Tag: Bush Administration

Bush: Buy Our Weapons or Iran will hit Paris with Nukes

Think the Bush Administration is done trying open new fronts in using scare tactics in the service of war profiteering?  Think again.

In yet another display of mindboggling display of fearmongering coupled with greed, the Bush Administration is now now telling Europe that it needs to buy American missile defense systems–or else.  From the Los Angeles Times:

With American officials working to close a deal on a missile defense system in Europe, the head of the U.S. program warned Thursday that Iran was within two or three years of producing a missile that could reach most European capitals.

“They’re already flying missiles that exceed what they would need in a fight with Israel. Why? Why do they continue this progression in terms of range of missiles? It’s something we need to think about,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering III, director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, told a conference here on missile defense… [snip]

“Our short-range defenses could protect Rome and Athens,” Obering said, but he warned that London, Paris and Brussels would remain vulnerable “against an Iranian [intermediate-range missile] threat.”

That’s right, mes amis, meine Damen und Herren.  Unless you buy our preposterously expensive and utterly ineffectual Star Wars “defense” technology, dangerous terrorist Ahmadinejad and his merry band of clerics will unilaterally start a war with Israel, create a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, and use the expanded conflict to send your beloved Arc de Triomphe and Reichstag into the stratosphere.

Its 2008! Do you know where your money is? (You better know)

My sig line, which I’ve displayed not-so-proudly for the past year is “Another day, another devalued dollar.”  It seemed appropriate at the time I decided to place it above my name in each blog comment I make, but it seems more and more appropriate with each passing day.  

Not only is our economy now in a recession, not only are home foreclosures at an all time high as well as new home sales at an all time low, not only are lending establishments NOT lending money unless people put up their first born along with some other serious collateral, but the latest bad financial news about our banking industry here in the US may have us wondering about the safety of the money you have deposited at your own bank!

This from CNN:

In the past year there have been four bank failures.

And the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp and banking industry experts foresee many bank failures down the road.

“Regulators are bracing for 100-200 bank failures over the next 12-24 months,” says Jaret Seiberg, an analyst with the financial services firm, the Stanford Group.

Expected loan losses, the deteriorating housing market and the credit squeeze are blamed for the drop in bank profits.

The problem areas will be concentrated in the Rust Belt, in places like Ohio and Michigan and other states like California, Florida and Georgia.

The number of institutions categorized as “problem” institutions by the FDIC has also grown from 50 at the end of 2006 to 76 at the end of last year.

YIKES!  Ever since Bu$hCo was installed into the American Government by the Supreme Court in 2000, for America and Americans, if it wasn’t for bad luck, we wouldn’t have any luck at all.

Lack of a Lucrative Oil Law is the ‘Real’ Problem in Iraq

According to those in the corporate world, the fighting and the lack of security in Iraq is no longer a major obstacle to getting at Iraq’s oil. The real problem now is the lack of a favorable hydrocarbon law.

Meet Michael Wareing. He is Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s business emissary to Iraq. His job is to bring international investors to Iraq to help stimulate economic growth.

Wareing is head of a well-connected auditing firm and was appointed head of a new Basra Development Commission. The Basra region has 70 percent of Iraq’s proven oil reserves and according to The Observer, Oil giants are poised to move into Basra. Wareing thinks security is no longer an issue for investors in Iraq.

‘If you look at many other economies in the world, particularly the oil-rich economies, many of these places are quite challenging countries in which to do business,’ he said. ‘Frankly, if you can successfully operate in the Niger Delta, that is a very different benchmark from imagining that Basra needs to be like London or Paris.’

Iraq’s parliament has yet to pass a hydrocarbon law setting out the terms oil companies will operate on and how profits will be split. ‘My sense is that many of the oil companies are very eager to come in now, and actually what they’re waiting for is the hydrocarbon law to be passed and various projects to be signed off. That is what is causing them to pause, rather than the security position,’ he said.

The slippery slope of evidence obtained by torture

The decision to pursue the death penalty against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a number of other suspects creates a situation that no doubt was thought through by the Bush administration more than whether to actually use torture against these people in the first place.  I haven’t seen this angle discussed too much in depth but if it has, please forgive me.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks that the death penalty is a just punishment, is “cruel and inhuman”, or just plain doesn’t agree with it, I want to at least (for now) leave that out of this post.  If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM” to make it easier for me) is guilty of masterminding the 9/11 attacks, or if he is guilty of any other crimes that can be proven, then he should receive the justice that he deserves.  This is not about whether he should or should not pay for his crimes.

