April 30, 2004
You may recall that during his recent testimony before the 9/11
Commission, John Ashcroft on the spot declassified a memo written by one of
the Commissioners, Jamie Gorelick -- about the rules by which the FBI and
CIA could cooperate on intelligence matters during the '90s -- which then
led to rightwing calls for her to resign from the Commission.
According to Josh Marshall,
Ashcroft has declassified 30 more documents that refer to Gorelick, and
which therefore might be used by pro-Bush forces to try to get Democrat
Gorelick off the Commission. This is hard-ball politics from the hard-nosed
Ashcroft.
But the interesting point here, Marshall notes, is that Bush claims not to
have known anything about what his Attorney General was doing in this
regard, and is "disappointed" that he did all this instantaneous
declassifying and sharing of the memos with the public.
Bush's press spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that "the president
looks at this and doesn't believe that there ought to be
finger-pointing....I think the president was disappointed about....putting
that on their Web site."
It's not clear what this public reprimand might signify, but, as Marshall
says, "certainly, something happened here." We'll all have to stay tuned.
There may be some fire underneath all the smoke.
Atrios has a minor scooplet here:
"Yesterday's big news: There will be no full record of the [9/11
Commission] session, even by the White House.
"Elisabeth Bumiller and Philip Shenon write in the New York Times: 'The
White House said on Tuesday that there would be no recording or formal
transcription of the historic joint interview of President Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney by the independent commission investigating the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks'."
"John Roberts reports for CBS News: 'The White House today claimed that
commission interviews with Bill Clinton and Al Gore were not transcribed.
But in fact, CBS News has learned, those sessions were recorded and will
eventually be transcribed'."
The best we can hope for, I guess, is drips and drabs of leaks from those
who were inside the room. Bush came out and proudly said he had eaten all
his vegetables -- he said he'd answered every question put to him, as if he
wasn't supposed to do that as a matter of course -- but wouldn't say what
he'd talked about.
So let the leaking commence. Otherwise, we'll have to wait until the
Commission's report is issued in July to see how they fold-in the comments
of Bush and Cheney.
Digsby praises
Matthew Yglesias for pointing out the obvious that most everyone else
had missed:
"The DNC should be blastfaxing to every mediamoron in the Washington, who up
to now have not said word one about this obvious discrepancy:
"'If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first
place,' [Bush said after his testimony to the 9/11 Commission].
"Back in the real world of course, Bush did refuse to meet with the
commission, only to back down in the face of public pressure. Then he
refused to meet for more than one hour and, again, he wound up backing down
in the face of public pressure. Finally, he agreed to let the commission ask
their questions, but only on the dual condition that Cheney be at his side
and that no transcript of the meeting be released. That doesn't sound at all
like the pattern of behavior of a president who's trying to hide something.
Why, it's been 'unprecedented cooperation' from the get-go. And we all
remember how eager Condoleezza Rice was to testify....' "I've had the cable
news on all morning and not one member of the "press" has noted this
bullshit. It's spoonfeeding time, Terry."
You know about Bush's aide
Karen Hughes
comparing pro-choice politicians with terrorists, and then
trying to claim she never made the comparison.
Well, Kos quotes conservative commentator
Tucker Carlsen on Hughes' habit of baldfaced lying:
"'I heard that [on the campaign bus, Bush communications director] Karen
Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was
saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about
how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never
heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane.
"I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking
thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did
it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses
over from bravado into mental illness."
[Kos summarizes:] "Liars. The whole lot of them. Hughes, Rove, Bush, Cheney,
Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Negroponte, and so on. Liars."
Juan Cole dissects the inner
meaning in
the USA Poll of Iraqis and what they think about the U.S. Occupation.
Here are a few paragraphs; check out the rest.
"From March 22 to April 2, 60 trained Iraqi pollsters interviewed 3,444
randomly selected Iraqis for USA Today. This is one of the first polls in
Iraq that seems to me well weighted statistically, though to be sure we'd
have to know more than USA Today told us.
"The numbers are negative for the US, and are much more negative than
previous such polls. Moreover, the polling ended by April 2, just before the
Shiite uprising and the worst of the Fallujah fighting, so that it is highly
likely that the present attitudes of the Iraqi public toward the US are much
more negative.
