Project for the New American Century: "Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces | January 28, 2005
Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:
The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges."
...
In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. ...
Respectfully,
Peter Beinart Jeffrey Bergner Daniel Blumenthal
Max Boot Eliot Cohen Ivo H. Daalder
Thomas Donnelly Michele Flournoy Frank F. Gaffney, Jr.
Reuel Marc Gerecht Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired)
Bruce P. Jackson Frederick Kagan Robert Kagan
Craig Kennedy Paul Kennedy Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired)
William Kristol Will Marshall Clifford May
Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) Daniel McKivergan
Joshua Muravchik Steven J. Nider Michael O'Hanlon
Mackubin Thomas Owens Ralph Peters Danielle Pletka
Stephen P. Rosen Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired)
Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt
Walter Slocombe James B. Steinberg
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Feith Resigns Under Pressure of Investigations
Informed Comment: "Friday, January 28, 2005 | Feith Resigns Under Pressure of Investigations | Juan Cole
Douglas Feith, the number three man at the Pentagon who went there from the pro-Likud Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Project for a New American Century, will leave the Pentagon as of this summer. Feith's office is the subject of an FBI investigation as well as two Congressional investigations, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Feith helped set up an Office of Special Plans in the Near East and South Asia desk of the Pentagon to cherry-pick Iraq intelligence and create a case for Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and having operational links with al-Qaeda. At one point, contrary to Federal law, Feith's people actually briefed officials in the Executive on intelligence. Feith sent David Wurmser from the Office of Special Plans, once its work was well under way, over to the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, so that he could stove pipe OSP analyses into the VP's office and thence directly to the president, doing an end run around the CIA and the State Department Intelligence and Research division.
Having a Likudnik as the number three man in the Pentagon is a nightmare for American national security, since Feith could never be trusted to put US interests over those of Ariel Sharon. In the build-up to the Iraq War, Feith had a phalanx of Israeli generals visiting him in the Pentagon and ignored post-9/11 requirements that they sign in. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was a vocal advocate of a US war against Iraq, who 'put pressure' on Washington about it. (If Sharon wanted a war against Iraq, why didn't he fight it himself instead of pushing it off on American boys?) "
...
It is also important to underline that only a small minority of American Jews support the Likud Party or its policies, and that a majority of Jewish Americans opposed the Iraq war. In short, the problematic nature of Feith's tenure at the Department of Defense must not be made an excuse for any kind of bigotry.
Douglas Feith, the number three man at the Pentagon who went there from the pro-Likud Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Project for a New American Century, will leave the Pentagon as of this summer. Feith's office is the subject of an FBI investigation as well as two Congressional investigations, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Feith helped set up an Office of Special Plans in the Near East and South Asia desk of the Pentagon to cherry-pick Iraq intelligence and create a case for Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and having operational links with al-Qaeda. At one point, contrary to Federal law, Feith's people actually briefed officials in the Executive on intelligence. Feith sent David Wurmser from the Office of Special Plans, once its work was well under way, over to the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, so that he could stove pipe OSP analyses into the VP's office and thence directly to the president, doing an end run around the CIA and the State Department Intelligence and Research division.
Having a Likudnik as the number three man in the Pentagon is a nightmare for American national security, since Feith could never be trusted to put US interests over those of Ariel Sharon. In the build-up to the Iraq War, Feith had a phalanx of Israeli generals visiting him in the Pentagon and ignored post-9/11 requirements that they sign in. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was a vocal advocate of a US war against Iraq, who 'put pressure' on Washington about it. (If Sharon wanted a war against Iraq, why didn't he fight it himself instead of pushing it off on American boys?) "
...
It is also important to underline that only a small minority of American Jews support the Likud Party or its policies, and that a majority of Jewish Americans opposed the Iraq war. In short, the problematic nature of Feith's tenure at the Department of Defense must not be made an excuse for any kind of bigotry.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Bush Pulls 'Neocons' Out of the Shadows - "then it means we have an extremist in the White House"
Bush Pulls 'Neocons' Out of the Shadows - Independent Media TVBy: Doyle McManus | January 22, 2005| Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — In the unending struggle over American foreign policy that consumes much of official Washington, one side claimed a victory this week: the neoconservatives, that determined band of hawkish idealists who promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) and now seek to bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East.
For more than a year, since the occupation of Iraq turned into the Bush administration's biggest headache, many of the "neocons" have lowered their profiles and muted their rhetoric. During President Bush (news - web sites)'s reelection campaign, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the leading voices for invading Iraq, virtually disappeared from public view.
