That's 200 plus and counting for all my conservative pals who denied the possibility of a Quagmire BEFORE the war began in Iraq. I wonder what the number will be by the election?
Two Missing U.S. Soldiers Found Dead
By PAUL HAVEN, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The bodies of two U.S. soldiers missing for days were discovered early Saturday northwest of Baghdad, as the toll rises past 200 for Americans killed since war started in Iraq...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20030628/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Gee, somebody should tell Bush and his crack team of foreign policy experts.
U.N. Group Finds No Hussein-Al Qaeda Link
By TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN NY TIMES
UNITED NATIONS, June 26 — The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters here today that his five-member team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein's administration in Iraq... (This article goes on to say Al Qaeda is still strong among Muslim fundamentalist groups and growing with hot-blooded new members ready to die for the cause...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/international/middleeast/27NATI.html
Mandela for president.
Mandela Unrelenting Ahead of Bush Tour of Africa
Fri Jun 27, 8:52 AM ET
Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Nicholas Kotch
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Former South African President Nelson Mandela kept up his verbal onslaught against George W. Bush on Friday and implied he would not meet the U.S. president when he makes his first visit to Africa next month.
Mandela condemned Bush for launching the war against Iraq, saying he was wrong to bypass the United Nations and overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by force.
"Since the creation of the United Nations there has not been a World War since 1945. Therefore, for anybody, especially the leader of a superstate, to act outside the United Nations is something that must be condemned by everybody who wants peace," Mandela told reporters after a meeting French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.
"For any country to leave the United Nations and attack an independent country must be condemned in the strongest terms and I am very happy by the attitude taken by (French) President Jacques Chirac."
Chirac led opposition to the Iraq war, vowing to veto any U.S.-backed U.N. resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq and rallying international opposition to Bush's plans.
Mandela, 85 next month, received a Nobel Peace prize for his role in guiding South Africa from apartheid to multi-racial democracy. He stepped down as president in 1999.
DANGER TO WORLD
Mandela has repeatedly condemned Bush over Iraq. In January, he said the Texan "cannot think properly" and in Ireland last week he said the United States and Bush were dangers to the world.
The South African government under President Thabo Mbeki also opposed the war but was more restrained in its criticism.
Bush is due to make a five-nation tour of Africa from July 8-12, spending much of his time in South Africa. A courtesy call on Mandela is an obligatory part of any visiting leader's schedule but there were strong signs on Friday Bush would not meet the African statesman.
Asked if he would repeat his anti-Bush message in person, Mandela replied: "You assume that he is going to meet me. I wouldn't make that assumption. I have said what I wanted to say and I don't have to repeat it."
It was unclear who would cold-shoulder whom.
"I cannot be sure he's going to want to meet me," Mandela said.
No encounter between the two men is featured in a draft itinerary of Bush's African tour which was seen by Reuters.
A U.S. embassy spokeswoman in South Africa declined to comment on Mandela's remarks until she had studied a transcript.
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Friday, June 27, 2003
I'm endorsing the ONLY candidate that can win against Bush. The only politically SEASONED and PROVEN candidate that has the steel to meet the vicious attacks that will come from the ruthless Bush election machine (ask John McCain).
That candidate is John Kerry.
JOHN KERRY'S LETTER:
John Kerry needs you to go https://secure.johnkerry.com/moveon and give whatever contribution you can to his grassroots presidential campaign today to make clear that MoveOn.org’s members agree that with 2.5 million jobs lost, John Ashcroft running wild, surpluses blown, and deficits as far as the eye can see, the one American who deserves to be laid off is George W Bush.
Your contribution can make a difference as we race towards the June 30th FEC fundraising deadline.
Would you like the Democratic Party to pick as its nominee a decorated Vietnam veteran who will remind George W Bush that landing on an aircraft carrier doesn’t make up for a failed economic policy -- for degrading our environment -- for John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights -- and it won’t convince America to let the Republicans privatize Social Security? Then you know John Kerry is the right Democrat to take the fight to George W Bush.
Would you like the Democratic Party to nominate the strong Democrat who from Day One of the Bush Administration has stood up to remind Tom DeLay and his right wing friends that the American flag and patriotism belong to no political party and no President? Then John Kerry should be your choice to take the fight to George W Bush.
Make no mistake, to beat Karl Rove, it’ll take courage, character, and clarity. -- and no one can match John Kerry’s lifetime record of leading the tough fights to hold powerful interests accountable. But to give that fight a voice and beat the Bush-Cheney-Halliburton money machine, it’s going to take MoveOn.org’s grassroots contributions to John Kerry’s campaign. Please go to https://secure.johnkerry.com/moveon and make your secure online contribution today.
