American taxpayer is spending billions of dollars on no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton. Not only has this money often been poorly spent or outright wasted, but in many cases it is paying the salaries of foreign workers to do jobs in Iraq that are well within the skill sets of Iraqis," said Meehan.
Again, why in the world would Iraqis thank us?
BIG LIES
In the months leading up to the war, Bush told American citizens and Congress, that the US had to wage a preemptive war against Iraq, not only to get rid of Saddam's WMDs, but also because there were links between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden, who is believed to be the mastermind behind 911.
However, the Bush Administration now claims that it never said that Saddam and his WMDs posed an "imminent" threat, and so therefore, Bush cannot be accused of exaggerating the case for war or misleading Congress and the American people.
How soon they forget. Some officials did too use the word "imminent" and others used phrases and words that had the exact same meaning. Yet, during a press conference shortly after the war began, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used."
Oh really? Is that so? Well, Scott must have a pretty bad memory, because on 2/10/03, he himself used the "I" word when he specifically said, "This is about imminent threat."
He must have also forgotten the statement made by Bush Communications Director Dan Bartlett, on 1/26/03, when he answered, "Well, of course he is," in response to a reporter's direct question, "is Saddam an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?"
And how could Scott forget the comment made by his predecessor, White House Press Secretary, Ari Fliescher, on 5/7/03? Ari was asked whether or not Iraq was an "imminent threat," and his answer was, "Absolutely."
And how about Bush, himself. Lets do a little review statements made by the star of the war profiteering scheme:
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." Bush 1/3/03
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America." Bush 11/3/02
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." Bush 11/1/02
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein." Bush 10/28/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." Bush 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." Bush 10/2/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." Bush 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." Bush 9/26/02
And lets review a few of the lines uttered by Chief Cheney over a period of 2 days:
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies." 1/31/03.
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world." 1/30/03.
Iraq "threatens the United States of America." 1/30/03
Rumsfeld is really a trip. Here's where he uses statements about 9/11 (peppered with the "I" word), as part of the ploy to scare us into war:
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" 11/14/03
Here's where Rumsfeld used the ultimate threat of nuclear weapons (and the "I" word again), to scare us some more, complete with the bogus, and now infamous, line about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa:
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." 1/30/03.
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." 9/18/02.
Here's where Rummy warns us about Saddam being an "immediate threat:"
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." 9/19/02
While we're at it, lets take a look back at what Colin Powell said to the world about the threat posed by Saddam and WMDs in his speech before the UN. Colin even brought photos of the evidence to back up his statements.
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources."
"We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities."
"Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells."
"Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers."
"Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries."
I would say this to Colin Powell, OK Colin, fair enough. Here's your chance to redeem yourself. For starters, lets see those photos again, and then explain to the world, exactly what happened to those yellow and red bunkers in the photos. And after that, give us the names of all those solid human sources.
Here's where Powell tells the UN all about the ties and meetings between Al Qaida, Osama and Saddam, that according to Colin, had been going on for years.
"Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida."
"We know members of both organizations met repeatedly (oh yea? How about dates and locations), and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service."
"Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000."
OK Colin, how about introducing us to this "detained" Al Qaida member that gave you all this info. That should be easy enough.
Here's where he makes it sound like the Iraqis, Al Qaida, Saddam and Osama were best buddies, even houseguests of one another, supposedly backed by yet another "human source." Who by the way, I am eager to meet.
"Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery."
Gosh, do you think that they had tea together in Osama's new cave?
Funny thing, the only forgeries I've ever heard about are the ones used by Bush and his gang of thugs in their reports to Congress and the UN. What were they again? A student's term paper and some documents purporting to show that Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa? I think that's right. As I recall, they were easily identified as fakes. Maybe the Bush gang should enroll in the forgery training camp in Afghanistan.
Get this, here's Colin with another photo. This one shows a poison and explosive training camp, specifically located in northeastern Iraq.
"You see a picture of this camp. The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal."
OK Colin, lets see that photo again, and then tell us what happened to this dangerous chemical training camp, with its pinches of deadly ricin, after it apparently disappeared off the face of the earth.
As long as we're parsing words, lets take a closer look at a few of the other words they used to convince us that we needed to go to war. As noted above, they did use the "I" word, but beyond that, they claim the other words used did not mean "imminent."
Well I beg to differ. They described the threat of Saddam's and his WMDs as: "mortal," "urgent," "immediate", "serious and mounting", "unique," and they even claimed that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction."
Now I know that the Bush gang is convinced that we lowly citizens are all really stupid, but can't they give us just a little more credit? I think there are at least a few Americans out here who might know the meaning of some of those words.
While we're on the subject of lies, how about the one where they said the war would be a cakewalk. In February 2003, Rumsfeld predicted that the war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." That was either a pipe dream or pure BS. I say BS.
And what about the costs? Every last one of them lied to Congress and taxpayers about what the war would cost. On April 23, 2003, Andrew Natsios, head of the US Agency for International Development, gave a televised interview and outlined the costs to the taxpayers of rebuilding Iraq, "the American part of this will be $1.7 billion," he said. "We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."
That estimate turned out to be a little bit off -- by about $149 billion --- so far.
A March 2003 report by the White House Office of Management and Budget said: "Iraq will not require sustained aid." In testimony to Congress on March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz said Iraq "can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." I wonder when will relatively soon is going to get here.
And remember when they all said that Iraqi oil would pay for its reconstruction? What a joke. In 2003 oil production dropped to 1.33 million barrels a day, from 2.04 million in 2002.
The fact is, Bush and his gang of chickenhawks lied to Congress, to taxpayers, and to the world, in order to wage an illegal war. The whole damn bunch should be tried as war criminals.
John Kerry Did Not Vote to Go to War
Bush is always saying Kerry voted for the war. Let's get one thing straight once and for all. He did not vote to go to war. He voted for a resolution that gave Bush the authority to use force as a last resort, if it became absolutely necessary to protect us from an imminent threat from WMDs (and yes he used the "I" word many times).
If Kerry is guilty of anything, its of being gullible enough to believe the lies told by the President of the United State, and his gang of fellow liars, on the world stage.
In a speech on the Senate Floor on the day of the vote, Kerry made it clear that he was not voting to go to war when he said, "approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."
Kerry had no reason to think Bush was set to go to war. As he pointed out, any threat posed by Saddam and his WMDs, was "not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing ... suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack," Kerry said. "Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense ... The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet."
Kerry said that he would only agree to go to war for one reason, to rid Saddam of WMDs. He emphatically warned Bush that if he did take the country to war for any other reason than an imminent threat to the US by Saddam and his WMDs, that he would be the first to speak out and demand that Bush be held accountable.
As we know now, there never were any WMDs and so therefore, as Kerry made clear, he would have never voted to go to war.
He clarified what his vote meant when he said, "let me be clear, the vote I will give ... is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies," he said.
"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments ... to work with the United Nations ... to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."
"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs."
In my opinion, the day for demanding accountability from Bush has long passed. It should have happened the day he took the country to war in Iraq. That said, I look forward to watching the first Bush-Kerry debate when Kerry will have the opportunity to demand accountability from that greedy thug living in the WH illegally.
Kerry warned us about what would happen if Bush took us to war without just cause, and without our allies. He speech on the Senate floor on the day of the vote almost seems prophetic in hindsight. Here are a few excerpts from his October 9, 2002 Senate speech:
"The President needs to give the American people a fairer and fuller, clearer understanding of the magnitude and long-term financial cost of that effort."
"The international community's support will be critical because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq single-handedly. We will lack the credibility and the expertise and the capacity."
"The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. ... If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed."
Everything Kerry said would happen, happened. The skyrocketing costs of the war, both in lives lost, and tax dollars spent blow Americans away. The country was not prepared to sustain such a drastic drain on its resources. Nor were we prepared for the hatred that has been directed at Americans, not only in Iraq, but also throughout the Middle East.
Just like Kerry predicted, the region has become a magnet for terrorists that hate Americans. And he's right; Saddam's capture provides no consolation when weighed against the mess Bush got us into.
A scheme that turned Iraq into a boomtown for Bush and his fellow war profiteers, has turned into a never-ending nightmare for the rest of the country. First thing we see each morning, when we turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper, is the number of soldiers killed or injured the day before. And there is no end in sight.
John Kerry bears no responsibility whatsoever for the war in Iraq. If he had been president we never would have ended up there to begin with. But as it stands now, Kerry will be the one stuck with cleaning up the mess when he inherits it come November.
Bin Laden must be laughing his you know what off. By calling off the hunt in Afghanistan, to launch a preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to the US, Bush not only sabotaged the capture of bin Laden; he destroyed our credibility, and undermined American security at home and abroad.
By grossly overextending our troops, he has lessened our military readiness to respond to a real threat of terror should one arise. Osama bin Laden himself could not have created the disaster in Iraq any better if he had tried.
Here's a political riddle to solve. Who made the following comments and whom did the comments refer to?
* "Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness."
* "A comprehensive strategy for combating the new dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction must include a variety of other measures to contain and prevent the spread of such weapons. We need the cooperation of friends and allies."
* "Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments."
Source: The year 2000 Republican Party Platform.
So just look at what has happened between then and now. The Republican prophets who posted those comments were absolutely correct. Endless missions, back-to-back deployments, inadequate training, no cooperation of friends and allies, blaming the CIA for political misjudgments, and on and on. It all came true all right, but democrats caused none of it.
Bush's so-called war on terror is a miserable failure, any way you look at it. Retired General Anthony Zinni, former commander of the US Central Command, got it right when he said that by manufacturing a false rationale for war, abandoning traditional allies, propping up and trusting Iraqi exiles, and failing to plan for post-war Iraq, Bush has made the US less secure, instead of safer.
Bush thinks that Iraqi citizens should have welcomed us into the country and thanked us for getting rid of Saddam. Right before the war started, in a March 16, 2003 interview, Cheney said, "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators."
As we now know, he was dead wrong, that did not happen.
But then why would Iraqis thank us? For what? Saddam may be gone, but innocent Iraqis have suffered the same human rights violations at the hands of the occupying forces that they did while Saddam was in power. In addition to the degradation and inexcusable abuse of prisoners, the deaths of at least 34 Iraqi detainees are currently being investigated.
Iraqis still live in fear of torture every day; in fact probably more so. Incidents of murder, rape, and kidnapping have skyrocketed since the war began. Violent deaths rose from an average of 14 per month in 2002 to 357 a month in 2003.
Come to think about it, I don't hear about any good news coming out of Iraq. Its about 120 degrees over there and they don't even have the basic necessities that they had under Saddam. According to a recent report by the GAO, basic services like water and electricity are still operating at lower levels than they were before the war.
Over the past year, joblessness has doubled. According to the Boston Globe, using recent US data, more than half the workers in the country are either without job or making less than a living wage. Only 1% of Iraq's workforce (7 million people) is involved in reconstruction projects.
Bush and his gang of war profiteers made sure the reconstruction contracts went to US companies, rather than experienced Iraqi firms. Democratic Rep Martin Meehan, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, sees what is going on and explains, how "the American taxpayer is spending billions of dollars on no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton. Not only has this money often been poorly spent or outright wasted, but in many cases it is paying the salaries of foreign workers to do jobs in Iraq that are well within the skill sets of Iraqis," said Meehan.
Again, why in the world would Iraqis thank us?
BIG LIES
In the months leading up to the war, Bush told American citizens and Congress, that the US had to wage a preemptive war against Iraq, not only to get rid of Saddam's WMDs, but also because there were links between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden, who is believed to be the mastermind behind 911.
However, the Bush Administration now claims that it never said that Saddam and his WMDs posed an "imminent" threat, and so therefore, Bush cannot be accused of exaggerating the case for war or misleading Congress and the American people.
How soon they forget. Some officials did too use the word "imminent" and others used phrases and words that had the exact same meaning. Yet, during a press conference shortly after the war began, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used."
Oh really? Is that so? Well, Scott must have a pretty bad memory, because on 2/10/03, he himself used the "I" word when he specifically said, "This is about imminent threat."
He must have also forgotten the statement made by Bush Communications Director Dan Bartlett, on 1/26/03, when he answered, "Well, of course he is," in response to a reporter's direct question, "is Saddam an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?"
And how could Scott forget the comment made by his predecessor, White House Press Secretary, Ari Fliescher, on 5/7/03? Ari was asked whether or not Iraq was an "imminent threat," and his answer was, "Absolutely."
And how about Bush, himself. Lets do a little review statements made by the star of the war profiteering scheme:
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." Bush 1/3/03
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America." Bush 11/3/02
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." Bush 11/1/02
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein." Bush 10/28/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." Bush 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." Bush 10/2/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." Bush 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." Bush 9/26/02
And lets review a few of the lines uttered by Chief Cheney over a period of 2 days:
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies." 1/31/03.
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world." 1/30/03.