But on Thursday, Bush proclaimed in his inaugural address that the central purpose of his second term would be the promotion of democracy "in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" — a key neoconservative goal. Suddenly, the neocons were ascendant again.
"This is real neoconservatism," said Robert Kagan, a foreign policy scholar who has been a leading exponent of neocon thinking — and who sometimes has criticized the administration for not being neocon enough. "It would be hard to express it more clearly. If people were expecting Bush to rein in his ambitions and enthusiasms after the first term, they are discovering that they were wrong."
...
On the other side of the Republican foreign policy divide, a leading "realist" — an exponent of the view that promoting democracy is nice, but not the central goal of U.S. foreign policy — agreed.
"If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that reveres the less idealistic policies of Richard Nixon. "I hope and pray that he didn't mean it … [and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy." ...
WASHINGTON — In the unending struggle over American foreign policy that consumes much of official Washington, one side claimed a victory this week: the neoconservatives, that determined band of hawkish idealists who promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) and now seek to bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East.
For more than a year, since the occupation of Iraq turned into the Bush administration's biggest headache, many of the "neocons" have lowered their profiles and muted their rhetoric. During President Bush (news - web sites)'s reelection campaign, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the leading voices for invading Iraq, virtually disappeared from public view.
But on Thursday, Bush proclaimed in his inaugural address that the central purpose of his second term would be the promotion of democracy "in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" — a key neoconservative goal. Suddenly, the neocons were ascendant again.
"This is real neoconservatism," said Robert Kagan, a foreign policy scholar who has been a leading exponent of neocon thinking — and who sometimes has criticized the administration for not being neocon enough. "It would be hard to express it more clearly. If people were expecting Bush to rein in his ambitions and enthusiasms after the first term, they are discovering that they were wrong."
...
On the other side of the Republican foreign policy divide, a leading "realist" — an exponent of the view that promoting democracy is nice, but not the central goal of U.S. foreign policy — agreed.
"If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that reveres the less idealistic policies of Richard Nixon. "I hope and pray that he didn't mean it … [and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy." ...
Excite News
Excite News: "Democrats Call Rice Liar and a Apologist | Jan 25, 5:56 PM (ET) | By ANNE GEARAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - One Senate Democrat called Condoleezza Rice a liar Tuesday and others said she was an apologist for Bush administration failures in Iraq, but she remained on track for confirmation as secretary of state.
Rice, who has been President Bush's White House national security adviser for four years, was one of the loudest voices urging war, Democrats said. She repeatedly deceived members of Congress and Americans at large about justifications for the war, said Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
"I don't like impugning anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to," Dayton said. "Repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally."
...
"My vote against this nominee is my statement that this administration's lies must stop now," Dayton said in opposing Rice's nomination on the Senate floor.
Politicians rarely use the word "lie," preferring some of the milder terms other Democrats used Tuesday.
(AP) Sen. Barbara Boxer D-Calif. speaks during the Senate debate on the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice...
Full Image
"There was no reason to go to war in Iraq when we did, the way we did and for the false reasons we were given," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
Rice is not directly responsible for intelligence failures prior to the Iraq war that overestimated Saddam's nuclear capability, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "But she is responsible for her own distortions and exaggerations of the intelligence which was provided to her," Levin said.
"Dr. Rice is responsible for some of the most overblown rhetoric that the administration used to scare the American people," Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said. ...
WASHINGTON (AP) - One Senate Democrat called Condoleezza Rice a liar Tuesday and others said she was an apologist for Bush administration failures in Iraq, but she remained on track for confirmation as secretary of state.
Rice, who has been President Bush's White House national security adviser for four years, was one of the loudest voices urging war, Democrats said. She repeatedly deceived members of Congress and Americans at large about justifications for the war, said Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
"I don't like impugning anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to," Dayton said. "Repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally."
...
"My vote against this nominee is my statement that this administration's lies must stop now," Dayton said in opposing Rice's nomination on the Senate floor.
Politicians rarely use the word "lie," preferring some of the milder terms other Democrats used Tuesday.
(AP) Sen. Barbara Boxer D-Calif. speaks during the Senate debate on the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice...
Full Image
"There was no reason to go to war in Iraq when we did, the way we did and for the false reasons we were given," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
Rice is not directly responsible for intelligence failures prior to the Iraq war that overestimated Saddam's nuclear capability, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "But she is responsible for her own distortions and exaggerations of the intelligence which was provided to her," Levin said.