With John Kerry, you’re going into political battle with a warrior. He’s not intimidated by George W Bush because he’s faced tougher political opponents -- before he was even 30, he was on Richard Nixon’s Enemies List and he wears it as a badge of honor.
John Kerry came home from Vietnam and stood up to Richard Nixon’s Vietnam War and asked the country, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” As a prosecutor he put the #2 mob crime boss in New England behind bars. He has been elected four times to the United States Senate without ever taking a dime of special interest PAC money in his campaigns. He helped blow the whistle on Ronald Reagan and Oliver North’s illegal war in Central America. During George W Bush’s ‘honeymoon,’ Kerry took the fight to John Ashcroft and Gale Norton and exposed the President’s right wing agenda. He led the fight to stop drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and when other Democrats shied away from the battlefield, it took John Kerry and John McCain to stand up to the Bush Administration’s special interest, lobbyist driven agenda and push to break the stranglehold of Middle East oil by raising fuel efficiency on gas guzzlers.
You know John Kerry is the Democrat to carry out our Party’s mission in 2004 -- now let’s join together to send a message to George W Bush: he may have the special interests’ money, but we have people and we have ideas -- and together we will win.
You can contribute online at:
https://secure.johnkerry.com/moveon
That candidate is John Kerry.
JOHN KERRY'S LETTER:
John Kerry needs you to go https://secure.johnkerry.com/moveon and give whatever contribution you can to his grassroots presidential campaign today to make clear that MoveOn.org’s members agree that with 2.5 million jobs lost, John Ashcroft running wild, surpluses blown, and deficits as far as the eye can see, the one American who deserves to be laid off is George W Bush.
Your contribution can make a difference as we race towards the June 30th FEC fundraising deadline.
Would you like the Democratic Party to pick as its nominee a decorated Vietnam veteran who will remind George W Bush that landing on an aircraft carrier doesn’t make up for a failed economic policy -- for degrading our environment -- for John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights -- and it won’t convince America to let the Republicans privatize Social Security? Then you know John Kerry is the right Democrat to take the fight to George W Bush.
Would you like the Democratic Party to nominate the strong Democrat who from Day One of the Bush Administration has stood up to remind Tom DeLay and his right wing friends that the American flag and patriotism belong to no political party and no President? Then John Kerry should be your choice to take the fight to George W Bush.
Make no mistake, to beat Karl Rove, it’ll take courage, character, and clarity. -- and no one can match John Kerry’s lifetime record of leading the tough fights to hold powerful interests accountable. But to give that fight a voice and beat the Bush-Cheney-Halliburton money machine, it’s going to take MoveOn.org’s grassroots contributions to John Kerry’s campaign. Please go to https://secure.johnkerry.com/moveon and make your secure online contribution today.
With John Kerry, you’re going into political battle with a warrior. He’s not intimidated by George W Bush because he’s faced tougher political opponents -- before he was even 30, he was on Richard Nixon’s Enemies List and he wears it as a badge of honor.
John Kerry came home from Vietnam and stood up to Richard Nixon’s Vietnam War and asked the country, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” As a prosecutor he put the #2 mob crime boss in New England behind bars. He has been elected four times to the United States Senate without ever taking a dime of special interest PAC money in his campaigns. He helped blow the whistle on Ronald Reagan and Oliver North’s illegal war in Central America. During George W Bush’s ‘honeymoon,’ Kerry took the fight to John Ashcroft and Gale Norton and exposed the President’s right wing agenda. He led the fight to stop drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and when other Democrats shied away from the battlefield, it took John Kerry and John McCain to stand up to the Bush Administration’s special interest, lobbyist driven agenda and push to break the stranglehold of Middle East oil by raising fuel efficiency on gas guzzlers.
You know John Kerry is the Democrat to carry out our Party’s mission in 2004 -- now let’s join together to send a message to George W Bush: he may have the special interests’ money, but we have people and we have ideas -- and together we will win.
You can contribute online at:
https://secure.johnkerry.com/moveon
What democracy? Corporate lobbyists oversee the growing financial support for politicians' campaigns and thus the unmentioned "privilege" to basically write our nation's laws and legislation. The evidence points that the GOP has an organized machine that literally strong arms its activists into the lobbyist positions at major corporate donors to seal their political control. If you wish to live in a corporate fascist world where you forfeit your right to a voice in the traditional American democracy, vote Republican.