Iraq "threatens the United States of America." 1/30/03
Rumsfeld is really a trip. Here's where he uses statements about 9/11 (peppered with the "I" word), as part of the ploy to scare us into war:
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" 11/14/03
Here's where Rumsfeld used the ultimate threat of nuclear weapons (and the "I" word again), to scare us some more, complete with the bogus, and now infamous, line about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa:
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." 1/30/03.
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." 9/18/02.
Here's where Rummy warns us about Saddam being an "immediate threat:"
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." 9/19/02
While we're at it, lets take a look back at what Colin Powell said to the world about the threat posed by Saddam and WMDs in his speech before the UN. Colin even brought photos of the evidence to back up his statements.
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources."
"We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities."
"Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells."
"Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers."
"Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries."
I would say this to Colin Powell, OK Colin, fair enough. Here's your chance to redeem yourself. For starters, lets see those photos again, and then explain to the world, exactly what happened to those yellow and red bunkers in the photos. And after that, give us the names of all those solid human sources.
Here's where Powell tells the UN all about the ties and meetings between Al Qaida, Osama and Saddam, that according to Colin, had been going on for years.
"Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida."
"We know members of both organizations met repeatedly (oh yea? How about dates and locations), and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service."
"Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000."
OK Colin, how about introducing us to this "detained" Al Qaida member that gave you all this info. That should be easy enough.
Here's where he makes it sound like the Iraqis, Al Qaida, Saddam and Osama were best buddies, even houseguests of one another, supposedly backed by yet another "human source." Who by the way, I am eager to meet.
"Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery."
Gosh, do you think that they had tea together in Osama's new cave?
Funny thing, the only forgeries I've ever heard about are the ones used by Bush and his gang of thugs in their reports to Congress and the UN. What were they again? A student's term paper and some documents purporting to show that Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa? I think that's right. As I recall, they were easily identified as fakes. Maybe the Bush gang should enroll in the forgery training camp in Afghanistan.
Get this, here's Colin with another photo. This one shows a poison and explosive training camp, specifically located in northeastern Iraq.
"You see a picture of this camp. The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal."
OK Colin, lets see that photo again, and then tell us what happened to this dangerous chemical training camp, with its pinches of deadly ricin, after it apparently disappeared off the face of the earth.
As long as we're parsing words, lets take a closer look at a few of the other words they used to convince us that we needed to go to war. As noted above, they did use the "I" word, but beyond that, they claim the other words used did not mean "imminent."
Well I beg to differ. They described the threat of Saddam's and his WMDs as: "mortal," "urgent," "immediate", "serious and mounting", "unique," and they even claimed that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction."
Now I know that the Bush gang is convinced that we lowly citizens are all really stupid, but can't they give us just a little more credit? I think there are at least a few Americans out here who might know the meaning of some of those words.
While we're on the subject of lies, how about the one where they said the war would be a cakewalk. In February 2003, Rumsfeld predicted that the war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." That was either a pipe dream or pure BS. I say BS.
And what about the costs? Every last one of them lied to Congress and taxpayers about what the war would cost. On April 23, 2003, Andrew Natsios, head of the US Agency for International Development, gave a televised interview and outlined the costs to the taxpayers of rebuilding Iraq, "the American part of this will be $1.7 billion," he said. "We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."
That estimate turned out to be a little bit off -- by about $149 billion --- so far.
A March 2003 report by the White House Office of Management and Budget said: "Iraq will not require sustained aid." In testimony to Congress on March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz said Iraq "can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." I wonder when will relatively soon is going to get here.
And remember when they all said that Iraqi oil would pay for its reconstruction? What a joke. In 2003 oil production dropped to 1.33 million barrels a day, from 2.04 million in 2002.
The fact is, Bush and his gang of chickenhawks lied to Congress, to taxpayers, and to the world, in order to wage an illegal war. The whole damn bunch should be tried as war criminals.
John Kerry Did Not Vote to Go to War
Bush is always saying Kerry voted for the war. Let's get one thing straight once and for all. He did not vote to go to war. He voted for a resolution that gave Bush the authority to use force as a last resort, if it became absolutely necessary to protect us from an imminent threat from WMDs (and yes he used the "I" word many times).
If Kerry is guilty of anything, its of being gullible enough to believe the lies told by the President of the United State, and his gang of fellow liars, on the world stage.
In a speech on the Senate Floor on the day of the vote, Kerry made it clear that he was not voting to go to war when he said, "approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."
Kerry had no reason to think Bush was set to go to war. As he pointed out, any threat posed by Saddam and his WMDs, was "not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing ... suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack," Kerry said. "Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense ... The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet."
Kerry said that he would only agree to go to war for one reason, to rid Saddam of WMDs. He emphatically warned Bush that if he did take the country to war for any other reason than an imminent threat to the US by Saddam and his WMDs, that he would be the first to speak out and demand that Bush be held accountable.
As we know now, there never were any WMDs and so therefore, as Kerry made clear, he would have never voted to go to war.
He clarified what his vote meant when he said, "let me be clear, the vote I will give ... is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies," he said.
"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments ... to work with the United Nations ... to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."
"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs."
In my opinion, the day for demanding accountability from Bush has long passed. It should have happened the day he took the country to war in Iraq. That said, I look forward to watching the first Bush-Kerry debate when Kerry will have the opportunity to demand accountability from that greedy thug living in the WH illegally.
Kerry warned us about what would happen if Bush took us to war without just cause, and without our allies. He speech on the Senate floor on the day of the vote almost seems prophetic in hindsight. Here are a few excerpts from his October 9, 2002 Senate speech:
"The President needs to give the American people a fairer and fuller, clearer understanding of the magnitude and long-term financial cost of that effort."
"The international community's support will be critical because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq single-handedly. We will lack the credibility and the expertise and the capacity."
"The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. ... If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed."
Everything Kerry said would happen, happened. The skyrocketing costs of the war, both in lives lost, and tax dollars spent blow Americans away. The country was not prepared to sustain such a drastic drain on its resources. Nor were we prepared for the hatred that has been directed at Americans, not only in Iraq, but also throughout the Middle East.
Just like Kerry predicted, the region has become a magnet for terrorists that hate Americans. And he's right; Saddam's capture provides no consolation when weighed against the mess Bush got us into.
A scheme that turned Iraq into a boomtown for Bush and his fellow war profiteers, has turned into a never-ending nightmare for the rest of the country. First thing we see each morning, when we turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper, is the number of soldiers killed or injured the day before. And there is no end in sight.
John Kerry bears no responsibility whatsoever for the war in Iraq. If he had been president we never would have ended up there to begin with. But as it stands now, Kerry will be the one stuck with cleaning up the mess when he inherits it come November.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Iraqis To Bush - What Have We Done To Deserve This?
Evelyn Pringle January 2005
Despite Bush's endless hypocritical assertions about how we have brought freedom to Iraq, the truth is that almost all of the people in that country who have managed to survive the military attacks, have lost loved ones and had their lives ruined.
Iraqis have been telling us to leave ever since we arrived. They want to run their own country and they want an end to the torture and killing. They're willing to take the risk of believing their lives will be better without the involvement of the US.
An anonymous Iraqi woman edits the blog "Baghdad Burning," subtitled "Girl blog from Iraq." This was her message nearly a year ago on May 7, 2004, "I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill, and get out while you can -- while it still looks like you have a choice. ... Chaos? Civil war? We'll take our chances -- just take your puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go."
A fact that Bush seems to have forgotten, is that Iraq is their country. And I think the message is perfectly clear, they want us out of their country.
The True War Criminals
Bush and Rumsfeld should both be tried as war criminals. Article VI of the Constitution says, in part, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The Geneva Conventions covering the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians in wartime are treaties the US government signed and ratified. They are the supreme law of the land, and neither Bush nor Rumsfeld, has the authority to choose whether to abide by them or not.
Bush's invention of such labels as "illegal combatant," or "evil-doer," and a claim to some right to indefinitely imprison such persons, without charges or access to the courts and an attorney, is a direct violation of the Constitution.
The United State should have ratified the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. The ICC would then have the authority to deal not only with the crimes of true terrorists, but with the kind of crimes the Bush administration has committed as well.
During Vietnam, we had the draft and a citizens' army. Members of the armed forces served as a check on militarism because they were not volunteers. They could be counted on to question the rationale of the war and whether their president was lying to them.
Today in Iraq, we have a voluntary military where service men and women are less likely to question lies about the war from the president and high commanders, so its up to us to get our soldiers out of the Iraq quagmire.
Elected officials are duty-bound to pay attention to public opinion. If a majority of Americans come out strong enough for an end to the war in Iraq, I believe Congress will be forced to figure out a way to end this insanity.
US Credibility Destroyed
The Iraq war is the most serious blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The lies and deception by those at the highest level of the US government, along with the torture scandals, Tenet's resignation, war profiteering by Bush cronies, and all the other atrocities, have discredited our country to the point where we will never be able to fully restore our reputation on the world stage.
The failure of Bush's policies in Iraq, and the accompanying discrediting of our military and intelligence agencies, as corrupt and incompetent, has led to international disgrace. Bush has stirred up more rage and resentment toward Americans, with his contemptuous attitude toward any society or nation who dares to disagree with him, than any other president in our nation's history.
In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned the public about the dangers of having the kind of administration we have with Bush. "In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted," he warned.
The media should have reminded the voters about Eisenhower's warning. Because as it stands today, just like Ike predicted, the Department of Defense, and its supporting military complex, dominate the US government. 93% of money spent on foreign affairs is controlled by the Pentagon; with only 7% controlled by the State Department.
And yet, with the exception of Colin Powell, the top leaders in our government today, from Bush on down, have no experience whatsoever with war or war-time operations. Experience with garnering military contracts and profit, yes. Active military operations, none. And to make matters worse, none of them will listen to the advice of our most experienced military advisors.
We've got a bunch of inexperienced people controlling the most expensive and dangerous element of the executive branch, acting like a bunch of little kids playing a game of war, while our soldiers, and innocent Iraqis, are slaughtered, and our tax dollars go down the drain.
If this isn't insanity I don't know what is.
Where Does The Course End?
In his press conference on April 14, 2004, Bush said repeatedly, "We must stay the course in Iraq." That was nearly a year ago and we're not any nearer to the end of the course, wherever the hell that may be.
Its also almost a year since former Centcom commander Gen Anthony Zinni said on 60 Minutes, "The course is headed over Niagara Falls." And almost a year since the Washington Post, reported that Gen Joseph Hoar, former head of the Marine Corps, warned, "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss."
Granted, Zinni and Hoar are both retired military officers. However, Army Maj Gen Charles Swannack, Commander of the 82nd Airborn, was on active duty when he was asked by the Post whether he believed the US was losing the war in Iraq, and he replied, "I think strategically, we are."
On May 30, 2004, Marine Maj Gen William Whitlow went so far as to write an op-ed for the Washington Post, calling for the firing of incompetent Bush administration officials. "A principal tenet of forming a strategy -- have a 'war termination' phase -- was neglected... It is time for the president to ask those responsible for the flawed Iraqi policy -- civilian and military -- to resign from public service," he demanded.
No heads have rolled.
I've heard it said that, "When war becomes this profitable, we can expect more of it." Well, if we don't want more of it, we need to demand an end to the secrecy within the Bush administration, and I mean end it before we end up in Iran. This is the only way to re-establish control over the military establishment and the military industrial complex. Which in the Bush administration, seem to be one and the same.
Despite Bush's endless hypocritical assertions about how we have brought freedom to Iraq, the truth is that almost all of the people in that country who have managed to survive the military attacks, have lost loved ones and had their lives ruined.
Iraqis have been telling us to leave ever since we arrived. They want to run their own country and they want an end to the torture and killing. They're willing to take the risk of believing their lives will be better without the involvement of the US.
An anonymous Iraqi woman edits the blog "Baghdad Burning," subtitled "Girl blog from Iraq." This was her message nearly a year ago on May 7, 2004, "I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill, and get out while you can -- while it still looks like you have a choice. ... Chaos? Civil war? We'll take our chances -- just take your puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go."
A fact that Bush seems to have forgotten, is that Iraq is their country. And I think the message is perfectly clear, they want us out of their country.
The True War Criminals
Bush and Rumsfeld should both be tried as war criminals. Article VI of the Constitution says, in part, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The Geneva Conventions covering the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians in wartime are treaties the US government signed and ratified. They are the supreme law of the land, and neither Bush nor Rumsfeld, has the authority to choose whether to abide by them or not.
Bush's invention of such labels as "illegal combatant," or "evil-doer," and a claim to some right to indefinitely imprison such persons, without charges or access to the courts and an attorney, is a direct violation of the Constitution.
The United State should have ratified the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. The ICC would then have the authority to deal not only with the crimes of true terrorists, but with the kind of crimes the Bush administration has committed as well.