"Dr. Rice is responsible for some of the most overblown rhetoric that the administration used to scare the American people," Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said. ...
Monday, January 24, 2005
‘God-drenched’ pledges of the president split Republicans: "endless war" ... “somewhere between dreamy and disturbing”
Times Online - Sunday TimesJanuary 23, 2005 |‘God-drenched’ pledges of the president split Republicans | Tony Allen-Mills
PRESIDENT George Bush’s bold inauguration vow to end tyranny around the world does not amount to a “right turn” or signal dramatic changes in US foreign policy, according to senior administration officials.
Startled by reaction to what one well-known Republican described as the president’s “God-drenched” speech, the White House has discouraged speculation that Bush is embarking on a crusade to spread democracy around the globe.
...
The high-flown language used by Bush, notably his commitment to “the great objective of ending tyranny”, thrilled his neoconservative supporters, some of whom had worried that difficulties in Iraq might curb the president’s enthusiasm for promoting democracy abroad.
“It was a rare inaugural speech that will go down as a historic speech, I believe,” said Bill Kristol, one of several neoconservative thinkers who were consulted by the White House before the speech was written.
Other conservative Republicans were dismayed by the president’s missionary zeal. Peggy Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, found the oratory “somewhere between dreamy and disturbing”. ...
...
Patrick Buchanan, the former right-wing presidential candidate, said Bush had asserted a right “to intervene in the internal affairs of every nation on earth and that is, quite simply, a recipe for endless war. And war is the death of republics.”
PRESIDENT George Bush’s bold inauguration vow to end tyranny around the world does not amount to a “right turn” or signal dramatic changes in US foreign policy, according to senior administration officials.
Startled by reaction to what one well-known Republican described as the president’s “God-drenched” speech, the White House has discouraged speculation that Bush is embarking on a crusade to spread democracy around the globe.
...
The high-flown language used by Bush, notably his commitment to “the great objective of ending tyranny”, thrilled his neoconservative supporters, some of whom had worried that difficulties in Iraq might curb the president’s enthusiasm for promoting democracy abroad.
“It was a rare inaugural speech that will go down as a historic speech, I believe,” said Bill Kristol, one of several neoconservative thinkers who were consulted by the White House before the speech was written.
Other conservative Republicans were dismayed by the president’s missionary zeal. Peggy Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, found the oratory “somewhere between dreamy and disturbing”. ...
...
Patrick Buchanan, the former right-wing presidential candidate, said Bush had asserted a right “to intervene in the internal affairs of every nation on earth and that is, quite simply, a recipe for endless war. And war is the death of republics.”
Pentagon spy network revealed [... a new version parallel to the "Office of Special Plans" behind the war in Iraq? ed.]
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pentagon spy network revealed: "Dan Glaister in Los Angeles | Monday January 24, 2005 | The Guardian
A previously unknown intelligence programme set up two years ago by the Pentagon has been operating in states deemed to be 'emerging target countries', the Washington Post reported yesterday.
...
The programme reportedly conducts operations in friendly and unfriendly states where conventional war might not even be a distant prospect. It deploys intelligence officers, including linguists, technical specialists and interrogators, alongside secret special forces in countries such as Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia, the Philippines and Georgia, the Washington Post said.
The deployment of the unit further muddies the issue of accountability for covert and clandestine intelligence operations in the "war on terror". The programme was established by diverting existing Pentagon funds, thus freeing it from any congressional oversight.
Recent administration guidelines suggest that the Pentagon need not report all "deployment orders" to Congress, as it did previously. Pentagon lawyers argue that by defining the "war on terror" as indefinite, global and ongoing, the defence secretary's war powers are extended beyond times of imminent combat.
A previously unknown intelligence programme set up two years ago by the Pentagon has been operating in states deemed to be 'emerging target countries', the Washington Post reported yesterday.
...
The programme reportedly conducts operations in friendly and unfriendly states where conventional war might not even be a distant prospect. It deploys intelligence officers, including linguists, technical specialists and interrogators, alongside secret special forces in countries such as Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia, the Philippines and Georgia, the Washington Post said.
The deployment of the unit further muddies the issue of accountability for covert and clandestine intelligence operations in the "war on terror". The programme was established by diverting existing Pentagon funds, thus freeing it from any congressional oversight.
Recent administration guidelines suggest that the Pentagon need not report all "deployment orders" to Congress, as it did previously. Pentagon lawyers argue that by defining the "war on terror" as indefinite, global and ongoing, the defence secretary's war powers are extended beyond times of imminent combat.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception: Deception, Religiosity, Nationalism
AlterNet: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception: "By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.
