said one U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he's contradicting the president and other top officials.
This says everything you need to know about this administration and the war against Iraq. Groupthink is the order of the day.
Posted by phidipides at April 7, 2007 07:29 PMThe noise machine of Bu$hco has been on autopilot for quite a while now. In fact, the whole GOP apparatius seems to be cranking out its standard, time worn process regardless of changing conditions. An example of this is the fact that the whole federal DA scandal didn't get undertaken until after the Democrats had won control of congress. They are acting as if having an adversarial congress hasn't changed anything.
We can pretty much expect more of the same in every way. The M.O. of justifing everything they want as a 911 related emergency will continue. There will be no serious adjustments to any policy on the war or anything else. The next two years are virtually guarenteed to be a disaster for America unless enough congressional Republicans can somehow be convinced that impeaching Cheney and Bush will lead to a short term loss of power rather than the possible destruction of their party. Mathematicaly, enough votes will never be available for impeachment and coviction asn things now stand.
Posted by herbal tee at April 7, 2007 07:40 PM
"Why, of course the people don't want war . . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship . . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.."
---Hermann Goering, 1946
Ys, f w lv, thy mst crtnly wn't cm, bt r rhds mst crtnly wll NT lstn t th trth. Whl th plls sm t shw cnfsn bt rq, vryn prtty mch wnts t sty. nd ths s wht th crp lrds dsr, s thy prpr fr rn.
Stll th 9/11 cpr s rnnng t f stm, nd t's lwys pssbl tht smn wll tp tht grp thnkng, n th rght drctn, tht phd tchd pn. Ths lttl fct wrrs th pwr lt, nd fr gd rsn. Ths gys hld pwr, n rlty, wth tny lttl psych thrd. Jst s r nstttns wr wk nd rp fr crp hgmny, vr 100 yrs g, th rvrs s ls tr tdy n trms f rppl ffct bldng pn ncvrd trth, pntng t th crps nd thr mny hndlrs s th gngstrs thy'v bcm.
Nvrthlss, thy hv ll th crds, wth n lttl xcptn, lbt vry, vry wk: th nt. Bt th prblm wth th nt s ll th ns, slly prty ln ns, vn whn t pprs t b lbrl n th srfc.
[Editor: ignore=off]I know a great many of you think Wayne Madsen is flakey. However, I read something on his site today about Dick Cheney that actually makes some sense in view of Cheney's behavior these past 6 years. The gist of the story is this: when he was Sec of Defense around 1991, a US bomber transporting 3 nukes ditched its cargo in ocean after the engines caught fire. (The bombs ,which were evidently South African and in transport where they could be destroyed, were plutonium based but susceptible to cooking off says the story.)
Cheney and the President (Elder Bush) did not attempt to recover them. Some foreign parties did and they ended up on the black market. Where they went is subject ot conjecture, but the usual suspects were Iran, North Korea, et al.
So the upshot is this: once restored to a position of influence, and in the wake of 9-11, Cheney believes the bombs are in the hands of Iraq or al Quieda and inconveniently near oil sources. So he stovepipes intelligence, steps all over the Constitution, foments war on Iraq, and basically tries to correct (or hide) his mistake in 1991 while trying to prevent oil from becoming radioactive.
It is an interesting notion and to me seems more plausible than anything else I have heard when critics talk about him. He isn't evil or power mad in the Neocon belief that America is destined for empire, and he isn't a socio-psychopath. Maybe he is a guy who screwed up bigtime and is desperate to head off the consequences of a very large mistake.
Has anybody else heard the business about the lost nukes?
Posted by cromulant at April 7, 2007 07:58 PMHas anybody else heard the business about the lost nukes?
That would make Cheney noble, and he is anything but. He is nothing more than the allegory to a small-time crime boss. He, as well as others in the administration, have committed grave crimes against humanity. He should pay the appropriate penalty. He is not noble. He is a bastard.
Posted by phidipides at April 7, 2007 08:10 PMAgain, all Bushco utters is the continuing rhetoric of permanent occupation.
When would there ever be a time that the "terrorist" enemy in Iraq would cease to exist now that they are to some degree present? When would there be a time that there is not a single Islamic jihadist in Iraq?
Never, thanks to the invasion.
If this is the new "metric", then we are in Iraq forever, ala the West Bank. Pity that the Army is already broken and will not be able to continue its permanent Israeli-style occupation indefinitely.
Time to massively expand our "volunteer" forces, obviously. Everyone seems on board for increased militarism, always. No questions asked.
Posted by euzoius at April 7, 2007 08:14 PMN nd t bttl hr snc trtr dhmmcrts r lrdy grvlng.
[Editor: ignore=off]Personally, I think it's far more plausible that Cheney is suffering some kind of emotional disturbance relating to his four known and potentially other unknown heart attacks, and/or the medication he is on to cope with his damaged heart muscle, than that he has been on a quest after some South African nukes that somehow got retrieved and have been floating around for 15 years.