During Vietnam, we had the draft and a citizens' army. Members of the armed forces served as a check on militarism because they were not volunteers. They could be counted on to question the rationale of the war and whether their president was lying to them.
Today in Iraq, we have a voluntary military where service men and women are less likely to question lies about the war from the president and high commanders, so its up to us to get our soldiers out of the Iraq quagmire.
Elected officials are duty-bound to pay attention to public opinion. If a majority of Americans come out strong enough for an end to the war in Iraq, I believe Congress will be forced to figure out a way to end this insanity.
US Credibility Destroyed
The Iraq war is the most serious blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The lies and deception by those at the highest level of the US government, along with the torture scandals, Tenet's resignation, war profiteering by Bush cronies, and all the other atrocities, have discredited our country to the point where we will never be able to fully restore our reputation on the world stage.
The failure of Bush's policies in Iraq, and the accompanying discrediting of our military and intelligence agencies, as corrupt and incompetent, has led to international disgrace. Bush has stirred up more rage and resentment toward Americans, with his contemptuous attitude toward any society or nation who dares to disagree with him, than any other president in our nation's history.
In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned the public about the dangers of having the kind of administration we have with Bush. "In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted," he warned.
The media should have reminded the voters about Eisenhower's warning. Because as it stands today, just like Ike predicted, the Department of Defense, and its supporting military complex, dominate the US government. 93% of money spent on foreign affairs is controlled by the Pentagon; with only 7% controlled by the State Department.
And yet, with the exception of Colin Powell, the top leaders in our government today, from Bush on down, have no experience whatsoever with war or war-time operations. Experience with garnering military contracts and profit, yes. Active military operations, none. And to make matters worse, none of them will listen to the advice of our most experienced military advisors.
We've got a bunch of inexperienced people controlling the most expensive and dangerous element of the executive branch, acting like a bunch of little kids playing a game of war, while our soldiers, and innocent Iraqis, are slaughtered, and our tax dollars go down the drain.
If this isn't insanity I don't know what is.
Where Does The Course End?
In his press conference on April 14, 2004, Bush said repeatedly, "We must stay the course in Iraq." That was nearly a year ago and we're not any nearer to the end of the course, wherever the hell that may be.
Its also almost a year since former Centcom commander Gen Anthony Zinni said on 60 Minutes, "The course is headed over Niagara Falls." And almost a year since the Washington Post, reported that Gen Joseph Hoar, former head of the Marine Corps, warned, "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss."
Granted, Zinni and Hoar are both retired military officers. However, Army Maj Gen Charles Swannack, Commander of the 82nd Airborn, was on active duty when he was asked by the Post whether he believed the US was losing the war in Iraq, and he replied, "I think strategically, we are."
On May 30, 2004, Marine Maj Gen William Whitlow went so far as to write an op-ed for the Washington Post, calling for the firing of incompetent Bush administration officials. "A principal tenet of forming a strategy -- have a 'war termination' phase -- was neglected... It is time for the president to ask those responsible for the flawed Iraqi policy -- civilian and military -- to resign from public service," he demanded.
No heads have rolled.
I've heard it said that, "When war becomes this profitable, we can expect more of it." Well, if we don't want more of it, we need to demand an end to the secrecy within the Bush administration, and I mean end it before we end up in Iran. This is the only way to re-establish control over the military establishment and the military industrial complex. Which in the Bush administration, seem to be one and the same.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Which Soldier Will Be The Last To Die For Bush?
Evelyn Pringle March 31, 2006
The war in Iraq is a mistake. No it's worse than a mistake. Lets quit pussy-footing around and call it like it is. The war in Iraq is a grand profiteering scheme gone awry and Americans need to take off their blinders and face the truth.
As the cost of the war leaves a deeper black hole of debt for our great-grandchildren, people need to ask themselves whether the hundreds of billions spent thus far have helped anyone other than reconstruction companies and defense contractors. It takes no thought, the answer is no.
And after that, to paraphrase a powerful John Kerry comment from the Viet Nam era, Americans need think about which soldier will be the last to die for this mistake.
Day in and day out, Bush is on TV saying we will not withdraw from Iraq. How much longer will Americans put up with this bumbling idiot?
The rumblings for impeachment are getting louder and for good reason. The British memo released this week on Bush's conversation with Tony Blair in January 2003, not only proves that Bush planned to take the country to war using whatever lies he deemed necessary, it also proves that there was no plan for post-war Iraq.
Bush is throwing good money after bad like a compulsive gambler, as our troops get sucked deeper and deeper into a bloody quagmire. The situation in Iraq has elevated beyond a disaster and all Bush wants to do is sink more tax dollars into the same failed policies that brought us to this point.
Over the past 6 months, we have heard a lot of accusations about "revisionist history" from Bush and his minions in answer to those who dare to question whether there ever was a real threat from Iraq.
However, there is an abundance of evidence that administration officials sought to portray Iraq as a deadly threat to the American people in the run-up to war. But as we now know, there is a great difference between the hand-picked intelligence that was presented to Congress and the American people when compared to what was actually in Iraq.
Americans were fed a fairy tale about fighting a war of liberation that would be short, cheap, and bloodless. The Bush administration was like a pied piper as it lead the nation into the Iraq disaster.
In hindsight, what is particularly troublesome is how naively the nation followed.
Looking back, there were countless examples of provocative rhetoric as they lead the country to war in Iraq. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush coined the phrase "Axis of Evil," while pointing at Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
In October 2002, the White House Press Secretary said regime change in Iraq could be accomplished with "the cost of one bullet."
On March 17, in his final speech to the American people before the invasion, Bush took one last opportunity to bolster his case for war. The centerpiece of his argument was the same message he brought to the UN months before, and the same message he hammered home at every opportunity in the intervening months, namely that Saddam had failed to destroy the WMDs and presented an imminent danger to the American people.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments," he said, "leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
In a public address on March 19, 2003, Bush told the world: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
Three years have passed, and the US has yet to find a single shred of evidence to confirm the official reason that our country was sent to war; namely, that Iraq's WMDs constituted a grave threat to the US.
On January 28, 2003, Bush said in his State of the Union Address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
We now know that the CIA said that claim was false as early as March 2002 and that the International Atomic Energy Agency had also discredited the allegation. But they just went ahead and used it anyways.
On February 5, Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."
In a radio address on February 8, 2003, Bush told the nation: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
The fact is, after 3 years, we have not found any of these items, nor have we found those thousands of rockets loaded with chemical weapons.
On March 30, 2003, Rumsfeld said in an interview on This Week, of the search for WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."
However, Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003, and Tikrit on April 14, 2003, and the intelligence Rumsfeld spoke of has not led to any WMDs.
Whether or not intelligence reports were bent, stretched, or fabricated to make Iraq look like an imminent threat, it is clear that the administration's rhetoric played upon the fear of the American people about future terrorism attacks.
But, under close scrutiny, most of the statements had nothing to do with intelligence; the were merely designed to prey on public fear. Through smoke and mirrors, the face of bin Laden was morphed into that of Saddam. Bush himself blurred the image in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union Address when he said:
"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans – this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
Not only did the administration warn about more hijackers carrying deadly chemicals, it even went so far as to say that in the time it would take for UN inspectors to find 'smoking gun' evidence of Saddam's illegal weapons, the US was at risk of a nuclear attack.
Condoleeza Rice by the Los Angeles Times, was quoted as saying on September 9, 2002: "We don't want the 'smoking gun' to be a mushroom cloud."
Talk about fabrication, where did the term mushroom cloud come from? What was this statement based on?
On September 26, 2002, just two weeks before Congress voted on a resolution, Bush himself pushed the case that Iraq was plotting to attack the US. After meeting with members of Congress that day, Bush said:
"The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.... The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year."
These are his words. Bush said Saddam is "seeking a nuclear bomb." Has he ever produced any evidence to back up this allegation? No. And, his rhetoric continued that day in the Rose Garden, where he said:
"The dangers we face will only worsen from month to month and from year to year. To ignore these threats is to encourage them. And when they have fully materialized it may be too late to protect ourselves and our friends and our allies. By then the Iraqi dictator would have the means to terrorize and dominate the region. Each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX – nerve gas – or some day a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally."
And yet, 3 years later, we have not seen a shred of evidence to support this claim of grave dangers, chemical weapons, links to al Qaeda, or nuclear weapons.
Four days before a vote on the resolution, on October 7, 2002, Bush ramped up the scare tactics and stated: "We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy – the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade."
Bush then went even further by saying: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."
During his speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center, he also elaborated on Iraq's nuclear program and said:
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' - his nuclear holy warriors.... If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."
This is the kind of outrageous rhetoric that was given to the American people to justify war with Iraq. This is the same kind of hyped fabricated evidence that was given to Congress to sway its vote on October 11, 2002.
And most importantly these are examples of the same kind charges that the Bush administration now tries to say were never made, like we're deluded idiots.
Saddam is no longer in power. But in reality, so what? The Iraqis are worse off. They still don't even have the basic necessities of life like clean water, sanitation provisions, and electricity. They've had to watch family members imprisoned, tortured, and killed for 3 years without Saddam in charge.
And our soldiers are still dying in record numbers. Not a day goes by that there is not another attack on the troops who are saddled with trying to restore order to a country on the brink of anarchy.
Bush told the American people that we were compelled to go to war to secure our country from a grave threat. Are we safer today than we were on March 18, 2003?
For the first time in history, the US went to war because of intelligence reports claiming that a country posed a grave threat to our nation. We should accept nothing less than a full-scale, wide-open Congressional investigation into the issue of pre-war intelligence on the threat from Iraq.
It is in the compelling national interest to examine what we were told about the threat from Iraq to determine once and for all whether the intelligence was faulty or distorted.
The purpose of such an investigation is not to engage in "revisionist history." It is to get at the truth. The American people have valid questions that deserve to be answered.
The war in Iraq is a mistake. No it's worse than a mistake. Lets quit pussy-footing around and call it like it is. The war in Iraq is a grand profiteering scheme gone awry and Americans need to take off their blinders and face the truth.
As the cost of the war leaves a deeper black hole of debt for our great-grandchildren, people need to ask themselves whether the hundreds of billions spent thus far have helped anyone other than reconstruction companies and defense contractors. It takes no thought, the answer is no.
And after that, to paraphrase a powerful John Kerry comment from the Viet Nam era, Americans need think about which soldier will be the last to die for this mistake.
Day in and day out, Bush is on TV saying we will not withdraw from Iraq. How much longer will Americans put up with this bumbling idiot?
The rumblings for impeachment are getting louder and for good reason. The British memo released this week on Bush's conversation with Tony Blair in January 2003, not only proves that Bush planned to take the country to war using whatever lies he deemed necessary, it also proves that there was no plan for post-war Iraq.
Bush is throwing good money after bad like a compulsive gambler, as our troops get sucked deeper and deeper into a bloody quagmire. The situation in Iraq has elevated beyond a disaster and all Bush wants to do is sink more tax dollars into the same failed policies that brought us to this point.
Over the past 6 months, we have heard a lot of accusations about "revisionist history" from Bush and his minions in answer to those who dare to question whether there ever was a real threat from Iraq.
However, there is an abundance of evidence that administration officials sought to portray Iraq as a deadly threat to the American people in the run-up to war. But as we now know, there is a great difference between the hand-picked intelligence that was presented to Congress and the American people when compared to what was actually in Iraq.
Americans were fed a fairy tale about fighting a war of liberation that would be short, cheap, and bloodless. The Bush administration was like a pied piper as it lead the nation into the Iraq disaster.
In hindsight, what is particularly troublesome is how naively the nation followed.
Looking back, there were countless examples of provocative rhetoric as they lead the country to war in Iraq. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush coined the phrase "Axis of Evil," while pointing at Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
In October 2002, the White House Press Secretary said regime change in Iraq could be accomplished with "the cost of one bullet."
On March 17, in his final speech to the American people before the invasion, Bush took one last opportunity to bolster his case for war. The centerpiece of his argument was the same message he brought to the UN months before, and the same message he hammered home at every opportunity in the intervening months, namely that Saddam had failed to destroy the WMDs and presented an imminent danger to the American people.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments," he said, "leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
In a public address on March 19, 2003, Bush told the world: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
Three years have passed, and the US has yet to find a single shred of evidence to confirm the official reason that our country was sent to war; namely, that Iraq's WMDs constituted a grave threat to the US.
On January 28, 2003, Bush said in his State of the Union Address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
We now know that the CIA said that claim was false as early as March 2002 and that the International Atomic Energy Agency had also discredited the allegation. But they just went ahead and used it anyways.
On February 5, Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."
In a radio address on February 8, 2003, Bush told the nation: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
The fact is, after 3 years, we have not found any of these items, nor have we found those thousands of rockets loaded with chemical weapons.
On March 30, 2003, Rumsfeld said in an interview on This Week, of the search for WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."
However, Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003, and Tikrit on April 14, 2003, and the intelligence Rumsfeld spoke of has not led to any WMDs.