What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?
A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done – people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.
The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) – an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky's alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973.
Strauss is a popular figure among the neoconservatives. Adherents of his ideas include prominent figures both within and outside the administration. They include 'Weekly Standard' editor William Kristol; his father and indeed the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol; the new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (home to former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by Kristol the Younger.
Rule One: Deception
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. ...
Second Principle: Power of Religion
According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.
Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism
Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people."
Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."
"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury.
Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.
What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?
A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done – people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.
The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) – an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky's alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973.
Strauss is a popular figure among the neoconservatives. Adherents of his ideas include prominent figures both within and outside the administration. They include 'Weekly Standard' editor William Kristol; his father and indeed the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol; the new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (home to former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by Kristol the Younger.
Rule One: Deception
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. ...
Second Principle: Power of Religion
According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.
Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism
Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people."
Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."
"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
(DV) Amr: From Axis of Evil to Exit Door for Weasels
(DV) Amr: From Axis of Evil to Exit Door for Weasels: "by Ahmed Amr | www.dissidentvoice.org | January 17, 2005
In making the case for the war against Iraq, the Bush administration insisted that Iraq had WMDs and intimate relationships with Bin Laden. Two years and a billion dollars later -- the search is over and the president will stage his inauguration party with yet another dry hole on his hands ....
Neither does the absence of WMDs bother the Likudnik neo-con architects of the war who played a decisive role in manufacturing the so-called “intelligence failure” - with the capable assistance of rogue intelligence operatives in the Office of Special Plans. As Wolfowitz has already admitted, the WMDs were just a convenient pretext ...
...
It might still be useful to probe the ideological background of the neocon chicken hawks like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Elliot Abrams. Virtually all the major actors who promoted this quagmire trace their roots to think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute -- which is nothing more than a front organization for the Israeli lobby. One of the most intriguing aspects of this conflict is the intense coordination by neocon insiders with their fellow travelers in the mass media – like Judith Miller and Charles Krauthammer - who played a vital role in marketing this conflict to a gullible audience. ...
...
This is hardly the outcome that was expected by the neo-con wizards. But, no worries. George Bush has his spin teams hard at work. As his occupation army evacuates the Green Zone and hands over the keys of Abu Ghraib, and as Marine helicopters make one last reconnaissance flight over the ruins of Fallujah, Bush will declare that the United States has fought the good fight to bring democracy to Iraq. He can count on most Americans to buy that line. A good percentage of them continue to believe that WMDs have already been found and that Saddam was personally responsible for the 9/11 attacks....
In making the case for the war against Iraq, the Bush administration insisted that Iraq had WMDs and intimate relationships with Bin Laden. Two years and a billion dollars later -- the search is over and the president will stage his inauguration party with yet another dry hole on his hands ....
Neither does the absence of WMDs bother the Likudnik neo-con architects of the war who played a decisive role in manufacturing the so-called “intelligence failure” - with the capable assistance of rogue intelligence operatives in the Office of Special Plans. As Wolfowitz has already admitted, the WMDs were just a convenient pretext ...
...
It might still be useful to probe the ideological background of the neocon chicken hawks like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Elliot Abrams. Virtually all the major actors who promoted this quagmire trace their roots to think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute -- which is nothing more than a front organization for the Israeli lobby. One of the most intriguing aspects of this conflict is the intense coordination by neocon insiders with their fellow travelers in the mass media – like Judith Miller and Charles Krauthammer - who played a vital role in marketing this conflict to a gullible audience. ...
...
This is hardly the outcome that was expected by the neo-con wizards. But, no worries. George Bush has his spin teams hard at work. As his occupation army evacuates the Green Zone and hands over the keys of Abu Ghraib, and as Marine helicopters make one last reconnaissance flight over the ruins of Fallujah, Bush will declare that the United States has fought the good fight to bring democracy to Iraq. He can count on most Americans to buy that line. A good percentage of them continue to believe that WMDs have already been found and that Saddam was personally responsible for the 9/11 attacks....
Bush: vindicated by his re-election and he did not need to hold to account any of the officials responsible for the miscalculations
Telegraph | News | The voters stood by me on Iraq, says Bush: "The voters stood by me on Iraq, says Bush
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 17/01/2005)
President George W Bush said yesterday the mission in Iraq had been vindicated by his re-election and he did not need to hold to account any of the officials responsible for the miscalculations before or after the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
'We had an accountability moment and that's called the 2004 elections,' he told the Washington Post."