Paranoia and other abnormal mental states are not unknown in men with his medical history.
Posted by biggerbox at April 7, 2007 09:39 PMThe idea that Americans need to fight abroad to keep our freedom at home is peculiarly American--other people don't feel this way. It also has a basis in history. Many Americans currently, affected by the administration and the mass media, say that American soldiers are fighting in Iraq to preserve our freedoms. They said the same about Vietnam, Korea and World War II. Some progressives on another website are touting the Princeton Project on National Security which has the following statement: "In 1941 Americans learned that the security of their homeland and the viability of life as a free society depended upon the developments in the rest of the world, thus settling an argument that had raged for two generations and had its roots in the nation's founding. Simply put, we learned that aggressors in faraway lands, if left unchecked would someday threaten the United States."
It's all BS--Americans "learned" no such thing. They were then and are now subjected to Goering-style propaganda that hyped the threat and kept the wars going. So we keep invading and occupying and call it protecting our freedom. Hell, even the Germans don't do that any more. Nobody does, 'cept us. We're special.
Posted by Don Bacon at April 7, 2007 09:50 PMHere we go again.
Why is Bendito not in Iraq?
We're sending troops to Iraq for the third or fourth time. They don't want to go. Some of these people have PTSD, broken families and physical injuries.
Bendito could enlist, or sign up with Halliburton who has ten pages of jobs in Iraq at their website.
Surely Bendito could qualify for some of these: Generator Mechanic, Plumber, Site Manager, Administrative Associate, Electrician, Labor Foreman, Heavy Equipment Operator, Logistics Coordinator, HVAC Mechanic, Locksmith, Food Service Lead, Laundry Foreman, Logistics Warehouseman.
Iraq needs motivated people like you, Bendito. Just do it. And take snark with you when you go.
Don, as we well know, people like Benito are all talk and no action. He's to much of a baby and too afraid to actually back-up his beliefs by going to Iraq. Men fight for what they believe, cowards to not.
Posted by Judith at April 7, 2007 10:34 PMI disagree. The people of Iraq WILL follow us home and there WILL be a battle in the streets.
Those who collaborated with the Americans will have to come here for safety, just like our Vietnamese allies did.
The battle in the streets will commence when they try to muscle in on the Vietnamese small business owners.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 7, 2007 10:36 PMDon: You forgot to mention the Haliburton male prostitute opening.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 7, 2007 10:43 PMFascinating Bush speech at Fort Irwin. So many BS reasons for war and so little time.
1. We're after America's enemies
"The strategy is to defeat the enemy overseas so we don't have to face them here at home. The strategy is to find those who would kill Americans and bring them to justice."
2.We're doing something about sectarian violence
"[After the Samarra mosque bombing] . . . I had a choice to make, and that is whether or not to pull back and hope that chaos wouldn't spread, or to do something about the sectarian violence that was taking place and to help the Iraqis bring order to their capital . . ."
3.We're keeping them from establishing a safe haven
"They have made it clear -- they, being people like Osama bin Laden or Zawahiri -- have made it clear they want to drive us from Iraq to establish safe haven in order to launch further attacks."
4. We're fighting them there so . . . (you know)
"In other words, this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here. That's the lesson of September the 11th."
5. We're after al Qaeda.
"We're after al Qaeda."
6. We're protecting ourselves from pure evil
". . .you know, it's not a civil war; it is pure evil. And I believe we have an obligation to protect ourselves from that evil."
7. But in November 2005 the enemy was 'ordinary Iraqis':
"The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein"
I'll wager to say that this speech will go unchallenged by anyone in politics or the media.
Except Steve Soto, now in his fifties.
LOOKS LIKE THEY FOLLOWED US TO BAGHDAD--
BAGHDAD — Rocket and mortar attacks against Baghdad’s Green Zone, or International Zone, have increased in the past three weeks after a period of relative quiet, two American military security personnel in the zone said recently.
BUT WE'VE GOT THEM CORNERED--
An Army officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that attacks have increased in the past few weeks after a lull earlier this year. He said leaders do not know why attacks have picked up, but they believe it is because the insurgents feel cornered by the recent security crackdown in the city and are lashing out.
Posted by Don Bacon at April 7, 2007 11:38 PM"And I believe we have an obligation to protect ourselves from (that) evil."
Don, he sure has that one right.
Because he can't face the evil within himself, he sees evil everywhere. It's called projection Bush.
Posted by Judith at April 7, 2007 11:54 PMIs there anyone today that can talk 'on the record'? Jeez! What the hell is everyone afraid of?