"Amazingly, 57% of Iraqis say that US troops should leave Iraq immediately.
If one subtracted the Kurds, a much higher percentage of Arabic speaking
Iraqis say this. And, they say it with their eyes open. About 57% also admit
that life would get harder (i.e. there would be a lot of instability) if the
US suddenly withdrew. They want the US gone anyway, and will take their
chances.
"Over half say there are circumstances under which it is all right to attack
US troops! A February poll I discussed here had said that only 10% of Iraqi
Shiites held that attacks on US troops were ever justified, and 30% of Sunni
Arabs felt that way. The number in al-Anbar province (think Fallujah) was
70%, but it was high for Iraq at that time. Again, if the earlier polling
was correct, there was a massive shift in opinion on this matter. We went
from having about 3 million Iraqis think it was all right to attack US
troops to more than 13 million."
Hesiod comments on the
decision by the Sinclair Broadcast Group's decision not to broadcast
Friday's "Nightline," where Ted Koppel will read the names and show the
photos of all the Americans who have died in the Iraq War to date:
"If you wanted iron clad proof that conservatives have gone completely
around the bend, they are accusing Nightline of being, get this, PARTISAN,
because they will honor the young men and women who gave their lives in Iraq
by reading their names, and showing their photos.
"Only in the twisted minds of right wingers would simply showing the
American people the names and faces of those who died in Iraq be considered
"partisan," or an attempt to "undermine" the United States' effort in Iraq.
"Would they say the same thing if this were done in a World War II newsreel?
Of course not.
"They'd applaud it as a reverent memorial to those who made the ultimate
sacrifice for our country.
"It's only when the war is a complete disaster, and the man who caused their
deaths is running for reelection that it becomes "partisan."
"How disgusting. How pathetic. How dishonorable.
"At long last, have you no sense of decency?"
April 28, 2004
Got this email yesterday from a high school chum which confirms a
suspicion I've had for many months now. It began when I traveled around
Texas and and New York and the South last year and found precious few true
believers in George W. Bush.
In recent days, it seems that more and more died-in-the-wool Republicans are
abandoning Bush big-time. They've had it with his extremist policies, his
war-mongering, his incompetence, his avoiding his own accountability in
what's going wrong, his ruining of the economy and jobs situation. Read this
excerpt from my friend Diane's letter and then read the next item, and see
if those two accounts resonate with your own experience.
"...One bright note: I had a Kerry button on leaving work one day and a
young attorney got on at our corporate floor. He looked at the button and
said, 'Good. I'm a registered Republican and I have never voted for a
Democrat. I can't stand Bush.' I said, 'Yes, he's pretty stupid.' He said,
'It's not that. He's a liar and thinks he's almighty God.' He was going to
get off at the garage level, but decided to ride down to the lobby with me
just to express his hatred of Bush. This conversation gave me a lot of
hope. Surely there are other Republicans hiding in the closet until
November."
And this recent item from Josh
Marshall's blog, Talking Points Memo:
Dick Cheney goes to Westminster College, the site of Winston Churchill's
'iron curtain' speech, and embarrasses himself by sandbagging the University
President who accepted Cheney's request to speak at the college.
Here's the first graf of an email President Fletcher M. Lamkin sent to
faculty, students and staff this afternoon ...
"I would like to thank each and every one of you who were so courteous
and respectful to Mr. Cheney during his visit and speech. Frankly, I must
admit that I was surprised and disappointed that Mr. Cheney chose to step
off the high ground and resort to Kerry-bashing for a large portion of his
speech. The content and tone of his speech was not provided to us prior to
the event -- we had only been told the speech would be about foreign
policy, including issues in Iraq. Nevertheless, I was extremely proud of
the students, staff, and faculty who represented the College so well
during the organization of the visit and during the speech itself --
inside and outside of the gym."
A college president taking on the Vice President of the United States for
bringing partisan politics into a college visit and speech! Way to go,
Fletcher Lamkin! The Bushies are genuinely worried about the November
election, and are starting to behave in a desperate fashion. Good riddance
to bad rubbish.
PostScript: President Lampkin has decided to extend a speaking
invitation to John Kerry.