June 27, 2003
Toward One-Party Rule
By PAUL KRUGMAN NY TIMES
n principle, Mexico's 1917 Constitution established a democratic political system. In practice, until very recently Mexico was a one-party state. While the ruling party employed intimidation and electoral fraud when necessary, mainly it kept control through patronage, cronyism and corruption. All powerful interest groups, including the media, were effectively part of the party's political machine.
Such systems aren't unknown here — think of Richard J. Daley's Chicago. But can it happen to the United States as a whole? A forthcoming article in The Washington Monthly shows that the foundations for one-party rule are being laid right now.
In "Welcome to the Machine," Nicholas Confessore draws together stories usually reported in isolation — from the drive to privatize Medicare, to the pro-tax-cut fliers General Motors and Verizon recently included with the dividend checks mailed to shareholders, to the pro-war rallies organized by Clear Channel radio stations. As he points out, these are symptoms of the emergence of an unprecedented national political machine, one that is well on track to establishing one-party rule in America.
Mr. Confessore starts by describing the weekly meetings in which Senator Rick Santorum vets the hiring decisions of major lobbyists. These meetings are the culmination of Grover Norquist's "K Street Project," which places Republican activists in high-level corporate and industry lobbyist jobs — and excludes Democrats. According to yesterday's Washington Post , a Republican National Committee official recently boasted that "33 of 36 top-level Washington positions he is monitoring went to Republicans."
Of course, interest groups want to curry favor with the party that controls Congress and the White House; but as The Washington Post explains, Mr. Santorum's colleagues have also used "intimidation and private threats" to bully lobbyists who try to maintain good relations with both parties. "If you want to play in our revolution," Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, once declared, "you have to live by our rules." REST AT:
http://nytimes.com/2003/06/27/opinion/27KRUG.html
June 27, 2003
Toward One-Party Rule
By PAUL KRUGMAN NY TIMES
n principle, Mexico's 1917 Constitution established a democratic political system. In practice, until very recently Mexico was a one-party state. While the ruling party employed intimidation and electoral fraud when necessary, mainly it kept control through patronage, cronyism and corruption. All powerful interest groups, including the media, were effectively part of the party's political machine.
Such systems aren't unknown here — think of Richard J. Daley's Chicago. But can it happen to the United States as a whole? A forthcoming article in The Washington Monthly shows that the foundations for one-party rule are being laid right now.
In "Welcome to the Machine," Nicholas Confessore draws together stories usually reported in isolation — from the drive to privatize Medicare, to the pro-tax-cut fliers General Motors and Verizon recently included with the dividend checks mailed to shareholders, to the pro-war rallies organized by Clear Channel radio stations. As he points out, these are symptoms of the emergence of an unprecedented national political machine, one that is well on track to establishing one-party rule in America.
Mr. Confessore starts by describing the weekly meetings in which Senator Rick Santorum vets the hiring decisions of major lobbyists. These meetings are the culmination of Grover Norquist's "K Street Project," which places Republican activists in high-level corporate and industry lobbyist jobs — and excludes Democrats. According to yesterday's Washington Post , a Republican National Committee official recently boasted that "33 of 36 top-level Washington positions he is monitoring went to Republicans."
Of course, interest groups want to curry favor with the party that controls Congress and the White House; but as The Washington Post explains, Mr. Santorum's colleagues have also used "intimidation and private threats" to bully lobbyists who try to maintain good relations with both parties. "If you want to play in our revolution," Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, once declared, "you have to live by our rules." REST AT:
http://nytimes.com/2003/06/27/opinion/27KRUG.html
Lincoln was right. You can fool some of the people some of the time...
Timothy Noah of CHATTERBOX at SLATE spells out how a fool can lie most of the time but before you read his analysis, consider the following.
Flash back to the California energy "crisis" which has been partly proven to be the result of massive fraud among the power sellers. Bush refused to allow the FERC to investigate at the time, claiming it was a market problem and the market would fix it. He said all this based upon his supposedly "expert" knowledge as a businessman and an energy specialist. Since most of the companies and people committing fraud were either old friends or long time political/financial supporters (or both) it begs the question. Was Bush not the businessman and energy specialist he claimed to be or was he lying? Or both?
Can Bush Be Both Ignorant and a Liar?
Yes. There's no reason for Bush-bashers to choose between the two.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, June 23, 2003, at 2:31 PM PT
Is President Bush a liar? The New York Times ' David Rosenbaum examined this question with a surfeit of post-Howell-Raines fair-mindedness in the June 22 "Week in Review" section. His bottom line: "[A] review of the president's public statements found little that could lead to a conclusion that the president actually lied" in two particular instances. The first was when Bush claimed he knew Saddam Hussein to possess large quantities of chemical and biological weapons. The second was when Bush claimed that his tax cut would provide tax relief for everyone who pays income taxes. In both instances, Chatterbox is baffled by Rosenbaum's doubt.