Posted by Judith at April 7, 2007 11:59 PMwhen you think about it, the war on terror started in 1979 when Iran took hostages. Or in 1973 when OPEC declared war on us with the embargo. It has escalted since the seventies with the terrorists taking their war to the US in 1993 and 2001, and to London and Madrid after that.
This war won't end if we leave Iraq. We are vulnerable because we need their oil and send them money for it, which they use to fund their terrorism.
This is why we must continue with alternative energies, icluding clean and safe nuclear power as other modern countries are doing. We must also drill for more oil in the US wherever we can find it.
We must quit sending those countries money.
Posted by muckdog at April 8, 2007 01:12 AMGood morning. I read the blog responses to my question about the lost nuke story. Two things. Cheney would not be "noble" in my eyes for essentially failing at his job (just like Rumsfeld) and attempting to cover it up (at great cost to American and Iraqi lives in Iraq). It might be "tragic" in the Greek-theatre sense of the word, but not noble. (I know, I have to fight the impulse to say Cheney might be trying to right a wrong--it feels bad, tastes bad, smells bad--I know, I know. But it still seems more plausible than to say he is Hitler in a Business Suit.)
As to organic illness brought on by his various heart malfunctions, I have to cede that territory to the physicians among you. Most mental problems I suspect arise from improper or improperly balanced medication in the wake of these traumas--but I am just guessing. On the other hand, if I were of the Freudian persuasion, I could see how the heart attacks might encourage him to hurry-up his hunt for the Great White Nukes in an effort to redeem himself, if only in his own beady eyes.
Posted by cromulant at April 8, 2007 06:23 AMIn his radio address today, Bush called for no-strings-attached war funds, and I expect he continued making his chutzpah of an argument that the Democrats are straining and endangering the military. But I've come to think of his ridiculous stance as something like this:
Let's say you have a kid who needs to borrow your credit card to make some necessary purchases, because they have no money of their own. They promise that they're only going to buy food, a couple pieces of furniture, a few household wares and other basic things to start out their adult life. You're a little leery but you go ahead and give it to them. Then you get the bill: It's a whopping $10,000 worth of all sorts of things necessary and unnecessary. Now, if your kid comes begging again, are you just going to give them the credit card? Of course not: You will put your foot down and enforce a limit. You'll go ahead and buy the remaining things they need, but then you'll tell them either to get a job or give up living on their own.
Posted by heg at April 8, 2007 06:29 AMFrom the Department of Defense:
“Pfc. Daniel A. Fuentes, 19, of Levittown, N.Y., died April 6 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when in improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.”
19 years old. Bush’s blueprint for this young man’s death was drafted when the boy was only 14 years old. The man that killed him? An unknown Sunni bomb planter, an Iraqi, the person Pvt. Fuentes was fighting for. The only thing that bomb changed was Pvt. Fuentes mother’s dreams. No college graduation ceremony, 21st birthday party, or family reunions including Daniel.
The death of Pvt. Fuentes is another ripple in the wake of the ‘Great Wastrel’, G.W. Bush. Tomorrow another kid will die and the day after another. For what? There are only two ways to avoid losing a war: Win it or fight it forever. If your legacy, as Bush’s is, is tied to the success of the war you only have those options. Winning it, as we all know, is off the table. So surge on and on. Stay the course. Each Daniel will buy Bush another 12 hours of delaying the inevitable. God, what a monster that man is.
Today is Daniel Fuentes’s day. He is dead. God bless him and may he rest his young soul in peace. But who is next? What will the name be and from what part of America?
End this perverted mess right now. Don’t let Mr. Bush kill another young American for his worthless legacy. It is OK if Bush fails; in fact it is best for America. Get over it folks and do what is best for us, not that festering aberration, G.W. Bush.
To all the wingers out there huffing and puffing at my calling GW a punk here is my email addy: coralreef54@hotmail.com send me you heroic stuff, but, at the beginning of your note plainly list your combat service to the USA. IF you don’t it will not be read. I have no intention of wasting my time with GOP’er Rambo wanna-bes and punk combat avoiders like Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, the entire FOX crew, Savage (real name Weiner), Beck, Instaputz, the entire crew at Little Green (yellow) Footballs, the College (therefore not military) Republicans, Perle, Ledeen, Wolfowitz, Fieth and virtually every GOP troll on the internet. You guys talk too damn much. In fairness, Vietnam 1970 and 1971 are my credentials.
Richard
No need to battle here since traitor dhimmicrats are already groveling.
And this from a guy who supports malfeasance against Vets at Walter Reed and sending untrained ill-equipped troops into battle. We'll never forget this. In the future you will eventually be reviled by all for what you are today.
I have to fight the impulse to say Cheney might be trying to right a wrong--
Right or wrong has no place in republi-con parlance. He would be trying to cover his butt, if this story were plausible. It is not plausible. The idea that we could not recover 3 nukes (with whatever difficulty that implies) yet poorly organized and funded others could is silly. We can pull chunks of submarines from off the floor of the ocean at great depths. If they had gone missing, and that is in doubt, and they could be recovered, we would have recovered them.