Whether or not intelligence reports were bent, stretched, or fabricated to make Iraq look like an imminent threat, it is clear that the administration's rhetoric played upon the fear of the American people about future terrorism attacks.
But, under close scrutiny, most of the statements had nothing to do with intelligence; the were merely designed to prey on public fear. Through smoke and mirrors, the face of bin Laden was morphed into that of Saddam. Bush himself blurred the image in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union Address when he said:
"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans – this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
Not only did the administration warn about more hijackers carrying deadly chemicals, it even went so far as to say that in the time it would take for UN inspectors to find 'smoking gun' evidence of Saddam's illegal weapons, the US was at risk of a nuclear attack.
Condoleeza Rice by the Los Angeles Times, was quoted as saying on September 9, 2002: "We don't want the 'smoking gun' to be a mushroom cloud."
Talk about fabrication, where did the term mushroom cloud come from? What was this statement based on?
On September 26, 2002, just two weeks before Congress voted on a resolution, Bush himself pushed the case that Iraq was plotting to attack the US. After meeting with members of Congress that day, Bush said:
"The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.... The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year."
These are his words. Bush said Saddam is "seeking a nuclear bomb." Has he ever produced any evidence to back up this allegation? No. And, his rhetoric continued that day in the Rose Garden, where he said:
"The dangers we face will only worsen from month to month and from year to year. To ignore these threats is to encourage them. And when they have fully materialized it may be too late to protect ourselves and our friends and our allies. By then the Iraqi dictator would have the means to terrorize and dominate the region. Each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX – nerve gas – or some day a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally."
And yet, 3 years later, we have not seen a shred of evidence to support this claim of grave dangers, chemical weapons, links to al Qaeda, or nuclear weapons.
Four days before a vote on the resolution, on October 7, 2002, Bush ramped up the scare tactics and stated: "We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy – the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade."
Bush then went even further by saying: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."
During his speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center, he also elaborated on Iraq's nuclear program and said:
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' - his nuclear holy warriors.... If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."
This is the kind of outrageous rhetoric that was given to the American people to justify war with Iraq. This is the same kind of hyped fabricated evidence that was given to Congress to sway its vote on October 11, 2002.
And most importantly these are examples of the same kind charges that the Bush administration now tries to say were never made, like we're deluded idiots.
Saddam is no longer in power. But in reality, so what? The Iraqis are worse off. They still don't even have the basic necessities of life like clean water, sanitation provisions, and electricity. They've had to watch family members imprisoned, tortured, and killed for 3 years without Saddam in charge.
And our soldiers are still dying in record numbers. Not a day goes by that there is not another attack on the troops who are saddled with trying to restore order to a country on the brink of anarchy.
Bush told the American people that we were compelled to go to war to secure our country from a grave threat. Are we safer today than we were on March 18, 2003?
For the first time in history, the US went to war because of intelligence reports claiming that a country posed a grave threat to our nation. We should accept nothing less than a full-scale, wide-open Congressional investigation into the issue of pre-war intelligence on the threat from Iraq.
It is in the compelling national interest to examine what we were told about the threat from Iraq to determine once and for all whether the intelligence was faulty or distorted.
The purpose of such an investigation is not to engage in "revisionist history." It is to get at the truth. The American people have valid questions that deserve to be answered.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Bin Laden Sitting In A Cave Laughing
Evelyn Pringle November 14, 2005
The war in Iraq is a miserable failure, any way you look at it. Retired General Anthony Zinni, former commander of the US Central Command, had it right when he said that by manufacturing a false rationale for war, abandoning traditional allies, propping up and trusting Iraqi exiles, and failing to plan for post-war Iraq, Bush has made the US less secure, instead of safer.
Osama himself could not have created the mess that Bush got us into, even if he had tried and he's probably sitting in his cave laughing his fool head off as we speak.
By launching a war against a country that posed no real threat to anyone, Bush not only sabotaged bin Laden's capture, he destroyed our credibility all over the world. As we recently witnessed with Katrina, by over-extending our forces, Bush has lessened our ability to respond to emergencies at home which means we can logically assume that he has lessened our ability to respond to an actual threat of terror should one arise.
How Did We End Up With Bush Anyways?
During the 2000 presidential campaign, the Republican platform contained the following statements:
* Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness.
* A comprehensive strategy for combating the new dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction must include a variety of other measures to contain and prevent the spread of such weapons. We need the cooperation of friends and allies."
* Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments.
The Republican prophets who wrote those comments should get a job in a circus because they were able to predict exactly what would happen in the Iraq war under the Bush administration, with its endless missions, back-to-back deployments, inadequate training, poor pay, shortage of equipment, no cooperation of friends and allies, and blaming the CIA for misjudgments, and on and on and on.
We were told us that Iraqis would welcome us and thank us for getting rid of Saddam. Immediately before the war, in a March 16, 2003, interview, Dick Cheney said, "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators."
I am still waiting for someone to tell me why the Iraqis would thank us. Saddam may be gone, but innocent Iraqis have suffered the same human rights violations at the hands of the occupying forces that they did years ago under Saddam.
They live in fear of torture every day; in fact more so than when Saddam was in power. Incidents of rape, murder and kidnapping have skyrocketed since we arrived to "save" them. The number of violent deaths went from an average of 14 a month in 2002, to 357 a month in 2003, the year we went to "save" them.
Iraqis still don’t even have the basic necessities that they had with Saddam in power. Water and electricity continue to operate at lower levels than they did before the war.
Joblessness is at a record high. Over half the workers in the country are either without a job or working for less than a living wage, due to the fact that the gang of profiteers made sure the reconstruction contracts went to US companies, rather than Iraqi firms.
Why would Iraqis thank us? Or the lucky ones that have managed to stay alive that is.
A Year Of Big Lies
In the months leading up to the war, Bush told the world, that the US had to wage a preemptive war against Iraq, not only due to the imminent threat of WMDs, but also because there were links between Saddam and bin Laden.
However, the administration has since said that it never claimed that Saddam posed an "imminent" threat, and therefore, Bush cannot be accused of misleading anyone.
How soon they forget. First of all, many officials did use the word “imminent” and others used words that had the exact same meaning, like "mortal," "urgent," "immediate", "serious and mounting," and "unique." They even went so far as to say that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction."
Yet during a press conference a few months after the war began, when reporters started to question why we were in Iraq, White House spokesman, Scott McClellan said, "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used."
Could that be true? Am I a poor listener? No. It means that either Scott lied, or he has a poor memory, because on February 10, 2003, Scott himself used the "I" word and said, "This is about imminent threat."
He apparently also forgot about the statement made by then, Bush Communications Director, Dan Bartlett, on January 26, 2003, when he said, "Well, of course he is," in response to a reporter's question, "is Saddam an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?"
Hands down, it is Scott who is the poor listener because he even forgot the comment made by his old boss on May 7, 2003. When then Press Secretary, Ari Fliescher, was asked whether or not Iraq was an “imminent threat,” he responded, “Absolutely.”
Let's review some of the lies told in speeches and press conferences and cable news shows, to convince Americans and Congress that we had to go to war, beginning with the most masterful liar of all time, Dick Cheney, who said 3 times over a period of only 2 days:
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies." 1/31/03.
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world." 1/30/03.
Iraq "threatens the United States of America." 1/30/03
Before that, on August 29, 2002, Cheney elaborated fully: "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program," he said.
"These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed," Cheney advised, "so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses."
"What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat," he warned, "is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
According my computer's Thesaures, "mortal" means "deadly." Is that kinda like "imminent?"
Lets move on to the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, whose comments were always over the top. On November 14, 2002, Rummy used the ever present fear over 9/11 to sell the war:
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before?" he asked. "When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat?"
"Now," Rummy said, "transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month ... So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" he asked reporters.
Here’s where Rumsfeld used the nuclear mantra, complete with the now infamous line about Saddam seeking uranium from Africa:
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Rumsfeld claimed on January 1, 2003.
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons," Rumsfeld said, "I would not be so certain."
There's that pesky "imminent" word again.
"And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons," Rummy warned on September 18, 2002. "Iraq has these weapons," he added.
Here’s where he claims Saddam is the worst threat on earth. "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq," he said on September 19, 2002.
Colin Powell Plays The Starring Role
While we're at it, lets take some time to review the many statements made by Colin Powell when he landed the starring role on the world stage, with his speech at the UN. Colin knew it would be no easy sell, so he brought photographs along to show where the WMD sites were, and informed the world that he had "human sources," to back up all of his assertions.
“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions," he stated. "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
Colin went on to say, "I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources."
He then introduced the pictures and said, “We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities."
Next he proceeded to hone in on specific photos and explained what each one showed.
“Let's look at one," Colin said, "This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji."
Of another, he said, "This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions." In fact, Colin told the audience, "this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells."
“Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines," he said of another. "The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers," he added.
For some reason, everyone always seems to want to give Colin Powell a pass on whatever he does. I don't.
By now, I would say this to Mr Powell: here’s your chance to redeem yourself. For starters, lets see those photos again, and then explain exactly what happened to those yellow and red bunkers you pointed out in the pictures. After that, I want to meet the photographers who claimed to have taken the pictures.
And one more thing, I would request that Colin list the names and whereabouts of each and every one of those solid "human" sources he kept referring to.
In his speech, Colin described the relationships between Al Qaida, Osama and Saddam, that according to his account, had been strong for many years.
"Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida," he told the audience.
“Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan," Colin said, "an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad."
“We know members of both organizations met repeatedly," he said. In fact, Colin claimed to know that they "have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s."
"In 1996," Colin continued, "a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service."
He obviously was trying to convince the world that Saddam was ecstatic about all of the terrorist attacks against the US, when he said, “Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks."
"A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania," Colin said. "Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000," he added.
I say its time for Congress to instruct Powell to produce this “detained" Al Qaida member who gave the administration all of this valuable information. That should be easy enough if the guy is "detained."
Later in his speech, Colin made it sound like the Iraqis, Al Qaida, Saddam and Osama were the best of buddies, even houseguests of one another, backed up no less, by another "human source."
“Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan," Colin said.
So if true, this means that the Iraqis got to visit Osama's "new home" but the world's superpower couldn't find a damn cave. Osama must have really had a good laugh when he heard that line.
But in hindsight, it was even more comical when Colin said, "A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery."
Think about that, a forgery college in Afghanistan. Funny thing, the only forgeries I've ever heard about were the ones used by the Bush administration to convince Americans we had to go to war.
What were those again? A college student's term paper from many years ago and the documents purporting to show that Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa? As I recall, all were easily identified as fake, but we still have never learned who exactly forged the Africa-uranium documents or why they ended up at the White House.
When the truth finally comes out, I suspect that a few members of the Bush gang may wish that they had attended the "forgery training" college in Afghanistan.
Next, Colin held up a photo and told the audience that it showed a poison and explosive training camp, located in northeastern Iraq.
“You see a picture of this camp," he said, "The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons."
Colin then proceeded to give the world a chemistry lesson, complete with hand gestures, and said: "Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure," he explained.
He followed up with the dire warning: "Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure," he said, "It is fatal.”
If he wants to clear his name, Colin needs to hold a televised press conference and explain to the world exactly what happened to the training camp in that photo, with its pinches of deadly ricin, because it has apparently vanished off the face of the planet.
Or being that I'm just a lowly tax payer funding this disaster, would that be too much to ask?
The Puppet In The White House
Last but certainly not least (except IQ-wise), lets review a few statements made by the puppet orchestrating the scheme, President Bush himself Here are a few of the lines that he threw out there to us in the run-up to the war:
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." 1/3/03
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America." 11/3/02
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." 11/1/02.
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein." 10/28/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." 10/2/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." 9/26/02
Looking at the above comments with 20/20 hindsight, they may have provided a sign that Bush was back on the bottle. As anyone who has spent time around a drunk knows, drunks have a habit of repeating themselves over and over and over. And that goes double for all that Cheney said, because even after 2 drunk driving tickets, he remained on the sauce, bad ticker and all.
Four months into the war, on July 2, 2003, Bush showed signs of being drunk again now that I think about it, when he stated: "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat," and then said, "He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
This from a guy who swears who he's been on the wagon since age 40.
Tax Payers Left Holding The Bag
In the months leading up to the war, we were told that Iraqi oil would pay for the country's reconstruction after we destroyed it. A March 2003, report by the White House Office of Management and Budget said: "Iraq will not require sustained aid."
In testimony before Congress on March 27, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz said Iraq "can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
As a tax payer, I demand to know when "relatively soon" is going to get here.
On April 23, 2003, Andrew Natsios, head of the US Agency for International Development, gave a televised interview and outlined the costs of rebuilding Iraq to the taxpayers, "the American part of this will be $1.7 billion," he said. "We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."
Within 5 months of Natsios' assessment, Bush was back asking Congress for another $20 billion.