Rove and the rest of the Bush boys may rue the day they decided to attack
John Kerry's military record. Not just because it's a sterling, heroic one,
but because it reminds everyone that Bush's military record, that of it that
has been released, makes him seem like a draft-avoiding slacker.
I added that proviso above because it looks like a whole can of worms has
been opened up, since Kerry (like John McCain before him, in the 2000
campaign) has supplied the press with all his relevant military records, but
it is highly likely that Bush held some of his military records back. The
implication is obvious: Whatever is in those withheld records is not at all
helpful to the Bush campaign.
James Moore
writes about this in
Salon:
"The president and his staff are doing a very good job of convincing
the public he has released all of his National Guard records and that they
prove he was responsible during his time in Alabama and Texas. But the
critical documents have still not been seen. The mandatory written report
about Bush's grounding is mysteriously not in the released file, nor is
any other disciplinary evidence. A document showing a 'roll-up,' or the
accumulation of his total retirement points, is also absent, and so are
his actual pay stubs. If the president truly wanted to end the conjecture
about his time in the Guard, he would allow an examination of his pay
stubs and any IRS W-2 forms from his Guard years. These can be pieced
together to determine when he was paid and whether he earned enough to
have met his sworn obligations. "...Unlike lawyers, journalists pay little
attention to concepts like chain of custody for evidence. In the case of
the president's Guard records, whoever possessed them and had the motive
and opportunity to clean them up is a critical question. When Bush left
the Guard about a half year early to attend Harvard Business School, his
hard-copy record was retained in a military personnel records jacket at
the Austin offices of the Texas Guard. Eventually, those documents were
committed to microfiche. A copy of the microfiche was then sent to the Air
Reserve Personnel Center in Denver and the National Personnel Records
Center in St. Louis. Those records are considered private, and they cannot
be released to anyone without the signature of the serviceman or woman.
The White House has never indicated that Bush has signed the authorization
form. And this is what prompts unending suspicion. "The documents given to
Washington reporters were printed from one of those two microfiches.
According to two separate sources within the Guard who saw the printout
and spoke with me, the microfiche was shipped to the office of Maj. Gen.
Danny James, commander of the Air National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Va.
James' staff printed out all of the documents on the film and then,
according to those same sources, James vetted the material. Subsequent to
being scrutinized by James (who commanded the Texas Guard and was promoted
to Washington by Bush,) the records were then sent to the White House for
further scrutiny prior to release to the news media. "This is a
considerably different process from what was practiced by Sen. John McCain
during the 2000 presidential campaign ... McCain signed a release form,
and his entire record, a stack of papers more than a foot tall, was made
available to reporters without being vetted by the campaign."
Josh Marshall writes that
"[ Maj. Gen. Danny] James is the same James who is accused of assisting in
scrubbing the paper copies of the president's record back in 1997 -- a
charge that is of course roundly denied, but which is also discussed at some
length in the Salon piece.
"Now, as I say, I just don't know the details of all this well enough any
more to make a judgment about these various claims and accusations.
"But why exactly can't the president just release his records the way McCain
did? "And, is that story about James getting a chance to go over these files
true? If it is, I'd say some scribblers in town got suckered. Big time, as
the vice president would say."
Juan Cole, an expert on Arabs in the
Middle East explains why the type of warfare being waged by the U.S.
commanders in the field in Iraq is destined to fail, and bring further
discredit and shame on the American leaders who sent the soldiers there in
such numbers:
"I made the mistake of turning on the television in the middle of the
day and was treated to horrific images of part of the Julan quarter of
Fallujah in flames. It appears that the Marines took fire from there and
called in AC-130 strikes against the points from which the fire
originated.
"...AC-130 warplanes are effective against troops deployed on a
battlefield, but should not be used against urban targets. They were used
effectively against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the field Afghanistan, and
against the Republican Guards on the battlefield in the recent Iraq war.
They and other such aerial weapons are what make a civil war of any
conventional sort in Iraq unlikely, since the first time someone fields
150 men on a battlefield, they can just be taken out by the AC-130s.
(Urban riots and alleyway fighting are a different proposition). I'm no
expert on military hardware and do not pretend to be, but this makes scary
reading even for a layman.