I don’t think there are many people who would say that he does not deserve punishment (whatever the maximum punishment that can be meted out would be) for planning these attacks.  But, and here is the rub – the fact that his trial will be largely based on evidence that is obtained by torture will forever cloud his trial – if not in the eyes of Americans then most certainly in the eyes of the world .

First, Do No Harm…”Torture Light” on Prime Time

Originally posted on ePluribus Media.

The inability to hold those accountable for crimes committed with regard to Iraq — illegal detainment, torture, murder — is a major loophole that must be closed.  Redefining “torture” to exclude certain activities and calling those activities “enhanced interrogation techniques” doesn’t change what it is, nor does it alleviate the guilt or responsibility of those who have assisted and participated in it.

The biggest concern of the White House and the Republicans in Congress — and, indeed, at large — is that the public will finally reject their waffling and dissembly and ultimately hold them all accountable for what evil they have wrought.

They are right to be concerned.  

War Crimes, and Rep. John Conyers

Upon the request of this site’s Master, I am posting a diary that was originally published on Daily Kos over one year ago, and read on the Mike Malloy show on January 30, 2007. Of course, the diary remains as strong today as it was a year ago. The Opposition Party has yet to act appropriately on putting a stop to the Bush Crime Family and their criminal activities, at home and abroad.

When the Democrats were the Minority Party, it was always somewhat encouraging to hear about this or that Democratic Senator or Congressperson sending letters to senior Bush Administration officials letters regarding the officials’ bad behavior. There was a sense one experienced of being along with others in a fight, that if only we had a majority, would be won.

So, everyone on this site worked hard this past year, handing out fliers, making phone calls, going to rallies, and looking forward to voting on Election Day. Well, we did our jobs quite nicely. Most of us can now say that our candidate won! Whether it be a congress, senate, state senate, or governor, most of were successful. Now, we look and several of us are happy with the progress being made, or are content knowing that there are many in Washington that are dedicated to completing a Democratic agenda. While others of us want to see some of those outstanding letters considered with more intensity and urgency.

This diary discusses a letter of John Conyers, now Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.  If you read nothing else below, please click on the link to the letter, read it, and note the signatures of fifty elected officials who, as far as I can tell, have remained silent on this issue for the past year…

Setting Priorities for De-Bushification

Assuming our patented circular firing squad doesn’t wipe out too many of those who would otherwise cast a progressive-leaning vote in the general elections, we Democrats will win the White House come November.  While this is indeed fantastic – and probably the only outcome that will allow for the survival of an intact democracy – in assuming the reins of power, we’ll have only taken the first step in undoing the vast damage that The Decider and his cronies have visited upon our land over the past eight years.

If “change” is to be “the economy, stupid” of this election cycle, then now is the time for us to talk about the changes we’ll need to implement in order to restore our democracy to pre-Bushian levels of functionality.  We must ask ourselves: What putrid laws need to be undone, what emasculated institutions resurrected, which Manchurian Wingnuts fired, so that our nation might leave the 19th century and rejoin our allies in the 21st?

In short, what should be our next president’s priorities as s/he leads the citizenry in its efforts to De-Bushify our mangled government?

Hard Data: CPI Documents Lies by WH, Officials About Iraq With Their Own Words

Via PrgrsvArchitect on a comment over in a DailyKos Open Thread, here:

Just out from the Center for Public Integrity

http://www.publicintegrity.org/…

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration’s case for war.

President Bush, for example, made 231 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Heh. Right from the horses ass mouth primary oratory orifice.

Bush League Justice — Dan Abrams, 11 Dec 2007

Hat-tip to RawStory via Dupa T. Parrot of DelphiForums.

December 11, 2007, Dan Abram’s MSNBC broadcast of Bush League Justice.

The video is on YouTube, but I’m not certain if it is there with or without permission. Submitted for your perusal in the meantime:



There is no extended text below the fold.

Crossposted at ePluribus Media as well.

What Really Were In The Tapes and Why The Destruction!

I was going to do a quick writeup about the destroyed CIA Interrogation Tapes, earlier this week, after listening once again to ex-CIA agent John Kiriakou being interviewed, on NPR’s All Things Considered {you can listen to the interview at the link} and his interviews sounding so much like they were memorized facts that really go no where.

Fact is I don’t buy his story.

The reasons he’s out in public giving this story are my suspicions, and not yet based on facts, may never be, but than again all it takes is total honesty, by someone, to get the real story.

The whole debate, to date, revolves around one form of Illegal Torture, Waterboarding.

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou was a member of the team that captured and questioned al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. The interrogation is one of two CIA interrogations at the heart of the current controversy surrounding destroyed videotapes.