Let's address Bush's tax claim first. Its falsity is not in dispute. Chatterbox has written elsewhere that Bush lied when he said , "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." (The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found 8.1 million people who pay taxes but will receive no tax cuts.) Rosenbaum recognized that Bush's statement was untrue but expressed doubt that Bush knew it to be untrue. Can a false statement be a lie if the speaker is unaware it is a lie?
That leads us immediately to a second question, one that Rosenbaum dared not address: Why is the speaker unaware that his statement is a lie? In Bush's case, the answer is painfully obvious. It's because Bush is a functionally not-bright man. As Chatterbox has explained elsewhere , it's impossible to tell—and, ultimately, of little interest—whether Bush lacks the necessary mental equipment, or whether he's simply incurious. The end result is the same. Even Bush's allies concede that Bush is strikingly ignorant. In the July Vanity Fair , Sam Tanenhaus quoted Richard Perle as saying that when he first met Bush, it was "clear" that "he didn't know very much." Perle went on to argue (with what he failed to recognize as condescension) that Bush is an eager pupil. But there isn't much evidence to support even that.
It's often said that Bush has the virtue of self-awareness, that he knows what he doesn't know. That's probably true. But if it is true, then Bush really oughtn't to go around making sweeping statements that he hasn't made any effort to verify. When these statements turn out to be untrue, Bush's feigned certainty alone justifies calling these statements lies. They may not be the sort of lies a clever person (say, Bill Clinton) would tell. Indeed, many left-of-center commentators (Paul Krugman and Eric Alterman come to mind) refuse to admit that Bush is dumb, presumably because they fear that would make it impossible to hold him accountable for terrible things that he and his administration do. (Many felt the same way about Reagan.) But there's no reason Bush can't be thought of as both stupid and a liar. As Slate 's Michael Kinsley has noted , Bush's lies are typically lies of laziness: "If telling the truth was less bother, [he'd] try that too."
Saying that Bush lacks much on the ball does not mean that he never lies the way clever people do. Surely, for instance, Bush is aware on some level that it has yet to be proved that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons stashed away prior to the war. In addressing this question, Rosenbaum let Bush off the hook by focusing on what he said before the war began, e.g., "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Like Rosenbaum, Chatterbox is eager to cut Bush some slack on this, if only because Chatterbox , too, was convinced prior to the war that the presence of biological and chemical weapons had been proved. (Click here and here to read two columns Chatterbox now wishes he'd never written.) But Rosenbaum never considered what Bush said on Polish television after the war ended :
"We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations' resolutions and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on."
In fact, it has yet to be proved that the two mobile labs were used (or even designed to be used) to build biological weapons. It isn't possible that Bush fails to grasp that. So, why did he say something so obviously untrue? Chatterbox posed the question to The Nation 's David Corn, who has written extensively on the question of Bush's veracity. In Corn's view, the key to Bush's lies isn't necessarily that he doesn't know any better, but that he doesn't care . "He mischaracterizes situations to fit his pattern of thinking," Corn explained. "Does he believe he's lying? I don't know." But "he still should be held accountable, whether he made a mistake of this nature in good faith or in bad faith." Amen.
Timothy Noah of CHATTERBOX at SLATE spells out how a fool can lie most of the time but before you read his analysis, consider the following.
Flash back to the California energy "crisis" which has been partly proven to be the result of massive fraud among the power sellers. Bush refused to allow the FERC to investigate at the time, claiming it was a market problem and the market would fix it. He said all this based upon his supposedly "expert" knowledge as a businessman and an energy specialist. Since most of the companies and people committing fraud were either old friends or long time political/financial supporters (or both) it begs the question. Was Bush not the businessman and energy specialist he claimed to be or was he lying? Or both?
Can Bush Be Both Ignorant and a Liar?
Yes. There's no reason for Bush-bashers to choose between the two.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, June 23, 2003, at 2:31 PM PT
Is President Bush a liar? The New York Times ' David Rosenbaum examined this question with a surfeit of post-Howell-Raines fair-mindedness in the June 22 "Week in Review" section. His bottom line: "[A] review of the president's public statements found little that could lead to a conclusion that the president actually lied" in two particular instances. The first was when Bush claimed he knew Saddam Hussein to possess large quantities of chemical and biological weapons. The second was when Bush claimed that his tax cut would provide tax relief for everyone who pays income taxes. In both instances, Chatterbox is baffled by Rosenbaum's doubt.