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 17/01/2005)
President George W Bush said yesterday the mission in Iraq had been vindicated by his re-election and he did not need to hold to account any of the officials responsible for the miscalculations before or after the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
'We had an accountability moment and that's called the 2004 elections,' he told the Washington Post."
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Senator Boxer Proves Conde Rice a Liar
Senator Boxer Proves Conde Rice a Liar Sam Hamod
01/18/05 "Information Clearing House" -- This morning, at 9.40 a.m., Senator Barbara Boxer listed fact after fact, statements by Conde Rice, that showed she contradicted herself time and again about Al Qaeda, about Saddam and his alleged WMD’s, and his intentions—all of which led us into war against Iraq. Boxer even went on to show that Conde Rice, even recently, was lying the more in contradicting statements by the CIA’s own intelligence reports, contradicting statements by President Bush, and that her support for administration policies was stronger than her support for the safety of our nation.
...
Among the things that Senator Boxer pointed out were these contradictions: 1. Rice said that Al Qaeda areas had shrunk; Boxer pointed out that Al Qaeda now had more lands in which it was operating than before the war on Iraq; 2. Rice said that the war was not about WMD’s; Boxer pointed out that the congress supported the response based on fear of WMD’s and atomic weapons that the administration claimed existed in a dangerous situation for the U.S.; 3. Rice said that Saddam had worked with Al Qaeda; Boxer pointed out that they were enemies and no cooperation; 4. Rice said we’d made progress in the Arab and Muslims worlds; Boxer pointed out that there was more anger against America in Muslim and Arab lands since the invasion of Iraq, not less—this according to the CIA’s own intelligence bureau and the president’s own committee on combating terrorism; 5. Rice said that Al Qaeda was now more under control; Boxer pointed out that every governmental agency that has looked at the situation has made clear that Al Qaeda has appealed to more jihadist Muslims than anyone had ever imagined—Bin Laden’s hope had come true because of our attack on Iraq which proved to them that America was attacking and desiring to take-over Arab and Muslim lands. There were other points, but these are but a few. During this time, Rice would quote Bush when she felt it was helpful, but even then Boxer pointed out when she contradicted the president when it suited her self-defense (especially with reference to Saddam and his alleged “nuclear weapons”, his infamous aluminum tubes and his “nuclear facilities.”) ...
01/18/05 "Information Clearing House" -- This morning, at 9.40 a.m., Senator Barbara Boxer listed fact after fact, statements by Conde Rice, that showed she contradicted herself time and again about Al Qaeda, about Saddam and his alleged WMD’s, and his intentions—all of which led us into war against Iraq. Boxer even went on to show that Conde Rice, even recently, was lying the more in contradicting statements by the CIA’s own intelligence reports, contradicting statements by President Bush, and that her support for administration policies was stronger than her support for the safety of our nation.
...
Among the things that Senator Boxer pointed out were these contradictions: 1. Rice said that Al Qaeda areas had shrunk; Boxer pointed out that Al Qaeda now had more lands in which it was operating than before the war on Iraq; 2. Rice said that the war was not about WMD’s; Boxer pointed out that the congress supported the response based on fear of WMD’s and atomic weapons that the administration claimed existed in a dangerous situation for the U.S.; 3. Rice said that Saddam had worked with Al Qaeda; Boxer pointed out that they were enemies and no cooperation; 4. Rice said we’d made progress in the Arab and Muslims worlds; Boxer pointed out that there was more anger against America in Muslim and Arab lands since the invasion of Iraq, not less—this according to the CIA’s own intelligence bureau and the president’s own committee on combating terrorism; 5. Rice said that Al Qaeda was now more under control; Boxer pointed out that every governmental agency that has looked at the situation has made clear that Al Qaeda has appealed to more jihadist Muslims than anyone had ever imagined—Bin Laden’s hope had come true because of our attack on Iraq which proved to them that America was attacking and desiring to take-over Arab and Muslim lands. There were other points, but these are but a few. During this time, Rice would quote Bush when she felt it was helpful, but even then Boxer pointed out when she contradicted the president when it suited her self-defense (especially with reference to Saddam and his alleged “nuclear weapons”, his infamous aluminum tubes and his “nuclear facilities.”) ...
Monday, January 17, 2005
The Vote on Mr. Gonzales (washingtonpost.com): He does not deserve to be confirmed as attorney general.