And being that he has probably never had to balance a check book in his life, Bush obviously has never heard the term "in the red." But then again, why should he care, its only our money.
Never mind that Bush has not received a single flower or thank-you note from the Iraqis, the good-hearted fellow that he's known to be, he just keeps telling Congress to go ahead and write out another check to fund a war which he now says is for "freedom."
In February 2003, Rumsfeld predicted that the war "could last six days, six weeks," but "I doubt six months," he said. Well here we sit, 31 months into the war, with an endless stream of casualties day after day, and our country headed towards bankruptcy, and there is no end in sight.
On October, 2002, the day the senate voted on the resolution, John Kerry took to the floor of the senate and during a speech, gave the nation a prophetic forecast of what would happen if Bush attacked Iraq without good cause and without other countries.
"If we go it alone without reason," Kerry warned, "we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed."
In closing, Kerry stated: "When I vote to give ... the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region."
The fact is, there was no arsenal of weapons and Saddam was no threat, imminent or otherwise. Bush and his band of chickenhawks lied to Kerry, to other members of Congress, to taxpayers, and the world, in order to pull off their grand profiteering scheme.
Now that we know the truth, the whole damn bunch should be tried as war criminals, and once they are convicted and sent to prison, they should be treated every bit as well as they have treated prisoners jailed under their watch over the past 5 years.
The war in Iraq is a miserable failure, any way you look at it. Retired General Anthony Zinni, former commander of the US Central Command, had it right when he said that by manufacturing a false rationale for war, abandoning traditional allies, propping up and trusting Iraqi exiles, and failing to plan for post-war Iraq, Bush has made the US less secure, instead of safer.
Osama himself could not have created the mess that Bush got us into, even if he had tried and he's probably sitting in his cave laughing his fool head off as we speak.
By launching a war against a country that posed no real threat to anyone, Bush not only sabotaged bin Laden's capture, he destroyed our credibility all over the world. As we recently witnessed with Katrina, by over-extending our forces, Bush has lessened our ability to respond to emergencies at home which means we can logically assume that he has lessened our ability to respond to an actual threat of terror should one arise.
How Did We End Up With Bush Anyways?
During the 2000 presidential campaign, the Republican platform contained the following statements:
* Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness.
* A comprehensive strategy for combating the new dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction must include a variety of other measures to contain and prevent the spread of such weapons. We need the cooperation of friends and allies."
* Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments.
The Republican prophets who wrote those comments should get a job in a circus because they were able to predict exactly what would happen in the Iraq war under the Bush administration, with its endless missions, back-to-back deployments, inadequate training, poor pay, shortage of equipment, no cooperation of friends and allies, and blaming the CIA for misjudgments, and on and on and on.
We were told us that Iraqis would welcome us and thank us for getting rid of Saddam. Immediately before the war, in a March 16, 2003, interview, Dick Cheney said, "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators."
I am still waiting for someone to tell me why the Iraqis would thank us. Saddam may be gone, but innocent Iraqis have suffered the same human rights violations at the hands of the occupying forces that they did years ago under Saddam.
They live in fear of torture every day; in fact more so than when Saddam was in power. Incidents of rape, murder and kidnapping have skyrocketed since we arrived to "save" them. The number of violent deaths went from an average of 14 a month in 2002, to 357 a month in 2003, the year we went to "save" them.
Iraqis still don’t even have the basic necessities that they had with Saddam in power. Water and electricity continue to operate at lower levels than they did before the war.
Joblessness is at a record high. Over half the workers in the country are either without a job or working for less than a living wage, due to the fact that the gang of profiteers made sure the reconstruction contracts went to US companies, rather than Iraqi firms.
Why would Iraqis thank us? Or the lucky ones that have managed to stay alive that is.
A Year Of Big Lies
In the months leading up to the war, Bush told the world, that the US had to wage a preemptive war against Iraq, not only due to the imminent threat of WMDs, but also because there were links between Saddam and bin Laden.
However, the administration has since said that it never claimed that Saddam posed an "imminent" threat, and therefore, Bush cannot be accused of misleading anyone.
How soon they forget. First of all, many officials did use the word “imminent” and others used words that had the exact same meaning, like "mortal," "urgent," "immediate", "serious and mounting," and "unique." They even went so far as to say that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction."
Yet during a press conference a few months after the war began, when reporters started to question why we were in Iraq, White House spokesman, Scott McClellan said, "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used."
Could that be true? Am I a poor listener? No. It means that either Scott lied, or he has a poor memory, because on February 10, 2003, Scott himself used the "I" word and said, "This is about imminent threat."
He apparently also forgot about the statement made by then, Bush Communications Director, Dan Bartlett, on January 26, 2003, when he said, "Well, of course he is," in response to a reporter's question, "is Saddam an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?"
Hands down, it is Scott who is the poor listener because he even forgot the comment made by his old boss on May 7, 2003. When then Press Secretary, Ari Fliescher, was asked whether or not Iraq was an “imminent threat,” he responded, “Absolutely.”
Let's review some of the lies told in speeches and press conferences and cable news shows, to convince Americans and Congress that we had to go to war, beginning with the most masterful liar of all time, Dick Cheney, who said 3 times over a period of only 2 days:
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies." 1/31/03.
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world." 1/30/03.
Iraq "threatens the United States of America." 1/30/03
Before that, on August 29, 2002, Cheney elaborated fully: "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program," he said.
"These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed," Cheney advised, "so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses."
"What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat," he warned, "is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
According my computer's Thesaures, "mortal" means "deadly." Is that kinda like "imminent?"
Lets move on to the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, whose comments were always over the top. On November 14, 2002, Rummy used the ever present fear over 9/11 to sell the war:
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before?" he asked. "When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat?"
"Now," Rummy said, "transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month ... So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" he asked reporters.
Here’s where Rumsfeld used the nuclear mantra, complete with the now infamous line about Saddam seeking uranium from Africa:
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Rumsfeld claimed on January 1, 2003.
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons," Rumsfeld said, "I would not be so certain."
There's that pesky "imminent" word again.
"And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons," Rummy warned on September 18, 2002. "Iraq has these weapons," he added.
Here’s where he claims Saddam is the worst threat on earth. "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq," he said on September 19, 2002.
Colin Powell Plays The Starring Role
While we're at it, lets take some time to review the many statements made by Colin Powell when he landed the starring role on the world stage, with his speech at the UN. Colin knew it would be no easy sell, so he brought photographs along to show where the WMD sites were, and informed the world that he had "human sources," to back up all of his assertions.
“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions," he stated. "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
Colin went on to say, "I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources."
He then introduced the pictures and said, “We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities."
Next he proceeded to hone in on specific photos and explained what each one showed.
“Let's look at one," Colin said, "This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji."
Of another, he said, "This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions." In fact, Colin told the audience, "this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells."
“Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines," he said of another. "The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers," he added.
For some reason, everyone always seems to want to give Colin Powell a pass on whatever he does. I don't.
By now, I would say this to Mr Powell: here’s your chance to redeem yourself. For starters, lets see those photos again, and then explain exactly what happened to those yellow and red bunkers you pointed out in the pictures. After that, I want to meet the photographers who claimed to have taken the pictures.
And one more thing, I would request that Colin list the names and whereabouts of each and every one of those solid "human" sources he kept referring to.
In his speech, Colin described the relationships between Al Qaida, Osama and Saddam, that according to his account, had been strong for many years.
"Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida," he told the audience.
“Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan," Colin said, "an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad."
“We know members of both organizations met repeatedly," he said. In fact, Colin claimed to know that they "have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s."
"In 1996," Colin continued, "a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service."
He obviously was trying to convince the world that Saddam was ecstatic about all of the terrorist attacks against the US, when he said, “Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks."
"A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania," Colin said. "Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000," he added.
I say its time for Congress to instruct Powell to produce this “detained" Al Qaida member who gave the administration all of this valuable information. That should be easy enough if the guy is "detained."
Later in his speech, Colin made it sound like the Iraqis, Al Qaida, Saddam and Osama were the best of buddies, even houseguests of one another, backed up no less, by another "human source."
“Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan," Colin said.
So if true, this means that the Iraqis got to visit Osama's "new home" but the world's superpower couldn't find a damn cave. Osama must have really had a good laugh when he heard that line.
But in hindsight, it was even more comical when Colin said, "A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery."
Think about that, a forgery college in Afghanistan. Funny thing, the only forgeries I've ever heard about were the ones used by the Bush administration to convince Americans we had to go to war.
What were those again? A college student's term paper from many years ago and the documents purporting to show that Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa? As I recall, all were easily identified as fake, but we still have never learned who exactly forged the Africa-uranium documents or why they ended up at the White House.
When the truth finally comes out, I suspect that a few members of the Bush gang may wish that they had attended the "forgery training" college in Afghanistan.
Next, Colin held up a photo and told the audience that it showed a poison and explosive training camp, located in northeastern Iraq.
“You see a picture of this camp," he said, "The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons."
Colin then proceeded to give the world a chemistry lesson, complete with hand gestures, and said: "Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure," he explained.
He followed up with the dire warning: "Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure," he said, "It is fatal.”
If he wants to clear his name, Colin needs to hold a televised press conference and explain to the world exactly what happened to the training camp in that photo, with its pinches of deadly ricin, because it has apparently vanished off the face of the planet.
Or being that I'm just a lowly tax payer funding this disaster, would that be too much to ask?
The Puppet In The White House
Last but certainly not least (except IQ-wise), lets review a few statements made by the puppet orchestrating the scheme, President Bush himself Here are a few of the lines that he threw out there to us in the run-up to the war:
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." 1/3/03
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America." 11/3/02
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." 11/1/02.
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein." 10/28/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." 10/2/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." 9/26/02
Looking at the above comments with 20/20 hindsight, they may have provided a sign that Bush was back on the bottle. As anyone who has spent time around a drunk knows, drunks have a habit of repeating themselves over and over and over. And that goes double for all that Cheney said, because even after 2 drunk driving tickets, he remained on the sauce, bad ticker and all.
Four months into the war, on July 2, 2003, Bush showed signs of being drunk again now that I think about it, when he stated: "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat," and then said, "He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
This from a guy who swears who he's been on the wagon since age 40.
Tax Payers Left Holding The Bag
In the months leading up to the war, we were told that Iraqi oil would pay for the country's reconstruction after we destroyed it. A March 2003, report by the White House Office of Management and Budget said: "Iraq will not require sustained aid."
In testimony before Congress on March 27, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz said Iraq "can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
As a tax payer, I demand to know when "relatively soon" is going to get here.
On April 23, 2003, Andrew Natsios, head of the US Agency for International Development, gave a televised interview and outlined the costs of rebuilding Iraq to the taxpayers, "the American part of this will be $1.7 billion," he said. "We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."
Within 5 months of Natsios' assessment, Bush was back asking Congress for another $20 billion.
And being that he has probably never had to balance a check book in his life, Bush obviously has never heard the term "in the red." But then again, why should he care, its only our money.
Never mind that Bush has not received a single flower or thank-you note from the Iraqis, the good-hearted fellow that he's known to be, he just keeps telling Congress to go ahead and write out another check to fund a war which he now says is for "freedom."
In February 2003, Rumsfeld predicted that the war "could last six days, six weeks," but "I doubt six months," he said. Well here we sit, 31 months into the war, with an endless stream of casualties day after day, and our country headed towards bankruptcy, and there is no end in sight.
On October, 2002, the day the senate voted on the resolution, John Kerry took to the floor of the senate and during a speech, gave the nation a prophetic forecast of what would happen if Bush attacked Iraq without good cause and without other countries.
"If we go it alone without reason," Kerry warned, "we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed."
In closing, Kerry stated: "When I vote to give ... the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region."
The fact is, there was no arsenal of weapons and Saddam was no threat, imminent or otherwise. Bush and his band of chickenhawks lied to Kerry, to other members of Congress, to taxpayers, and the world, in order to pull off their grand profiteering scheme.
Now that we know the truth, the whole damn bunch should be tried as war criminals, and once they are convicted and sent to prison, they should be treated every bit as well as they have treated prisoners jailed under their watch over the past 5 years.
Bush Team Has Good Reason To Worry
Evelyn Pringle November 15, 2005
In its systematic and concerted effort to portray a link between Saddam and bin Laden, the White House propaganda team was so successful, that a poll conducted in late 2002, showed that over half of the people polled believed that Saddam was connected to 9/11.
While that may have been great news for the home team back then, the problem for Bush today, is that he is never going to get 50% of Americans to erase their memory of all the statements that were made and believe the line that members of the administration never said anything to make people think that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
The truth is that the story about Saddam supporting al Qaeda was a key component in case for war and the administration worked non-stop to promote it even though the basis for the story was debunked early on by intelligence officials.
When making public remarks and speeches indicating a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Candy Rice consistently failed to mention the fact that intelligence agencies had dismissed it as false.