Let's address Bush's tax claim first. Its falsity is not in dispute. Chatterbox has written elsewhere that Bush lied when he said , "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." (The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found 8.1 million people who pay taxes but will receive no tax cuts.) Rosenbaum recognized that Bush's statement was untrue but expressed doubt that Bush knew it to be untrue. Can a false statement be a lie if the speaker is unaware it is a lie?
That leads us immediately to a second question, one that Rosenbaum dared not address: Why is the speaker unaware that his statement is a lie? In Bush's case, the answer is painfully obvious. It's because Bush is a functionally not-bright man. As Chatterbox has explained elsewhere , it's impossible to tell—and, ultimately, of little interest—whether Bush lacks the necessary mental equipment, or whether he's simply incurious. The end result is the same. Even Bush's allies concede that Bush is strikingly ignorant. In the July Vanity Fair , Sam Tanenhaus quoted Richard Perle as saying that when he first met Bush, it was "clear" that "he didn't know very much." Perle went on to argue (with what he failed to recognize as condescension) that Bush is an eager pupil. But there isn't much evidence to support even that.
It's often said that Bush has the virtue of self-awareness, that he knows what he doesn't know. That's probably true. But if it is true, then Bush really oughtn't to go around making sweeping statements that he hasn't made any effort to verify. When these statements turn out to be untrue, Bush's feigned certainty alone justifies calling these statements lies. They may not be the sort of lies a clever person (say, Bill Clinton) would tell. Indeed, many left-of-center commentators (Paul Krugman and Eric Alterman come to mind) refuse to admit that Bush is dumb, presumably because they fear that would make it impossible to hold him accountable for terrible things that he and his administration do. (Many felt the same way about Reagan.) But there's no reason Bush can't be thought of as both stupid and a liar. As Slate 's Michael Kinsley has noted , Bush's lies are typically lies of laziness: "If telling the truth was less bother, [he'd] try that too."
Saying that Bush lacks much on the ball does not mean that he never lies the way clever people do. Surely, for instance, Bush is aware on some level that it has yet to be proved that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons stashed away prior to the war. In addressing this question, Rosenbaum let Bush off the hook by focusing on what he said before the war began, e.g., "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Like Rosenbaum, Chatterbox is eager to cut Bush some slack on this, if only because Chatterbox , too, was convinced prior to the war that the presence of biological and chemical weapons had been proved. (Click here and here to read two columns Chatterbox now wishes he'd never written.) But Rosenbaum never considered what Bush said on Polish television after the war ended :
"We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations' resolutions and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on."
In fact, it has yet to be proved that the two mobile labs were used (or even designed to be used) to build biological weapons. It isn't possible that Bush fails to grasp that. So, why did he say something so obviously untrue? Chatterbox posed the question to The Nation 's David Corn, who has written extensively on the question of Bush's veracity. In Corn's view, the key to Bush's lies isn't necessarily that he doesn't know any better, but that he doesn't care . "He mischaracterizes situations to fit his pattern of thinking," Corn explained. "Does he believe he's lying? I don't know." But "he still should be held accountable, whether he made a mistake of this nature in good faith or in bad faith." Amen.
Thursday, June 26, 2003
This is going to get so ugly by the time of the election. And ugly in the Middle East with hundreds of thousands of Americans, troops along with all of Bush's corporate pals living off the fat of the "reconstruction", is going to make it even UGLIER for our economy back here in America. Stocks will go to hell and everyone will be pretty nervous watching it all go down the drain in Iraq and Afghanistan (and maybe Israel). Well, Bush and his cabal deserve everything they are going to get but it's a crime that innocent blood was spilled for their spectacular meltdown. And in the end our national security will be worse instead of better. Only a complete sweep of the White House and the GOP in congress will allow for a change in the way the world to bridge amends to this madness.
Posted on Thu, Jun. 26, 2003
Trudy Rubin | Bush never made serious postwar plans
Litany of problems in Iraq is the result.
By Trudy Rubin
BAGHDAD - Whoever was responsible at top levels in the Pentagon for postwar planning should be fired.
But then no one would be fired. Three weeks in Iraq makes very clear that no one in the Bush administration made serious postwar plans before the start of the Iraq war.
That lack of foresight is largely responsible for the huge occupation problems the Bush team now faces - as Iraqi anger mounts over lack of security, electricity, water, sewage and jobs. Unless the Bush administration invests many more resources into its Iraq venture, soon, it could lose the peace.