"The immense firepower of these warplanes, however, simply should not be
being unleashed against the Julan quarter. You cannot do that so precisely
that you ensure that innocent civilians are not massacred along with the
guerrillas. It is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
Kos explains why Pennsylvania Sen.
Arlen Specter's victory at the polls Tuesday was a win for Bush but a
devastating blow to neo-conservatives. Whether the liberals, who have Joe
Hoeffel waiting in the wings to defeat the Republican candidate in November,
were harmed or will benefit from Specter's victory is an open question.
Anyway, check out Kos' short account of Tuesday's vote, and follow the
bouncing electoral votes.
April 26, 2004
The situation in Iraq in general and in Najaf in particular is getting
more and more worrisome, as it appears that the U.S. -- forgetting the
inevitability of unforeseen consequences -- is about ready to move into the
holy Muslim city of Najaf, against the advice of virtually all the various
religious and ethnic factions in Iraq and beyond.
The U.S. military has been tasked by Rumsfeld to walk gently into Najaf and
Fallujah while carrying its big stick. But one can almost predict that some
mistake will be made by some soldier, or a rocket will go astray, and a
sacred shrine or mosque will be hit. Then all hell breaks loose, the
unwanted material will hit the fan, and word will go out in Muslim circles
that a full-scale assault has been launched on Najaf, one of the holiest of
cities in that religion. A country- and perhaps world-wide rebellion will
ensue against the U.S. policy in Iraq.
The U.S. will attempt to shift the blame to al-Sadr or to Iran, but the
responsibility will rest on the U.S. decision to escalate the standoff, even
if in a "minor" way, in order to demonstrate that America has effective
control of the situation.
As for Iran,
as Middle East specialist
Prof. Juan Cole notes, "what comes across here is that actually many
Iranian officials want Iraq to be a stable neighbor, and are worried that
the US is mishandling it and that trouble will spread across the border to
Iran. They were perfectly happy to offer their good offices to help resolve
the current standoff at Najaf, but clearly no major party to the dispute was
interested in having them do that, including especially Muqtada al-Sadr.
"The Ledeenist drumbeat on the Brownshirt side of the Republican Party that
Iran is behind the recent instability in the Shiite south is directly
contradicted by Iranian actions and by Muqtada al-Sadr's refusal to see his
supposed patrons. In fact, I suspect Ahmad Chalabi gets more money from Iran
than Muqtada does. And, it seems obvious that the US administrators are the
ones who provoked the clashes, which were not spontaneous but came in
response to a US attempt to arrest Muqtada."
Always good to hear what the residents of Iraq think about what's going
on. That's why the info provided by the blogger known as "Baghdad Burning"
is so important. Here's one from
her from a few days ago:
"To lessen the feelings of anti-Americanism, might I make a few
suggestions? Stop the collective punishment. When Mark Kimmett stutters
through a press conference babbling about 'precision weapons' and
'military targets' in Falloojeh, who is he kidding? Falloojeh is a small
city made up of low, simple houses, little shops and mosques. Is he
implying that the 600 civilians who died during the bombing and the
thousands injured and maimed were all 'insurgents'? Are houses, shops and
mosques now military targets?
"What I'm trying to say is that we don't need news networks to make us
angry or frustrated. All you need to do is talk to one of the Falloojeh
refugees making their way tentatively into Baghdad; look at the
tear-stained faces, the eyes glazed over with something like shock. In our
neighborhood alone there are at least 4 families from Falloojeh who have
come to stay with family and friends in Baghdad. The stories they tell are
terrible and grim and it's hard to believe that they've gone through so
much. "I think western news networks are far too tame. They show the
Hollywood version of war- strong troops in uniform, hostile Iraqis being
captured and made to face 'justice' and the White House turkey posing with
the Thanksgiving turkey -- which is just fine. But what about the
destruction that comes with war and occupation? What about the death? I
don't mean just the images of dead Iraqis scattered all over, but dead
Americans too. People should *have* to see those images. Why is it not ok
to show dead Iraqis and American troops in Iraq, but it's fine to show the
catastrophe of September 11 over and over again? I wish every person who
emails me supporting the war, safe behind their computer, secure in their
narrow mind and fixed views, could actually come and experience the war
live. I wish they could spend just 24 hours in Baghdad today and hear Mark
Kimmett talk about the death of 700 'insurgents' like it was a proud day
for Americans everywhere..."