According to the March 16, 2004, report, “Iraq On The Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements On Iraq,” from the Committee on Government Reform, together the above 5 top officials “made 61 misleading statements about the strength of the Iraq-al Qaeda alliance in 52 public appearances.”
The new Senate investigation hasn't even got off the ground and already, the future is looking grim for the Bush team. It has now been revealed that US military intelligence specifically warned the administration in February 2002, that the key source of information about Al-Qaeda's ties to Iraq had provided "intentionally misleading" data, in a newly declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document made public this month.
While this is clear evidence that they should have known better, over the following year, top officials continued to make false claims that the Iraqi government was training and supporting members of bin Laden's terrorist group to bolster their rationale for war.
For instance, eight months later, in a speech on November 7, 2002, Bush told the audience: Saddam Hussein is “a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.”
In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, Bush said, “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.”
On January 26, 2003, when speaking at the World Economic Forum, Colin Powell stated, “The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, more time for him to pass a weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again.
In his February 5, 2003 speech at the UN, Powell told the audience: “what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder."
"Iraq today," Powell said, "harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.”
To intentionally play on the public's emotions, around the second anniversary of 9/11, Dick Cheney told Tim Russert on Meet the Press, that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Cheney also told the Heritage Foundation on October 10, 2003, that Saddam Hussein “had an established relationship with al Qaeda.”
The Bush Team Should Be Worried
The administration has good reason to worry about the investigation. Last year, it got a glimpse of the kind of information that will likely come out, on March 9, 2004, during then CIA Director, George Tenet's testimony before the Armed Services Committee, when Democrats revealed that Scooter Libby, had received secret intelligence briefings in August 2002, on Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda, from then Assistant Secretary of Defense, Douglas Feith.
Prior to that hearing, Feith had already said that he never gave any such briefings, which in turn supported the theory that a private secret intelligence group in the White House was set up to manufacture the case for war. Tenet, himself told the committee that he had only first learned of Feith's private briefings "last week."
Feith better not be too comfortable in his retirement because he is definitely going to be spending some time up on the Hill. Virtually everything that went wrong in Iraq, relating to matters that Congress will be investigating, can be traced back to Feith's door. He played a leading role in the run-up to war.
The buck stops with Feith on its way to Cheney and Bush. Who knows, maybe Feith will agree to take the hit and he and Libby can bunk together in prison.
The Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans (OSP), were both established under Feith's authority and will in all likelihood garner particular interest during the investigation.
The OSP, with the help of Ahmed Chalabi and his band of defectors, is believed to have cooked up the most alarming pre-war intelligence and "stovepiped" it to Bush through Rumsfeld and Cheney, without the vetting of any intelligence offical, in order to establish the existence of a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
The content of Feith's August 2002, private briefings have been described as a cherry-picked collection of raw, uncorroborated pieces of information, which painted a false picture of a link between Saddam and 9/11
The investigation will surely focus on October 2003, when Feith sent a memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing proof of a definite relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it somehow got published in the November 2003, Weekly Standard, complete with the memo’s classified annex claiming that its list of Iraq–al Qaeda contacts proved “an operational relationship from the early 1990s” and that “there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein’s Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans.”
The Defense Department immediately ran for cover and issued a statement saying that “[t]he classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.”
And on March 9, 2004, when Tenet again testified before the Armed Services Committee, he made sure to tell the committee that the CIA “did not agree with the way the data was characterized in that document.”
The investigation team will no doubt want to interview the neocon's best friend, Ahmed Chalabi, but he has already demonstrated that he could care less if he's accused of deliberately misleading the US in making the case for war, being he got what he wanted.
"We are heroes in error," he told the News Telegraph on February 19, 2004. "As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad," he said, "What was said before is not important."
In its systematic and concerted effort to portray a link between Saddam and bin Laden, the White House propaganda team was so successful, that a poll conducted in late 2002, showed that over half of the people polled believed that Saddam was connected to 9/11.
While that may have been great news for the home team back then, the problem for Bush today, is that he is never going to get 50% of Americans to erase their memory of all the statements that were made and believe the line that members of the administration never said anything to make people think that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
The truth is that the story about Saddam supporting al Qaeda was a key component in case for war and the administration worked non-stop to promote it even though the basis for the story was debunked early on by intelligence officials.
When making public remarks and speeches indicating a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Candy Rice consistently failed to mention the fact that intelligence agencies had dismissed it as false.
According to the March 16, 2004, report, “Iraq On The Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements On Iraq,” from the Committee on Government Reform, together the above 5 top officials “made 61 misleading statements about the strength of the Iraq-al Qaeda alliance in 52 public appearances.”
The new Senate investigation hasn't even got off the ground and already, the future is looking grim for the Bush team. It has now been revealed that US military intelligence specifically warned the administration in February 2002, that the key source of information about Al-Qaeda's ties to Iraq had provided "intentionally misleading" data, in a newly declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document made public this month.
While this is clear evidence that they should have known better, over the following year, top officials continued to make false claims that the Iraqi government was training and supporting members of bin Laden's terrorist group to bolster their rationale for war.
For instance, eight months later, in a speech on November 7, 2002, Bush told the audience: Saddam Hussein is “a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.”
In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, Bush said, “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.”
On January 26, 2003, when speaking at the World Economic Forum, Colin Powell stated, “The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, more time for him to pass a weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again.
In his February 5, 2003 speech at the UN, Powell told the audience: “what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder."
"Iraq today," Powell said, "harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.”
To intentionally play on the public's emotions, around the second anniversary of 9/11, Dick Cheney told Tim Russert on Meet the Press, that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Cheney also told the Heritage Foundation on October 10, 2003, that Saddam Hussein “had an established relationship with al Qaeda.”
The Bush Team Should Be Worried
The administration has good reason to worry about the investigation. Last year, it got a glimpse of the kind of information that will likely come out, on March 9, 2004, during then CIA Director, George Tenet's testimony before the Armed Services Committee, when Democrats revealed that Scooter Libby, had received secret intelligence briefings in August 2002, on Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda, from then Assistant Secretary of Defense, Douglas Feith.
Prior to that hearing, Feith had already said that he never gave any such briefings, which in turn supported the theory that a private secret intelligence group in the White House was set up to manufacture the case for war. Tenet, himself told the committee that he had only first learned of Feith's private briefings "last week."
Feith better not be too comfortable in his retirement because he is definitely going to be spending some time up on the Hill. Virtually everything that went wrong in Iraq, relating to matters that Congress will be investigating, can be traced back to Feith's door. He played a leading role in the run-up to war.
The buck stops with Feith on its way to Cheney and Bush. Who knows, maybe Feith will agree to take the hit and he and Libby can bunk together in prison.
The Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans (OSP), were both established under Feith's authority and will in all likelihood garner particular interest during the investigation.
The OSP, with the help of Ahmed Chalabi and his band of defectors, is believed to have cooked up the most alarming pre-war intelligence and "stovepiped" it to Bush through Rumsfeld and Cheney, without the vetting of any intelligence offical, in order to establish the existence of a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
The content of Feith's August 2002, private briefings have been described as a cherry-picked collection of raw, uncorroborated pieces of information, which painted a false picture of a link between Saddam and 9/11
The investigation will surely focus on October 2003, when Feith sent a memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing proof of a definite relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it somehow got published in the November 2003, Weekly Standard, complete with the memo’s classified annex claiming that its list of Iraq–al Qaeda contacts proved “an operational relationship from the early 1990s” and that “there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein’s Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans.”
The Defense Department immediately ran for cover and issued a statement saying that “[t]he classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.”
And on March 9, 2004, when Tenet again testified before the Armed Services Committee, he made sure to tell the committee that the CIA “did not agree with the way the data was characterized in that document.”
The investigation team will no doubt want to interview the neocon's best friend, Ahmed Chalabi, but he has already demonstrated that he could care less if he's accused of deliberately misleading the US in making the case for war, being he got what he wanted.
"We are heroes in error," he told the News Telegraph on February 19, 2004. "As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad," he said, "What was said before is not important."
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Woolseys - Mom & Pop War Profiteering Team
January 21, 2005
Evelyn Pringle
The Defense Policy Board (DPB) is a hand-picked group of 30 people that advises Bush administration officials on matters such as whether and when to go to war, or not. The current group was selected by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, and approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Everyone who is anyone in the arms and defense industry knows that palling up to DPB members is the ticket to getting a Pentagon contract.
Shortly after the war in Iraq began, the April 10, 2003 New York Times pointed out that several board members stood to benefit financially from the war. It reported that the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) documented that 9 of the members were "linked to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002."
Promote War & Garner Positions For Profits
One of the members mentioned who stood to profit was R. James Woolsey. In addition to being a member of the DPB, Woolsey also sits on Navy and CIA advisory boards; and he is also a founding member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), a private group that was specifically set up by Bush in 2002, to find ways to increase public support for a war against Iraq.
Let me say right here and now that I think bold lines are crossed when people like Woolsey, who promote a specific war, financially benefit from their successful promotion. There should be a law that requires a standard recusal from all war profits by any policy advisor who advocates sending our young men and women off to die in that same war.
And I don't know about anybody else, but I've never heard of our government forming a group of promoters to rally support for a war before. I dare anyone to try and convince me that this war profiteering scheme wasn't well planned and managed from the get-go.
Mom & Pop Team Of War Profiteers
I would rate the husband and wife team of James and Suzanne Woolsey up there as one of the most blatant examples of war profiting that I‘ve ever seen. They both remain policy advisors on Iraq, even though they both work for private firms that do business there. James has long wanted to use US military might to transform the Middle East. "And he has pushed for war with Iraq as hard as anyone, even before the terrorist attacks of Sep 11, 2001," according to the April 8, 2003 Global Policy Forum.
That's right - long before 9/11. In January 1998, James signed the now infamous letter to Clinton from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) calling for regime change in Iraq (which Clinton trashed). In 1998, he also successfully lobbied to pass the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA), which allocated nearly $100 million for the Iraqi opposition, mainly the Iraq National Congress (INC), headed by none other than Ahmed Chalabi.
9/11 - Gift To Profiteering Team
The lobby for the war in Iraq immediately moved into high gear after 9/11. Within days, the DPB convened to discuss how they could use 9/11 to justify a war in Iraq. James was sent overseas to try to find a link between Saddam and bin Laden. He returned with the tale that an unnamed source had told the Czech intelligence that in April, 2001, he had observed a meeting between the lead 9/11 skyjacker and an Iraqi agent in Prague.
Even though the tale was deemed not credible by US, British, Israeli, and French, intelligence agencies, it became the basis of a major neo-con disinformation campaign against Saddam on cable news shows and editorial pages in major US newspapers.
James himself wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that said a foreign state had aided Al Qaeda in preparing the 9/11 attacks and pointed to Iraq as the prime suspect. In fact, James even went so far to allege that Saddam was behind the 1993 WTC bombing and the anthrax letters sent out after 9/11. In large part, the propaganda campaign was successful. A poll conducted in late 2002, showed that over half of those polled believed that Saddam was somehow linked to 9/11.
Woolsey & Chalabi - Secret Long-Time Buddies
Just when I think I have seen every dirty filthy angle by which money can be made in the war profiteering trade, something else turns up. I recently discovered a little tid-bit that I was unaware of. In addition to getting $100 million tax dollars allocated for the INC and Ahmed Chalabi in 1998, James also became lawyer and adviser to Iraq's "President in Waiting" in the same year.
With the help of the media, James must have forgot to mention this obvious conflict of interest while he was alleging collusion in 9/11 between Chalabi's enemy Saddam and bin Laden. This relationship definitely should have been made public before the war began because of its relevance to the truth or falsity of the justification given for waging war in Iraq to begin with.
Back in 1998, Chalabi sought legal help from Woolsey to secure the release of 6 of his INC associates from the detention center in Guam, even though the CIA said they were threats to US interests. James successfully freed Chalabi's minions and mowed a path for the so-called Iraqi defectors to feed bogus information to US intelligence teams.
The false information about WMDs and collusion between Saddam and bin Laden, that originated from the relationship of Chalabi and Woolsey, along with the resulting diversion of financial and military resources to Iraq, and away from the real terrorist bin Laden, has left the US with a limited ability to project military power anywhere else in the world. Any unexpected conflict would be a disaster with the military so overstretched in Iraq, and it looks like in large part, we can thank Woolsey and Chalabi for this predicament.
And as it turns out the CIA was right. One of men Woolsey freed, Aras Habib Karim, went on to become Chalabi's Chief of Intelligence, and has since leaked classified information to Iran, and is currently under investigation by the FBI. I wonder if James is representing the guy now?
James & Booz Allen Hamilton
At the same time that they were advocating for war in Iraq, its more than obvious that James and Suzanne Woolsey were positioning themselves for a future in defense-related firms, with an eye on the anticipated war profits.