Why was the Pentagon so unprepared for the Day After? Because top officials convinced themselves that the aftermath would be easy - and cost-free.
Back in November, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told me he believed that the London-based Iraqi opposition (headed by Ahmad Chalabi) would return to Baghdad and assume the reins of power, just as Gen. Charles DeGaulle and the Free French returned triumphantly to postwar France.
Top White House and Pentagon officials refused to listen to warnings that Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles did not command sufficient support inside Iraq. Nor did they heed warnings that Saddam's highly centralized government structure would collapse once he was ousted.
"The expectations at the Pentagon were that [government] ministries would emerge unscathed" and take over the running of the country, one senior U.S. official told me when I was in Baghdad. No one foresaw the virtual collapse of many ministries, nor their physical destruction by looters.
"We failed in our duty on the looting," the official continued, a reference to the fact that the military failed to secure ministries, key infrastructure and suspected weapons sites. "I didn't think [the administration] would let it get so out of hand."
The civilian team that was sent by the Pentagon to oversee Iraq was organized only a few weeks before the war, and headed by an ex-general, Jay Garner, who wasn't up to the job. Garner's team lacked "intelligence (information) and had zero organization," an occupation source told me.
Garner planned to be running Iraq for only about three months so his team was unprepared for the much longer occupation that the administration now wants. There was little interchange between people "who knew something about Iraq and the people who were doing Iraq," one U.S. official told me.
Worst of all, the Pentagon provided no communications system for the civilian occupation team - even though U.S. bombs had destroyed Baghdad's phone network. The civilians tasked with running the country couldn't even talk to each other until the end of May, let alone to the Iraqi ministries they were supposedly running. Only now are they getting a limited cell-phone network.
Why the delay? In part, due to political machinations back in Washington over the phone contract. Guess who got the $45 million no-bid deal? MCI/WorldCom, the company that bilked its shareholders out of $11 billion and has very little experience in building wireless networks.
What does this tell you about how serious the Pentagon is about rebuilding Iraq?
Things have improved somewhat since the White House replaced Garner with former diplomat L. Paul Bremer 3d, a man capable of making hard decisions. But most of the experienced officials on his team are already leaving, their three-month contracts expiring. Bremer can't succeed unless the Bush administration comes up with a coherent strategy for postwar Iraq.
No wonder a very senior British official in Baghdad told the Daily Telegraph last week that the American-led reconstruction effort in Iraq was "in chaos" and suffering from "a complete absence of strategic direction."
Perhaps the Pentagon is still expecting a De Gaulle, but there is none, so the Bush team better come up with another plan.
First off, the White House needs to clarify its Iraq aims. U.S. officials won't permit early Iraq elections because they now fear that fundamentalists or authoritarians might win an early ballot. So they plan a lengthy occupation. But so far they refuse to take on the financial burden that is required of an occupying power.
Contrary to Pentagon dreams, big Iraqi oil income is months or years down the line, and won't pay for reconstruction that is needed now. If Iraq's jobless aren't put back to work soon, the number of attacks on U.S. soldiers will mount.
Iraq needs a massive public works project. Yet administration officials say they have no plans to spend more than the $2.5 billion already allotted for occupation this year. Either the occupying power should be ready to pay the freight, or it should get out of Iraq.
The time for self-delusion is past.
Posted on Thu, Jun. 26, 2003
Trudy Rubin | Bush never made serious postwar plans
Litany of problems in Iraq is the result.
By Trudy Rubin
BAGHDAD - Whoever was responsible at top levels in the Pentagon for postwar planning should be fired.
But then no one would be fired. Three weeks in Iraq makes very clear that no one in the Bush administration made serious postwar plans before the start of the Iraq war.
That lack of foresight is largely responsible for the huge occupation problems the Bush team now faces - as Iraqi anger mounts over lack of security, electricity, water, sewage and jobs. Unless the Bush administration invests many more resources into its Iraq venture, soon, it could lose the peace.
Why was the Pentagon so unprepared for the Day After? Because top officials convinced themselves that the aftermath would be easy - and cost-free.
Back in November, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told me he believed that the London-based Iraqi opposition (headed by Ahmad Chalabi) would return to Baghdad and assume the reins of power, just as Gen. Charles DeGaulle and the Free French returned triumphantly to postwar France.
Top White House and Pentagon officials refused to listen to warnings that Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles did not command sufficient support inside Iraq. Nor did they heed warnings that Saddam's highly centralized government structure would collapse once he was ousted.
"The expectations at the Pentagon were that [government] ministries would emerge unscathed" and take over the running of the country, one senior U.S. official told me when I was in Baghdad. No one foresaw the virtual collapse of many ministries, nor their physical destruction by looters.