The Bush Administration does not want the American people to be able to
actually see the effects of the Iraq war on some of its own troops. If you
want to see the photos banned by the Bush Administration of flag-draped
coffins arriving at Dover Air Force base -- these are not inflammatory
pictures, mind you, just tasteful, documentary-type photos of U.S. soldiers
handling with care the bodies of the dead soldiers arriving back on U.S.
soil -- go to these mirror sites:
Media.newsfrom babylon or
warblogging.com .
Don't know about how the Pro-Choice March was handled by the media in
your area, but even here in liberal Northern California, the coverage was
curious. "Thousands of people marched in Washington, D.C." was the usual
lead-in, which in the public mind could mean anything from two thousand to
two hundred thousand. I saw only one local channel, and no national report,
that alluded up top to the fact that perhaps more than a half-million people
demonstrated. The actual count probably was closer to three-quarters of a
million women, men and children marching in support of a woman's right to
choose an abortion, if necessary.
The impressive march went off with few hitches or glitches, and should have
served as a warning to politicians not to ignore the pro-choice forces, who
are ready to mobilize against Bush and other anti-choice leaders in the
coming election.
The most disgusting spin of the day was Bush lackey Karen Hughes' comparison
of pro-choicers with al Qaida terrorists. Here's what she said: ""I think
that after September 11, the American people are valuing life more and we
need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life," she said.
"President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value
life, let's reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions. And I
think those are the kinds of policies the American people can support,
particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy and, really, the
fundamental issue between us and the terror network we fight is that we
value every life."
It's the old "you're with us or with the terrorists" conflation: If you
support a woman's right to choose, you are on the side of evil, the
terrorists are evil, ergo you are on the side of the terrorists." Shame on
Hughes and her Roveian handlers. For more on Hughes and the hypocrisies
involved from the Bush Administration on these sexual behavior/abortion
issues, see Steve Gilliard's
blog on the pro-choice march.
See Kos's take,
where he writes: "The latest example [of reprehensible commentary] is Karen
Hughes, who dove down and wallowed in the same gutter recently occupied by
Secretary of Education Rod Paige. (Paige, you may remember,
characterized
teachers unions as terrorist organizations). When asked about today's
pro-choice rally, Hughes revealed that the administration would prefer that
voters not distinguish supporting terrorists from supporting a woman's right
to exercise control over her own body."
Also check out Trapper John's report at Daily Kos for
a solid report from the march.
And speaking of Republican hypocrisies,
check out David Sirota's blog
www.davidsirota.com where he takes Dick Cheney down a peg or two by
reminding Cheney, who is happy to denounce John Kerry's alleged desire to
cut defense spending, that Cheney as House Leader attacked Ronald Reagan in
1984 for NOT cutting defense spending. Here's the quote from the 12/16/84
Washington Post:
Said Cheney: [If Reagan] "doesn't really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1
special pleader in town...The severity of the deficit is great enough that
the president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be
credible...If you're going to rule out the other two [Social Security cuts
and a tax increase], then you've got to hit defense."
"Change the World "
April 20, 2004
The scariest aspect that came out of Bush's pathetic press conference was
not his desire to change the Middle Eastern region by invading Iraq -- he'd
said that many times before -- but his hysterical overreaching: Now, in his
messianic complex, he thinks it's his role to
"change the world."
We should know by now to beware of ideologues who want to "change the
world." They usually are so blinded by their zeal, and hamstrung by their
ignorance of the world's complexities, that nothing but disaster results.
We're seeing that in microcosm in Iraq, where the neo-cons -- who wanted to
use the example of Iraq to change the entire Middle East -- understood (and
still understand) precious little of the realities on the ground: the messy
politics of the country, the strength of religious fervor, the power of
nationalism, the language, the history, the cultural clues, and everything
else. Now it's a full scale catastrophe -- for the Iraqis, the U.S.
military, the Middle East, the United Nations, and everyone else.
And they want to FUBAR the entire world?
Yank the chain and flush them out -- if not by impeachment soon, by the
election results in November.