And why would you use a bomber to carry nukes not designed to be carried by that bomber? It's as silly as saying we can only transport DU rounds loaded in tanks to Iraq. We have to transport the whole tank, not make the DU rounds cargo in a cargo transport of some sort.
Now, would Cheney purposefully splash nukes to make a huge profit from a foreign country? I think that is much more likely than the scenario where the U.S. couldn't recover them but someone else could. I assure you, if there were three broken arrows we would still have a sub on them, forever if necessary.
Posted by phidipides at April 8, 2007 08:03 AMRichard,
Right on, but regarding the war we can "fight it forever" and still lose it, like that little dust-up in Vietnam that few people seem to be able to recollect any more.
I was in a social situation yesterday where the conversation, not conversation really but pronouncements, went kind of like this:
Woman: The reason we're able to sit here today is because young people are giving their lives for us.
Man #1: I disagree. I think we should bring them home. Those people have always been killing each other.
Man #2: The problem is that we fight by the rules, the Geneva Convention, and they don't.
Woman: I say blow the whole place up, women and children too, reduce it to sand. We can't let the 3,000 who died there, die in vain. We have to finish the job.
These people are not stupid and they're not uninformed. I'm afraid they are fairly representative of a large segment of the population, particularly in the Congress.
And if you think this will end with with the departure of the great satan Bush, you're wrong. Bushie doesn't have the capacity to think or talk unless he's handed a script and told where to stand. He's just the current front man and propagandist for Wall Street. They're doing a pretty good job, based on what I hear from some other people and from Congress. Credit where credit is due. Kind of a hostile takeover and downsizing of 'the American way of life' while convincing the employees/citizens that this is all good for them somehow.
Posted by Don Bacon at April 8, 2007 08:33 AMphidipides--
I want to correct my original outline of the Madsen report. I said nuke bombs--this was incorrect. see following:
"With the Bush administration now using the Iraq playbook to justify an attack on Iran, Kelly's knowledge about the disappearance of two South African nuclear-tipped missiles from a U.S. B-52 that crashed in the Indian Ocean in February 1991 may have sealed the British scientist's fate. The two tactical nuclear weapons, being shipped to the United States for de-arming after South Africa's minority government of President F.W. DeKlerk scrapped the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal, created by the apartheid government with the technical assistance of Israel, were lost after a U..S. Air Force B-52 carrying them from the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia to the United States crashed as a result of multi-engine failure off the Somali coast. The plane had developed electrical problems after leaving Diego Garcia and was attempting a return to the island with its sensitive cargo. Three crew members of the B-52 parachuted to safety but three others were killed when the plane crashed into shallow waters off the Somali coast."
This does not change anything about your points really except the explosive potential of the weapons in question. I don't know if we'd have submarines all over 3 missles all the time--you might be right. Anyway, I through talking about this intriquing little story.
Posted by cromulant at April 8, 2007 09:23 AMorganic illness brought on by his various heart malfunctions
Try googling "pumphead" or "pump head." The symptoms are well known. They weren't just made up to swiftboat Cheney (no matter how much poetic justice there would be if that happened).
Posted by sagesource at April 8, 2007 09:36 AMIf We Leave, They WON'T Come
Surprise! According to today's news it looks like we're not leaving Iraq. But the Dems are taking a firm stand on the war. Okay, maybe not on the war, for which they are now responsible. They are going to huff, and puff, and "press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement." So there. We now have it from the Dems that we are ruled by an emporer who decides and we the people can only "press" his excellency to please talk to the puppet Iraqi "leaders" (who don't lead shit) so they'll settle their differences that we brought on.
News report: Levin Says Democrats May Compromise on War Funding
April 8 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said Democrats may be ready to compromise in the showdown with President George W. Bush over linking funding for U.S. troops in Iraq with a timetable for withdrawal.
Should Bush veto war-funding legislation that sets a limit on the U.S. military presence, Levin said the majority Democrats likely will strip out language calling for troops to start leaving Iraq in four months while keeping demands that the Iraqi government meet benchmarks for quelling sectarian violence.
``We're not going to cut off funding for the troops,'' the 72-year-old Michigan Democrat said on ABC's ``This Week'' program. ``But what we should do, and we're going to do, is continue to press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement.''
Posted by Don Bacon at April 8, 2007 01:33 PM"Those who collaborated with the Americans will have to come here for safety, just like our Vietnamese allies did."
Not if we keep the miserly quota in place that we have now. Of all the millions of Iraqis who have left that benighted country for safety, a very small number of these refugees (less than 5000, if I recall) have been allowed into the US.
Ed