"We failed in our duty on the looting," the official continued, a reference to the fact that the military failed to secure ministries, key infrastructure and suspected weapons sites. "I didn't think [the administration] would let it get so out of hand."
The civilian team that was sent by the Pentagon to oversee Iraq was organized only a few weeks before the war, and headed by an ex-general, Jay Garner, who wasn't up to the job. Garner's team lacked "intelligence (information) and had zero organization," an occupation source told me.
Garner planned to be running Iraq for only about three months so his team was unprepared for the much longer occupation that the administration now wants. There was little interchange between people "who knew something about Iraq and the people who were doing Iraq," one U.S. official told me.
Worst of all, the Pentagon provided no communications system for the civilian occupation team - even though U.S. bombs had destroyed Baghdad's phone network. The civilians tasked with running the country couldn't even talk to each other until the end of May, let alone to the Iraqi ministries they were supposedly running. Only now are they getting a limited cell-phone network.
Why the delay? In part, due to political machinations back in Washington over the phone contract. Guess who got the $45 million no-bid deal? MCI/WorldCom, the company that bilked its shareholders out of $11 billion and has very little experience in building wireless networks.
What does this tell you about how serious the Pentagon is about rebuilding Iraq?
Things have improved somewhat since the White House replaced Garner with former diplomat L. Paul Bremer 3d, a man capable of making hard decisions. But most of the experienced officials on his team are already leaving, their three-month contracts expiring. Bremer can't succeed unless the Bush administration comes up with a coherent strategy for postwar Iraq.
No wonder a very senior British official in Baghdad told the Daily Telegraph last week that the American-led reconstruction effort in Iraq was "in chaos" and suffering from "a complete absence of strategic direction."
Perhaps the Pentagon is still expecting a De Gaulle, but there is none, so the Bush team better come up with another plan.
First off, the White House needs to clarify its Iraq aims. U.S. officials won't permit early Iraq elections because they now fear that fundamentalists or authoritarians might win an early ballot. So they plan a lengthy occupation. But so far they refuse to take on the financial burden that is required of an occupying power.
Contrary to Pentagon dreams, big Iraqi oil income is months or years down the line, and won't pay for reconstruction that is needed now. If Iraq's jobless aren't put back to work soon, the number of attacks on U.S. soldiers will mount.
Iraq needs a massive public works project. Yet administration officials say they have no plans to spend more than the $2.5 billion already allotted for occupation this year. Either the occupying power should be ready to pay the freight, or it should get out of Iraq.
The time for self-delusion is past.
BUSH'S QUACKMIRE DAY continues...
Here's a spot-on analysis of why Bush's Quackmire is deepening.
THE ROVING EYE
Hell starts now
By Pepe Escobar
Winning the war was easy. Winning the peace will be a nightmare. The war on Iraq was "officially" over on May 1. But almost two months later, British Premier Tony Blair has been forced to admit that the security situation in Iraq is "serious". He missed the point though: there's no "security" (for Westerners) because of the widespread hostility of the Iraqi population towards the Anglo-American occupiers. And for most Iraqis, the occupiers are indistinguishable.
According to news reports, popular anger in Majar al-Kabir, in Shi'ite southern Iraq, was responsible for the death of six British military policemen on Tuesday (four Iraqis were killed and 17 wounded). The locals were reacting against British methods employed in the search for weapons - invading homes with dogs, disrespecting women and pointing guns towards children.
The British still don't get the point. Minister of Defense Geoff Hoon stressed that his priority was "the security of British forces" - so more reinforcements ultimately will be sent to Iraq. But since the "official" end of the war, security for Westerners has only been translated into insecurity for the locals. An expert from the Royal United Forces Institute, quoted by Agence France Presse, admitted that the "honeymoon" between the British and the Shi'ite population in the south was over: among other reasons because their aspirations have not been met and there has been no improvement in their lives...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF27Ak03.html
Here's a spot-on analysis of why Bush's Quackmire is deepening.
THE ROVING EYE
Hell starts now
By Pepe Escobar
Winning the war was easy. Winning the peace will be a nightmare. The war on Iraq was "officially" over on May 1. But almost two months later, British Premier Tony Blair has been forced to admit that the security situation in Iraq is "serious". He missed the point though: there's no "security" (for Westerners) because of the widespread hostility of the Iraqi population towards the Anglo-American occupiers. And for most Iraqis, the occupiers are indistinguishable.