Dangerous to Get Too Close to the Bushman
April 20, 2004
Josh Marshall in
Talking
Points Memo puts his finger on a major issue that was pretty much
ignored amidst all the attention focused on the 9/11 hearings and the
unraveling situation in Iraq: It seems that foreign politicians tend to lose
elections when their citizens view them as being too close to the Bush
Administration.
It's happened in Spain, and now it's happening in South Korea -- with the
huge leftist victory last week in parliamentary elections.
Marshall writes of the Korea case: "There are at least a couple points of
interest here. One is an uncanny parallel to recent events in the United
States. An out-of-touch conservative opposition party impeaches a liberal
president on the basis of essentially trumped up charges against the
overwhelming wishes of the public. Conservative party then faces a fierce
backlash at the polls as the electorate punishes them for an attempted
constitutional coup and ignoring the popular will.
"...Setting aside these uncanny parallels, there's a more immediate
significance to this result. It is the continuance of a global trend in
which elections in countries allied to the United States are being won by
parties advocating loosening ties with America. Running against America --
or really against George W. Bush makes for great politics almost everywhere
in the world.
"We saw it in South Korea two years ago. Then later that year in Germany.
Recently in Spain. And now again in Korea -- with many other examples along
the way.
"Each election had its own internal dynamics. But in each case opposition to
the policies of the Bush administration became a salient, even defining
issue."
Might this explain why Brigadier Nick Carter has suggested a clever way out
for British troops in Basra? The Brits can't simply cut and run like Spain
-- as this would infuriate Bush, who is dedicated to "staying the course"
regardless of the price, and would demonstrate to the British electorate
that Tony Blair was wrong. But Brig. Carter hinted how the British pullout
could occur. As Juan Cole posts from a
Telegraph story:
"During an interview in Basra last week Brig Carter acknowledged that
the Coalition's presence in southern Iraq was entirely dependent on the
goodwill of the local Shia Muslim leader, Sayid Ali al-Safi al-Musawi. He
represents Ayatollah Sistani, Iraq's leading Shia cleric. 'The moment that
Sayid Ali says, "We don't want the Coalition here", we might as well go
home', Brig. Carter said."
Will the U.S. Really Invade Najaf?
April 20, 2004
Leaders throughout the world -- Muslim, Christian, Jewish -- have told the
Bush Administration that, if it knows what's good for it, it had better not
invade the holy city of Najaf in their hunt for bad-boy radical cleric Al
Sadr. Even Sadr's religious/political enemy, Ayatollah Sistani, has
predicted a full-scale Muslim uprising if the sanctuary city is violated,
especially by a Western, mainly Christian army.
The chief Iranian cleric, Ali Khameni, has warned the Bush Administration in
strong terms: "The American forces will have committed the biggest act of
stupidity in their entire lives if they took this vile step." (www.juancole.com).
But, given the desperate situation in which the U.S. military finds itself
in Iraq, and the propensity of the Bush Administration always to select the
wrong policy time and time again in that country, it now seems entirely
plausible that Bush will order the attack on Najaf to proceed. Bush&Co. is
the gang that can't shoot straight, and can't think straight, so anything is
possible.
Rice's Non-History Lesson
April 20, 2004
Condi Rice was left twisting in the wind by Bush&Co. She went before the
9/11 Commission unwilling to even entertain the idea of revealing the
notorious August 6, 2004 ("He Knew!)" Presidential Daily Briefing memo from
the CIA. A few days later, in the face of unrelenting pressure from the
commission, press, public and fellow nervous Republicans,
the Administration released that PDB memo.
Someone in the Administration, along with the FBI and CIA, has been fingered
to take the fall for Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, and her initials are C.R.
Anything to keep the finger of responsibility from pointing to the real
progenitors of the 9/11 coverup: Rove & Cheney, and their presidential
sock-puppet.
Rice is no great loss. She either was an integral part of a criminal
conspiracy to lie and cover-up, or she's the most incompetent national
security advisor ever -- well, OK, she's both -- never following through on
anything related to counter-terrorism. Whether the pitcher hits the stone or
the stone hits the pitcher, it isn't good for the pitcher.
And how did Ms. Pitcher attempt to deflect attention away from that pesky
PDB? She hauled out the worst adjective neo-cons can lay on something or
someone: irrelevant. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along;
that PDB contained mainly "historical" material.