HEY, do you REALLY support the troops?

cross posted from DailyKos diary of Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:58:43 PM EST

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Wouldn’t have posted two in a row on my first day here except it was myself I pushed down the line of diaries-:)

“Do you support the troops?”  I thought it was a simple yes-or-no question when I asked it in a DKos open thread.  The first five responders said yes, and a couple of them seemed baffled as to how I could even ask this and added, “Of course!”  Then I got the following comment.

What do you mean by support?  Do we value their lives, and believe those lives should not be lost in a futile and unjustified war?  Sure, of course.  But “support” – what do you mean?  It’s such a right-wing talking point, who does or does not “support the troops.”  Too many right-wingers believe that they “support” the troops by supporting the agenda of the war – as if, per the Tinker bell [sic] theory, if only every American believed in the Iraq war, then we would certainly win it and the troops could come home.  I also quibble with whether “support the troops” is supposed equate [sic] with “support the acts and conduct” of the troops in Iraq.

Thus, here we are with a diary in which I can explain my “simple” question.  I’ll explain, based on the thoughts of current and former Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers, and on my military experience (non-combat) from 1979 to 1982, what soldiers and veterans themselves think “supporting the troops” really means.

This diary is primarily for these readers:  1) those who would say “Of course!” without really analyzing what this means,  2) those who feel the same as the individual quoted above, 3) anyone who is not sure of their support for the troops, and 4) anyone who does not support the troops but feels open-minded on the subject.

Look for the poll at the end that reflects these points of view.

For the record, I am against the war in Iraq. I believe Bushco’s decision to invade Iraq will be seen by future generations as one of the worst decisions ever made in the history of our nation. I want the troops out of Iraq ASAP. I do not believe it is possible to win the war in Iraq. I denounce any torture. I believe Guantanamo should be closed. I believe what happened at Abu Ghraib was an atrocity, including the fact that the lower ranking individuals were too harshly punished and the higher-ups who ordered those types of torture–specifically outlined in selectively disseminated manuals–should have been punished. I loathe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove. I will vote only for whoever is the Democratic nominee for POTUS in 2008.

That said–“Do You Really Support the Troops?

We can empathize, and imagine being in another’s shoes. We believe we know how we’d react in theoretical circumstances. But in reality it is impossible to know what we would do until we are actually confronted with the specific situation. Some deep, emotional, life-changing and unique experiences of any “group” absolutely can not be fully understood without having lived their experiences.

I am not African American so it is impossible for me to fully understand what it is like to be African American, and the prejudices, social, economic or life experiences of being African American. I am a recovering alcoholic (22 years sober on January 1, 2007). If you are not an alcoholic, it is impossible for you to fully understand this aspect of me. I am not gay, so it is impossible for me to fully understand what it is like to be gay, and the prejudices, social, economic or life experiences of being gay. I suffer from TBI (traumatic brain injury) and if you do not have this issue, it is impossible for you to fully understand what it is like for me. I am not a woman so it is impossible for me to fully understand what it is like to be a woman and vice versus.

You get my point. These are all multi-faceted issues. No matter how we think we would handle our lives, if we don’t have those experiences there is absolutely no way for any of us to truly know how we would react, behave, or perceive life. We do not know what decisions we would or would not make as a result.  

I have one more. If you have never been in the military, it is impossible for you to fully understand those of us who have. If you have not been in a war, in combat, it is impossible for you to fully understand what it is like for those who have. Although I understand so much of military life, I was not in combat; I accept my inability to truly understand that experience.

Now here are thoughts and feelings of a man who is currently serving our nation in Iraq.

It is my belief that a great deal of the American public believe that ALL military personnel WANT to be over here doing what we are doing. What they don’t understand is the old saying that “no one hates a war as much as a Soldier hates a war”. We are sent to do the dirty work for someone that is not willing to do it those selves. We didn’t ask for it, and never got a vote in it but we made a commitment to do it. Unfortunately the U.S. military is the only one at war. The rest of the government, and the country for that matter, are not really involved and that is the greatest shame of it all.

When I asked if I could use his comment; here is his revealing response.

Sir, please feel free to use my post if it will help get the true message out about how we feel over here and using my ID is fine as well if you need to. And please include the fact that the “overwhelming” majority of Captains and Majors I work around and with are of the same mind. I am not sure who the Congressmen speak to when they visit here but they would be surprised if they actually talked to someone that was not “handpicked” to give them the party line.

I could have done without the “Sir.” I worked for a living! 🙂 This is an old service joke; “Sir” is how we refer to commissioned officers; I was a sergeant, an NCO.