James is a shining example of how the revolving door policy works in Washington. Although he left his position as director of the CIA in 1995, he remained a senior advisor on intelligence and national security policies.
And he also now works for several private firms that do business in Iraq. According to Citizens for Public Integrity, in July, 2002, James joined Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm that "had contracts worth more than $680 million" that year.
In May, 2003, in his capacity as a vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton, James was a featured speaker at a seminar entitled "Companies on the Ground: The Challenge for Business in Rebuilding Iraq." He spoke of the potential business opportunities in the reconstruction of Iraq and how Bush planned to steer the contracts to US companies. Approximately 80 corporate executives paid $1100 to listen to what he had to say.
May, 2003 was only 2 months after the war began. If not for his advisory positions in the Bush administration, how would James possibly be able to put together a investor seminar with information on how to make money in Iraq?
In addition, "Booz Allen is a subcontractor for a $75-million telecommunications project in Iraq. The company does extensive work for the Defense Department as well. Recently, the Navy awarded it $14 million in contracts," according to the Aug 15, 2004 LA Times.
In true Dick Cheney style, James said in an interview that "he had not been involved in Booz Allen's Iraq contracts," the Times reports. But then it really doesn't matter whether he was involved in a particular contract or not, because as a Vice President of the firm, he benefits from profits resulting from all contracts.
Besides his recent statement to the Times belies the title of his own May, 2003 seminar which was: "Companies on the Ground: The Challenge for Business in Rebuilding Iraq." What is he trying to say? That he never got paid for speaking at that seminar? That none of the 80 executives that attended ever contacted Booz work in Iraq? Yea right.
James & Paladin Capital Group
James positioned himself all over the map. He is now a principal in the Paladin Capital Group, another defense-related firm. In part, here is how the firm describes itself on its web site, Paladin Homeland Security Fund, L.P. Investment Strategy
As widely reported in public media, billions of dollars are being appropriated by the United States and foreign governments for replenishment of military stockpiles, deployment of new means to create more secure societies and creation of new standards, equipment, technologies and policies for coping with and recovering from the myriad forms of terrorism and attack. ... the General Partner believes that the Federal and State governments ... and indeed governments throughout the world, will look to ... private enterprise to address these issues. The General Partner believes that the private sector thus will look to expend billions of dollars to execute defense and security plans for security in the public sector and to deploy growth equity to produce the products and services that non-governmental organizations will require.
Fund Management
Operation of the Fund starts with an experienced management team. ... additional individuals who have prominent and distinguished records in relevant fields, including security, defense and information and technology sciences, have associated with Paladin Capital in connection with the Fund. These additional principals of the Fund include R. James Woolsey, ...
The Fund's Principals have extensive domestic and international experience in fund investments and in originating, underwriting, closing, monitoring and exiting investments similar to those that are proposed for the Fund. The additional Principals, including Mr. Woolsey, ... have extensive and distinguished track records in service within the security, defense and related fields.
Investment Guidelines Characteristics
Small to medium-sized, worker-friendly companies with the following characteristics: Must relate to defense, prevention, coping or recovery from disaster. Dual use: commercial and government applicability for products and services.
Surely no one could ever allege a possible conflict of interest between James serving on 3 defense-related boards (Navy, DPB, & CIA) with the US government and his involvement with this firm.
Global Options - James & DPB Member Livingstone
James is also plugged into Global Options, which is headed by his fellow DPB member Neil Livingstone. In addition to sitting on the DPB, Livingstone has served as a Pentagon and State Department advisor and has long called for overthrowing Saddam.
Livingstone was already promoting war against Iraq back in 1993, when he wrote an editorial for Newsday that said the US "should launch a massive covert program designed to remove Hussein." Well 11 years later, it looks like he finally got his wish, and just like his pal James, Livingstone is a regular speaker at investment seminars on Iraq.
Global Options provides contacts and consulting services to firms doing business in Iraq and "offers a wide range of security and risk management services," according to its website. Although James admits that he is a paid advisor at Global Options, he again says the work he does at the firm does not involve Iraq. And of course I believe him (not).
Suzanne - Better Half Of Profiteering Team
From 1993 - 2003, Suzanne was an executive with the National Academies, an institution that advises the government on science, engineering, and medicine. There's probably no big money to be made in that position and that's probably what motivated Suzanne seek a more potentially profitable government position.
And she sure found one. According to the Aug 15, 2004 LA Times, Suzanne is a trustee of a little-known arms consulting group that had access to senior Pentagon leaders directing the Iraq war.
Although she had zero experience with military or national security matters, in 2000 she became a trustee at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a nonprofit corporation paid to do research for the Pentagon. During the attack against Iraq, the IDA provided senior Pentagon officials with assessments of the operation.
Through this position, Suzanne had unlimited insider access to valuable information. For instance, the Times reported that in a June 3, 2003, briefing, Brigadier General Robert Cone of the Army, described the group's operation. "This team did business" within the Army Central Command "on a daily basis, by observing meeting and planning sessions, attending command updates, watching key decisions being made, watching problems being solved, and generally being provided unrestricted access to the business of the conduct of this war," Cone said, according to a transcript of the session.
The question is did Suzanne use the info to benefit the family business? I'll let the reader be the judge. She was appointed to "Fluor's board in January 2004, while Fluor and a partner, AMEC, were competing for two federal contracts to do reconstruction work in Iraq. A little more than a month after she was named, Fluor and AMEC got both contracts, with a combined value of $1.6 billion," according to the LA Times.
Although a Fluor official refused to discuss why Suzanne was chosen for the job, the official confirmed SEC filings that show, "Fluor pays outside directors (like Suzanne) $40,000 a year, plus stock options and additional fees for attending meetings," the Times reports.
As for the financial worth of her stock in the company, its looking good. Fluor's stock has risen steadily since the war in Iraq began. The Times reports that in August, 2004, it was $45 a share, up from a little more than $30 a share in March 2003. Reports filed with the SEC show Suzanne owns 1,500 shares of Fluor stock.
With Fluor making a bundle, it only stands to reason that all the more money can be funneled back into the Woolsey piggy bank. SEC filings show that Fluor reported that its revenue for the first quarter of the current fiscal year from work in Iraq totaled "approximately $190 million. There was no work in Iraq in the comparable period in 2003," reports the Times.
I would be willing to bet that any defense related firm would have given an arm and a leg to find out what was being said during those IDA meetings and war planning sessions. Oh of course I'm not suggesting that Suzanne was feeding Fluor information before she came on board and that's why she was hired. But at the same time, its sure difficult to think of any other reason why she would be hired.
Here's another profiteering trick that I would never have thought of. Suzanne even managed to get paid while she gathered the insider information. Tax records show that in 2003, she was paid $11,500 for serving on the IDA. Who wouldn't want this gal on their team?
The overlapping public and private associations of the Woolsey's are merely 2 examples of the all too familiar pattern in the Bush administration, in which people who play key roles in advising officials on policies, are involving themselves financially with firms in related fields. And it should be noted that the profiteering is certainly not limited to war policies. Its rampant in every area of policy within the Bush administration.
Long-Term War - Thriving Family Business
Hands down, James should be awarded a plaque for being the #1 Iraq War Monger, and it should say: "What could be more sickening than a war-hungry non-combatant? A war-hungry non-combatant reaping profit from the blood of slaughtered women, children and men of Iraq," (Bill Berkowitz).
War-hungry James is still hard at it; promoting war for as far as the eye can see. On August 15, 2004, the LA Times reported that, "Last month, Woolsey appeared at a ... news conference to announce the creation of a group called the Committee of the Present Danger, which he said would attempt to focus public attention on the threat to the US and the civilized world from Islamic terrorism."
On September 29, 2004 he participated in a forum entitled: "World War IV: Why We Fight, Whom We Fight, How We Fight," sponsored by the Committee on Present Danger and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
I wonder how many people who went to the polls on Nov 2, 2004, realized that a vote for Bush meant rubber-stamping more of World War IV?
Plan To Destroy and Conquer Iraq
The Iraqi citizens had no say-so in the Bush administration's decision to bomb the hell out of their country and the Iraqi people, now suffering the most as a result of the war, are not allowed to be involved in making decisions about the reconstruction of Iraq.
In comments that could have been made yesterday, Naomi Klein described what would happen to the Iraqis under Bush's war plan in the April 14, 2003 issue of the Guardian, "A people, starved and sickened by sanctions, then pulverized by war, is going to emerge from this trauma to find that their country had been sold out from under them. They will also discover that their new-found "freedom" - for which so many of their loved ones perished - comes pre-shackled by irreversible economic decisions that were made in boardrooms while the bombs were still falling. They will then be told to vote for their new leaders, and welcomed to the wonderful world of democracy. "
Every one of her predictions has come true and Iraqis may be worse off than we realize. Klein reports that on October 13, 2004, Iraq's "health ministry issued a harrowing report on its post-invasion health crisis, including outbreaks of typhoid and tuberculosis and soaring child and mother mortality rates," while at the same time the "State Department announced that $3.5 billion for water, sanitation and electricity projects was being shifted to security."
How can anybody in their right mind expect the Iraqi people to be grateful to America for all this good fortune?
Stop The War Profiteering
It seems to me that we've taken our eye off the ball here. Granted, the web of corruption is bad enough in itself, but too little consideration is being given to the Iraqi lives at stake. Every profiteering dollar bilked or wasted is a dollar that could be spent on improving Iraq's basic living conditions like getting water, sanitation and electricity up and running again, or training Iraqi police and military forces, or developing jobs for Iraqis.
Instead our tax dollars are being funneled back to profiteers like the Woolseys, over the backs of not only our dead soldiers; but over 100,000 dead Iraqis as well. The administration had the chance to rebuild Iraq, and at the same time earn the trust of the Iraqi people, but instead it chose to rape and torture innocent Iraqi prisoners, raid the reconstruction fund, and deprive the Iraqis of everything essential to normal human life.
The blatant acts of corruption by the occupational authority and US contractors have given the Iraqis every reason under the sun to mistrust the motives of Americans who say they want to help rebuild their country. And how can we expect their opinions to change as long as the obvious corruption continues?
If we ever expect to regain the trust of Iraqis, we have to stop the Woolseys, and others like them, who engage in this filthy, disgusting trade. For starters, I say all Bush war profiteers should be given 2 options: they can either recuse themselves from advising government officials on any matter of national security period, or they can donate all profits made through affiliations with defense-related companies to soldiers wounded in the war and families of soldiers killed in the war.
While this would definitely be a good first step, I won't hold my breath while waiting to see which option the greedy war-mongers choose.
Evelyn Pringle
The Defense Policy Board (DPB) is a hand-picked group of 30 people that advises Bush administration officials on matters such as whether and when to go to war, or not. The current group was selected by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, and approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Everyone who is anyone in the arms and defense industry knows that palling up to DPB members is the ticket to getting a Pentagon contract.
Shortly after the war in Iraq began, the April 10, 2003 New York Times pointed out that several board members stood to benefit financially from the war. It reported that the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) documented that 9 of the members were "linked to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002."
Promote War & Garner Positions For Profits
One of the members mentioned who stood to profit was R. James Woolsey. In addition to being a member of the DPB, Woolsey also sits on Navy and CIA advisory boards; and he is also a founding member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), a private group that was specifically set up by Bush in 2002, to find ways to increase public support for a war against Iraq.
Let me say right here and now that I think bold lines are crossed when people like Woolsey, who promote a specific war, financially benefit from their successful promotion. There should be a law that requires a standard recusal from all war profits by any policy advisor who advocates sending our young men and women off to die in that same war.
And I don't know about anybody else, but I've never heard of our government forming a group of promoters to rally support for a war before. I dare anyone to try and convince me that this war profiteering scheme wasn't well planned and managed from the get-go.
Mom & Pop Team Of War Profiteers
I would rate the husband and wife team of James and Suzanne Woolsey up there as one of the most blatant examples of war profiting that I‘ve ever seen. They both remain policy advisors on Iraq, even though they both work for private firms that do business there. James has long wanted to use US military might to transform the Middle East. "And he has pushed for war with Iraq as hard as anyone, even before the terrorist attacks of Sep 11, 2001," according to the April 8, 2003 Global Policy Forum.
That's right - long before 9/11. In January 1998, James signed the now infamous letter to Clinton from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) calling for regime change in Iraq (which Clinton trashed). In 1998, he also successfully lobbied to pass the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA), which allocated nearly $100 million for the Iraqi opposition, mainly the Iraq National Congress (INC), headed by none other than Ahmed Chalabi.
9/11 - Gift To Profiteering Team
The lobby for the war in Iraq immediately moved into high gear after 9/11. Within days, the DPB convened to discuss how they could use 9/11 to justify a war in Iraq. James was sent overseas to try to find a link between Saddam and bin Laden. He returned with the tale that an unnamed source had told the Czech intelligence that in April, 2001, he had observed a meeting between the lead 9/11 skyjacker and an Iraqi agent in Prague.