The Vote on Mr. Gonzales (washingtonpost.com): "The Vote on Mr. Gonzales
Sunday, January 16, 2005; Page B06
DESPITE A POOR performance at his confirmation hearing, Alberto R. Gonzales appears almost certain to be confirmed by the Senate as attorney general. Senators of both parties declared themselves dissatisfied with Mr. Gonzales's lack of responsiveness to questions about his judgments as White House counsel on the detention of foreign prisoners. Some expressed dismay at his reluctance to state that it is illegal for American personnel to use torture, or for the president to order it. A number of senators clearly believe, as we do, that Mr. Gonzales bears partial responsibility for decisions that have led to shocking, systematic and ongoing violations of human rights by the United States. Most apparently intend to vote for him anyway. At a time when nominees for the Cabinet can be disqualified because of their failure to pay taxes on a nanny's salary, this reluctance to hold Mr. Gonzales accountable is shameful. He does not deserve to be confirmed as attorney general. "
Sunday, January 16, 2005; Page B06
DESPITE A POOR performance at his confirmation hearing, Alberto R. Gonzales appears almost certain to be confirmed by the Senate as attorney general. Senators of both parties declared themselves dissatisfied with Mr. Gonzales's lack of responsiveness to questions about his judgments as White House counsel on the detention of foreign prisoners. Some expressed dismay at his reluctance to state that it is illegal for American personnel to use torture, or for the president to order it. A number of senators clearly believe, as we do, that Mr. Gonzales bears partial responsibility for decisions that have led to shocking, systematic and ongoing violations of human rights by the United States. Most apparently intend to vote for him anyway. At a time when nominees for the Cabinet can be disqualified because of their failure to pay taxes on a nanny's salary, this reluctance to hold Mr. Gonzales accountable is shameful. He does not deserve to be confirmed as attorney general. "
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Pipes Favors Concentration Camps
Pipes Favors Concentration CampsWhy the Japanese internment still matters | By Daniel Pipes | Middle East Forum
12/30/04 "Star-Telegram" -- For years, it has been my position that the threat of radical Islam implies an imperative to focus security measures on Muslims. If searching for rapists, one looks only at the male population. Similarly, if searching for Islamists (adherents of radical Islam), one looks at the Muslim population.
And so, I was encouraged by a just-released Cornell University opinion survey that finds nearly half the U.S. population agreeing with this proposition.
Specifically, 44 percent of Americans believe that government authorities should direct special attention toward Muslims living in the United States, either by registering their whereabouts, profiling them, monitoring their mosques or infiltrating their organizations.
That's the good news; the bad news is the near-universal disapproval of this realism. Leftist and Islamist organizations have so successfully influenced public opinion that polite society shies away from endorsing a focus on Muslims.
In the United States, this intimidation results in large part from a revisionist interpretation of the evacuation, relocation and internment of ethnic Japanese during World War II.
Denying that the treatment of ethnic Japanese resulted from legitimate national security concerns, this lobby has established that it resulted solely from a combination of "wartime hysteria" and "racial prejudice."
As radical groups like the American Civil Liberties Union wield this interpretation, in the words of columnist Michelle Malkin, "like a bludgeon over the War on Terror debate," they pre-empt efforts to build an effective defense against today's Islamist enemy.
12/30/04 "Star-Telegram" -- For years, it has been my position that the threat of radical Islam implies an imperative to focus security measures on Muslims. If searching for rapists, one looks only at the male population. Similarly, if searching for Islamists (adherents of radical Islam), one looks at the Muslim population.
And so, I was encouraged by a just-released Cornell University opinion survey that finds nearly half the U.S. population agreeing with this proposition.
Specifically, 44 percent of Americans believe that government authorities should direct special attention toward Muslims living in the United States, either by registering their whereabouts, profiling them, monitoring their mosques or infiltrating their organizations.
That's the good news; the bad news is the near-universal disapproval of this realism. Leftist and Islamist organizations have so successfully influenced public opinion that polite society shies away from endorsing a focus on Muslims.
In the United States, this intimidation results in large part from a revisionist interpretation of the evacuation, relocation and internment of ethnic Japanese during World War II.
Denying that the treatment of ethnic Japanese resulted from legitimate national security concerns, this lobby has established that it resulted solely from a combination of "wartime hysteria" and "racial prejudice."
As radical groups like the American Civil Liberties Union wield this interpretation, in the words of columnist Michelle Malkin, "like a bludgeon over the War on Terror debate," they pre-empt efforts to build an effective defense against today's Islamist enemy.