I sincerely appreciate this soldier’s honesty. He goes a long way in clarifying why service members join the military; there are purely personal reasons but for most there is an overriding sense of duty and loyalty to our country and to the Constitution. After 9/11 many enlistments were out of patriotism, a desire to protect our nation–you and I–from terrorists.

Whether or not you believe that terrorism is a threat to our nation, many of those who joined the military in the years after 9/11 believed with all their heart and soul that it was. Call them fools, call them naive, call them conned–the fact is they believed and therefore they truly had the most honorable, heroic, patriotic and noble of intentions. I believe were we all as willing to put our life on the line for our beliefs our nation would be far better off.

Now, try to imagine you believed as they did and you enlisted in the year or two after 9/11. You are in Iraq for a year and you realize this is a war we never should have started, a war we cannot win. We are in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. The Iraqi police, military and politicians are not stepping up to the plate. Here’s an assessment from a soldier in a position to know.

The “democratically” elected government of Iraq (GOI) is doing FAR more than dragging ass . . .  this is as close as I can get to the truth of it.  

There is a problem  

GOI asks us to fix the problem  

We tell them to fix it themselves, here is the money  

Problem remains unfixed  

We say we will fix the problem, give us the money back  

They give us 1/3 of the money back and say the rest was used

to think of a way to fix the problem  

We fix the problem with [more of] our own money  

There is a problem

Starting to get the picture? Things like this make me a real fan of “Baptism by Fire” for this “democratically” elected government.  As long as we keep doing for them, they have no reason to do it themselves.

The vast majority of your own nation is against this war. American politicians are using you for political gain on each side of the aisle. What do you do?

If you have not ever been in the military and you really believe you can answer this question without a doubt, you are simply fooling yourself. If you want to try to walk a mile in their boots, I will attempt to help you do so. You might learn what kind of boots they are wearing. . If you are open- minded, you might be able to discern the make of the boot. I myself haven’t had the experience, so you still won’t know the exact model boot. That is as close as my words can get you to “walking a mile in their boots”.

Remember, you raised your right hand to God and you swore this oath:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Remember, you went through seven weeks to 12 weeks of basic training. You were brainwashed. You were broken down and rebuilt. The beliefs (patriotism, national security, defend our people) you already held, were driven deeper and deeper.

Remember, you have become like a brother, a sister, a father to ten, twenty, thirty or more men and women who have saved your life on several occasions, and you theirs.

Remember, you have shared with these brothers- and sisters-in-arms the deaths of others in your “family.” You saw some of your “family” blown into pieces by an explosion. You put their body parts in body bags. You put a tourniquet on your friend’s stump when his leg was blown off. You started her I.V. and tried initial life saving techniques. You sat next to him as he squeezed your hand and screamed in horrendous pain; you told her she was going to be all right even though you were not sure.

One night you had a few beers with one of your “best friends”, someone you knew you would keep in touch with the rest of your life, if you both survived this debacle! You laughed and joked and exchanged stories about stupid things you did at home when you were drunk. The next morning you were together in a Humvee making a routine patrol when you heard gunfire closer than usual. You turned to check your buddy, as always. You saw that most of his head had disappeared, like JFK’s in those final frames of Zapruder’s film.

Remember all that you have read since I asked that question, unanswerable for a non-combat veteran. What do you do? Consider your limited options. Still think you know for sure what you would do?

This, from the person who asked me what I meant by “support the troops,” sticks with me.

I also quibble with whether “support the troops” is supposed [sic] equate with “support the acts and conduct” of the troops in Iraq.

I wonder if this person believes that what he or she thinks his or her conduct would be in circumstances unimaginable in the worst nightmares. If this person is sure of that hypothetical conduct, if anyone is, that person is a fool.  

A Snag In The Campaign For War With Iran

Is Cheney Wailing?

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be major factor in the tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program. Concerns about Iran were raised sharply after President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III,” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

The finding also come in the middle of a presidential campaign during which a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear program has been discussed. The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran’s ultimate intentions about gaining a nuclear weapon remain unclear, but that Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”

“Some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways might – if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible – prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program,” the estimate states.

I have always believed the Iran scare was mostly a red herring by the cynical Bush Administration (not the Cheney cabal however) to take the focus off of IRaq and and that the only way there would be war with Iran would be if a pretext was concocted via the Iraq Debacle. I think that is more true than ever.

Thus, being firm on the Kyl Lieberman is admirable but being firm on NOT funding the Iraq Debacle is MUCH MORE important. It is one of the principal reasons I am displeased with Senator Jim Webb’s actions on these issues.

Load more