Nothing could symbolize the Bush Administration's reasons for failure, in so
many areas of policy, as its misuse of that term.
Bush&Co. do not know history and they do not care to know history -- all
they want to do is to move on to the next item on the grab-and-run agenda.
They seem to believe that by ignoring history, they can ignore the direct
effects that historical events have on current and future ones. History
doesn't work that way. And now Bush&Co. are having their faces ground into
the dust of real-world historical relevance.
Of course, though the August 6th PDB memo is replete with "historical"
references, it is also focused on
the awful warning-signs of the pre-9/11 period -- and the links between
past and present couldn't be more obvious or vital. But, for whatever
conscious or incompetent reasons, they were ignored by the Iraq-obsessed
Bush Administration and 3000 souls died on their watch.
Someone Help This Man, Please
April 20, 2004
Are we dealing with an idiot or a man deeply in need of serious help,
divorced from reality?
Read this:
From that story from Fort Hood, Texas, headlined "Bush Says It's 'Hard to
Tell' If Casualties Will Keep Mounting in Iraq,": "Bush called it 'a tough
week.' The president says it's 'hard to tell' if such fighting will
continue."
Cheers for Senator Kerrey -- and Senator Kerry
April 20, 2004
I've always thought former Senator Bob Kerrey something of a loose-cannon
flake, but he earned my respect big time during Condi Rice's testimony when
he departed from the 9/11 script and confronted her on the idiocy of her
boss' policies and incompetencies with regard to the Iraq War.
His comments barely made the papers the day after Rice's testimony,
so
here they are.
Thank you, Senator Kerrey.
Kerrey: Let me ask a question that -- well, actually, let me say -- I can't
pass this up. I know it'll take into my 10-minute time. But as somebody who
supported the war in Iraq, I'm not going to get the national security
adviser 30 feet away from me very often over the next 90 days, and I've got
to tell you, I believe a number of things.
I believe, first of all, that we underestimate that this war on terrorism is
really a war against radical Islam. Terrorism is a tactic. It's not a war
itself.
Secondly, let me say that I don't think we understand how the Muslim world
views us, and I'm terribly worried that the military tactics in Iraq are
going to do a number of things, and they're all bad...
I think we're going to end up with civil war if we continue down the
military operation strategies that we have in place. I say that sincerely as
someone that supported the war in the first place.
Let me say, secondly, that I don't know how it could be otherwise, given the
way that we're able to see these military operations, even the restrictions
that are imposed upon the press, that this doesn't provide an opportunity
for al Qaeda to have increasing success at recruiting people to attack the
United States It worries me. And I wanted to make that declaration. You
needn't comment on it, but as I said, I'm not going to have an opportunity
to talk to you this closely. And I wanted to tell you that I think the
military operations are dangerously off track. And it's largely a U.S. Army
-- 125,000 out of 145,000 -- largely a Christian army in a Muslim nation. So
I take that on board for what it's worth."
The other Senator Kerry, candidate John, has been getting more and more
forthright on Bush's failures as a commander in chief as well. A few days
ago, the putative Democratic nominee
lashed out at Bush thusly.
Senator Kerry called the situation in Iraq "one of the greatest failures of
diplomacy and failures of judgment that I have seen in all the time that
I've been in public life. Where are the people with the flowers, throwing
them in the streets, welcoming the American liberators the way Dick Cheney
said they would be? Since I fought in Vietnam, I have not seen an arrogance
in our foreign policy like this."
..During the radio interview, Kerry said it appeared that President Bush's
June 30 deadline for transferring control of the country to the Iraqis was
set "by the American election, not by the stability of Iraq."
He said Bush still has to explain who he would be handing power to in Iraq.
"Is he transferring it over to these people in the streets?" Kerry asked.
"Is he transferring it over to Muqtada al-Sadr? Is he transferring it over
to Ayatollah Sistani. Is he transferring it over to this group of people who
make up the so-called provisional council who have no authority?"
Bush could give no answer to this question at his pitiable press conference,
choosing to lay the transfer details at the feet of the U.N. special envoy,
who came up with his own amorphous plan okayed by no Iraqi (yet) who matters
in that country. This is called faith-based diplomacy: You have no idea what
will happen, but you proceed with faith that something will come along to
bail you out. What a way to run a country!