Even though the tale was deemed not credible by US, British, Israeli, and French, intelligence agencies, it became the basis of a major neo-con disinformation campaign against Saddam on cable news shows and editorial pages in major US newspapers.
James himself wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that said a foreign state had aided Al Qaeda in preparing the 9/11 attacks and pointed to Iraq as the prime suspect. In fact, James even went so far to allege that Saddam was behind the 1993 WTC bombing and the anthrax letters sent out after 9/11. In large part, the propaganda campaign was successful. A poll conducted in late 2002, showed that over half of those polled believed that Saddam was somehow linked to 9/11.
Woolsey & Chalabi - Secret Long-Time Buddies
Just when I think I have seen every dirty filthy angle by which money can be made in the war profiteering trade, something else turns up. I recently discovered a little tid-bit that I was unaware of. In addition to getting $100 million tax dollars allocated for the INC and Ahmed Chalabi in 1998, James also became lawyer and adviser to Iraq's "President in Waiting" in the same year.
With the help of the media, James must have forgot to mention this obvious conflict of interest while he was alleging collusion in 9/11 between Chalabi's enemy Saddam and bin Laden. This relationship definitely should have been made public before the war began because of its relevance to the truth or falsity of the justification given for waging war in Iraq to begin with.
Back in 1998, Chalabi sought legal help from Woolsey to secure the release of 6 of his INC associates from the detention center in Guam, even though the CIA said they were threats to US interests. James successfully freed Chalabi's minions and mowed a path for the so-called Iraqi defectors to feed bogus information to US intelligence teams.
The false information about WMDs and collusion between Saddam and bin Laden, that originated from the relationship of Chalabi and Woolsey, along with the resulting diversion of financial and military resources to Iraq, and away from the real terrorist bin Laden, has left the US with a limited ability to project military power anywhere else in the world. Any unexpected conflict would be a disaster with the military so overstretched in Iraq, and it looks like in large part, we can thank Woolsey and Chalabi for this predicament.
And as it turns out the CIA was right. One of men Woolsey freed, Aras Habib Karim, went on to become Chalabi's Chief of Intelligence, and has since leaked classified information to Iran, and is currently under investigation by the FBI. I wonder if James is representing the guy now?
James & Booz Allen Hamilton
At the same time that they were advocating for war in Iraq, its more than obvious that James and Suzanne Woolsey were positioning themselves for a future in defense-related firms, with an eye on the anticipated war profits.
James is a shining example of how the revolving door policy works in Washington. Although he left his position as director of the CIA in 1995, he remained a senior advisor on intelligence and national security policies.
And he also now works for several private firms that do business in Iraq. According to Citizens for Public Integrity, in July, 2002, James joined Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm that "had contracts worth more than $680 million" that year.
In May, 2003, in his capacity as a vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton, James was a featured speaker at a seminar entitled "Companies on the Ground: The Challenge for Business in Rebuilding Iraq." He spoke of the potential business opportunities in the reconstruction of Iraq and how Bush planned to steer the contracts to US companies. Approximately 80 corporate executives paid $1100 to listen to what he had to say.
May, 2003 was only 2 months after the war began. If not for his advisory positions in the Bush administration, how would James possibly be able to put together a investor seminar with information on how to make money in Iraq?
In addition, "Booz Allen is a subcontractor for a $75-million telecommunications project in Iraq. The company does extensive work for the Defense Department as well. Recently, the Navy awarded it $14 million in contracts," according to the Aug 15, 2004 LA Times.
In true Dick Cheney style, James said in an interview that "he had not been involved in Booz Allen's Iraq contracts," the Times reports. But then it really doesn't matter whether he was involved in a particular contract or not, because as a Vice President of the firm, he benefits from profits resulting from all contracts.
Besides his recent statement to the Times belies the title of his own May, 2003 seminar which was: "Companies on the Ground: The Challenge for Business in Rebuilding Iraq." What is he trying to say? That he never got paid for speaking at that seminar? That none of the 80 executives that attended ever contacted Booz work in Iraq? Yea right.
James & Paladin Capital Group
James positioned himself all over the map. He is now a principal in the Paladin Capital Group, another defense-related firm. In part, here is how the firm describes itself on its web site, Paladin Homeland Security Fund, L.P. Investment Strategy
As widely reported in public media, billions of dollars are being appropriated by the United States and foreign governments for replenishment of military stockpiles, deployment of new means to create more secure societies and creation of new standards, equipment, technologies and policies for coping with and recovering from the myriad forms of terrorism and attack. ... the General Partner believes that the Federal and State governments ... and indeed governments throughout the world, will look to ... private enterprise to address these issues. The General Partner believes that the private sector thus will look to expend billions of dollars to execute defense and security plans for security in the public sector and to deploy growth equity to produce the products and services that non-governmental organizations will require.
Fund Management
Operation of the Fund starts with an experienced management team. ... additional individuals who have prominent and distinguished records in relevant fields, including security, defense and information and technology sciences, have associated with Paladin Capital in connection with the Fund. These additional principals of the Fund include R. James Woolsey, ...
The Fund's Principals have extensive domestic and international experience in fund investments and in originating, underwriting, closing, monitoring and exiting investments similar to those that are proposed for the Fund. The additional Principals, including Mr. Woolsey, ... have extensive and distinguished track records in service within the security, defense and related fields.
Investment Guidelines Characteristics
Small to medium-sized, worker-friendly companies with the following characteristics: Must relate to defense, prevention, coping or recovery from disaster. Dual use: commercial and government applicability for products and services.
Surely no one could ever allege a possible conflict of interest between James serving on 3 defense-related boards (Navy, DPB, & CIA) with the US government and his involvement with this firm.
Global Options - James & DPB Member Livingstone
James is also plugged into Global Options, which is headed by his fellow DPB member Neil Livingstone. In addition to sitting on the DPB, Livingstone has served as a Pentagon and State Department advisor and has long called for overthrowing Saddam.
Livingstone was already promoting war against Iraq back in 1993, when he wrote an editorial for Newsday that said the US "should launch a massive covert program designed to remove Hussein." Well 11 years later, it looks like he finally got his wish, and just like his pal James, Livingstone is a regular speaker at investment seminars on Iraq.
Global Options provides contacts and consulting services to firms doing business in Iraq and "offers a wide range of security and risk management services," according to its website. Although James admits that he is a paid advisor at Global Options, he again says the work he does at the firm does not involve Iraq. And of course I believe him (not).
Suzanne - Better Half Of Profiteering Team
From 1993 - 2003, Suzanne was an executive with the National Academies, an institution that advises the government on science, engineering, and medicine. There's probably no big money to be made in that position and that's probably what motivated Suzanne seek a more potentially profitable government position.
And she sure found one. According to the Aug 15, 2004 LA Times, Suzanne is a trustee of a little-known arms consulting group that had access to senior Pentagon leaders directing the Iraq war.
Although she had zero experience with military or national security matters, in 2000 she became a trustee at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a nonprofit corporation paid to do research for the Pentagon. During the attack against Iraq, the IDA provided senior Pentagon officials with assessments of the operation.
Through this position, Suzanne had unlimited insider access to valuable information. For instance, the Times reported that in a June 3, 2003, briefing, Brigadier General Robert Cone of the Army, described the group's operation. "This team did business" within the Army Central Command "on a daily basis, by observing meeting and planning sessions, attending command updates, watching key decisions being made, watching problems being solved, and generally being provided unrestricted access to the business of the conduct of this war," Cone said, according to a transcript of the session.
The question is did Suzanne use the info to benefit the family business? I'll let the reader be the judge. She was appointed to "Fluor's board in January 2004, while Fluor and a partner, AMEC, were competing for two federal contracts to do reconstruction work in Iraq. A little more than a month after she was named, Fluor and AMEC got both contracts, with a combined value of $1.6 billion," according to the LA Times.
Although a Fluor official refused to discuss why Suzanne was chosen for the job, the official confirmed SEC filings that show, "Fluor pays outside directors (like Suzanne) $40,000 a year, plus stock options and additional fees for attending meetings," the Times reports.
As for the financial worth of her stock in the company, its looking good. Fluor's stock has risen steadily since the war in Iraq began. The Times reports that in August, 2004, it was $45 a share, up from a little more than $30 a share in March 2003. Reports filed with the SEC show Suzanne owns 1,500 shares of Fluor stock.
With Fluor making a bundle, it only stands to reason that all the more money can be funneled back into the Woolsey piggy bank. SEC filings show that Fluor reported that its revenue for the first quarter of the current fiscal year from work in Iraq totaled "approximately $190 million. There was no work in Iraq in the comparable period in 2003," reports the Times.
I would be willing to bet that any defense related firm would have given an arm and a leg to find out what was being said during those IDA meetings and war planning sessions. Oh of course I'm not suggesting that Suzanne was feeding Fluor information before she came on board and that's why she was hired. But at the same time, its sure difficult to think of any other reason why she would be hired.
Here's another profiteering trick that I would never have thought of. Suzanne even managed to get paid while she gathered the insider information. Tax records show that in 2003, she was paid $11,500 for serving on the IDA. Who wouldn't want this gal on their team?
The overlapping public and private associations of the Woolsey's are merely 2 examples of the all too familiar pattern in the Bush administration, in which people who play key roles in advising officials on policies, are involving themselves financially with firms in related fields. And it should be noted that the profiteering is certainly not limited to war policies. Its rampant in every area of policy within the Bush administration.
Long-Term War - Thriving Family Business
Hands down, James should be awarded a plaque for being the #1 Iraq War Monger, and it should say: "What could be more sickening than a war-hungry non-combatant? A war-hungry non-combatant reaping profit from the blood of slaughtered women, children and men of Iraq," (Bill Berkowitz).
War-hungry James is still hard at it; promoting war for as far as the eye can see. On August 15, 2004, the LA Times reported that, "Last month, Woolsey appeared at a ... news conference to announce the creation of a group called the Committee of the Present Danger, which he said would attempt to focus public attention on the threat to the US and the civilized world from Islamic terrorism."
On September 29, 2004 he participated in a forum entitled: "World War IV: Why We Fight, Whom We Fight, How We Fight," sponsored by the Committee on Present Danger and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
I wonder how many people who went to the polls on Nov 2, 2004, realized that a vote for Bush meant rubber-stamping more of World War IV?
Plan To Destroy and Conquer Iraq
The Iraqi citizens had no say-so in the Bush administration's decision to bomb the hell out of their country and the Iraqi people, now suffering the most as a result of the war, are not allowed to be involved in making decisions about the reconstruction of Iraq.
In comments that could have been made yesterday, Naomi Klein described what would happen to the Iraqis under Bush's war plan in the April 14, 2003 issue of the Guardian, "A people, starved and sickened by sanctions, then pulverized by war, is going to emerge from this trauma to find that their country had been sold out from under them. They will also discover that their new-found "freedom" - for which so many of their loved ones perished - comes pre-shackled by irreversible economic decisions that were made in boardrooms while the bombs were still falling. They will then be told to vote for their new leaders, and welcomed to the wonderful world of democracy. "
Every one of her predictions has come true and Iraqis may be worse off than we realize. Klein reports that on October 13, 2004, Iraq's "health ministry issued a harrowing report on its post-invasion health crisis, including outbreaks of typhoid and tuberculosis and soaring child and mother mortality rates," while at the same time the "State Department announced that $3.5 billion for water, sanitation and electricity projects was being shifted to security."
How can anybody in their right mind expect the Iraqi people to be grateful to America for all this good fortune?
Stop The War Profiteering
It seems to me that we've taken our eye off the ball here. Granted, the web of corruption is bad enough in itself, but too little consideration is being given to the Iraqi lives at stake. Every profiteering dollar bilked or wasted is a dollar that could be spent on improving Iraq's basic living conditions like getting water, sanitation and electricity up and running again, or training Iraqi police and military forces, or developing jobs for Iraqis.
Instead our tax dollars are being funneled back to profiteers like the Woolseys, over the backs of not only our dead soldiers; but over 100,000 dead Iraqis as well. The administration had the chance to rebuild Iraq, and at the same time earn the trust of the Iraqi people, but instead it chose to rape and torture innocent Iraqi prisoners, raid the reconstruction fund, and deprive the Iraqis of everything essential to normal human life.
The blatant acts of corruption by the occupational authority and US contractors have given the Iraqis every reason under the sun to mistrust the motives of Americans who say they want to help rebuild their country. And how can we expect their opinions to change as long as the obvious corruption continues?
If we ever expect to regain the trust of Iraqis, we have to stop the Woolseys, and others like them, who engage in this filthy, disgusting trade. For starters, I say all Bush war profiteers should be given 2 options: they can either recuse themselves from advising government officials on any matter of national security period, or they can donate all profits made through affiliations with defense-related companies to soldiers wounded in the war and families of soldiers killed in the war.
While this would definitely be a good first step, I won't hold my breath while waiting to see which option the greedy war-mongers choose.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)