According to news reports, popular anger in Majar al-Kabir, in Shi'ite southern Iraq, was responsible for the death of six British military policemen on Tuesday (four Iraqis were killed and 17 wounded). The locals were reacting against British methods employed in the search for weapons - invading homes with dogs, disrespecting women and pointing guns towards children.
The British still don't get the point. Minister of Defense Geoff Hoon stressed that his priority was "the security of British forces" - so more reinforcements ultimately will be sent to Iraq. But since the "official" end of the war, security for Westerners has only been translated into insecurity for the locals. An expert from the Royal United Forces Institute, quoted by Agence France Presse, admitted that the "honeymoon" between the British and the Shi'ite population in the south was over: among other reasons because their aspirations have not been met and there has been no improvement in their lives...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF27Ak03.html
IT'S OFFICIAL.
TODAY IS BUSH'S QUACKMIRE DAY.
In fact, everyday from now on is BUSH'S QUACKMIRE DAY as long as American troops are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Two missing soldiers apparently abudcted in Iraq: defense official
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US attack helicopters led an intensive search north of Baghdad for two US soldiers who appear to have been abudcted from their post along with their Humvee, arms and equipment, a US defense official said.
Blood was found near their post at the flashpoint town of Balad, but no other trace of the two soldiers or the Humvee, said the official on condition of anonymity.
At least one person who is believed to know something about what happened has been detained, the official said.
"It appears that the vehicle and the occupants were somehow abducted," the official said. "Neither has been found at this point. The search is obviously ongoing."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&e=3&u=/afp/iraq_us_missing_soldier
Attackers Hit U.S. Targets as Iraqis Seethe
By Nadim Ladki
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Grenade attacks killed an Iraqi and wounded two Americans on the outskirts of Baghdad on Thursday as even Iraqis who loathed Saddam Hussein said they were seething against the U.S.-led occupation.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=5&u=/nm/iraq_dc
TODAY IS BUSH'S QUACKMIRE DAY.
In fact, everyday from now on is BUSH'S QUACKMIRE DAY as long as American troops are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Two missing soldiers apparently abudcted in Iraq: defense official
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US attack helicopters led an intensive search north of Baghdad for two US soldiers who appear to have been abudcted from their post along with their Humvee, arms and equipment, a US defense official said.
Blood was found near their post at the flashpoint town of Balad, but no other trace of the two soldiers or the Humvee, said the official on condition of anonymity.
At least one person who is believed to know something about what happened has been detained, the official said.
"It appears that the vehicle and the occupants were somehow abducted," the official said. "Neither has been found at this point. The search is obviously ongoing."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&e=3&u=/afp/iraq_us_missing_soldier
Attackers Hit U.S. Targets as Iraqis Seethe
By Nadim Ladki
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Grenade attacks killed an Iraqi and wounded two Americans on the outskirts of Baghdad on Thursday as even Iraqis who loathed Saddam Hussein said they were seething against the U.S.-led occupation.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=5&u=/nm/iraq_dc
Says it all about living under Bush. Cuts taxes for the rich while causing everyone else, including our military, to pay for what should be provided under a competent leader.
Troops pay to get better gear Standard equipment lacking in some cases
By John Diamond
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. soldiers who invaded Iraq went into battle with the most modern and lethal equipment ever carried by an armed force. In some cases, they paid for it themselves.
Combat soldiers interviewed by an Army investigative team after the capture of Baghdad reported that they dipped into their own pockets to buy such accessories as pistol holsters, rucksacks, boot soles, underwear, rifle sights, global-positioning-system handsets and field radios, rather than use Army-issue versions.
''Soldiers still spend too much of their own money to purchase the quality packs, pouches, belts, underwear, socks and gloves they believe they need for mission success and comfort,'' says a report drafted by Program Executive Office Soldier, the unit in charge of developing equipment for Army combat soldiers. A copy of the draft was obtained by USA TODAY.
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030626/5275812s.htm
Troops pay to get better gear Standard equipment lacking in some cases
By John Diamond
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. soldiers who invaded Iraq went into battle with the most modern and lethal equipment ever carried by an armed force. In some cases, they paid for it themselves.
Combat soldiers interviewed by an Army investigative team after the capture of Baghdad reported that they dipped into their own pockets to buy such accessories as pistol holsters, rucksacks, boot soles, underwear, rifle sights, global-positioning-system handsets and field radios, rather than use Army-issue versions.
''Soldiers still spend too much of their own money to purchase the quality packs, pouches, belts, underwear, socks and gloves they believe they need for mission success and comfort,'' says a report drafted by Program Executive Office Soldier, the unit in charge of developing equipment for Army combat soldiers. A copy of the draft was obtained by USA TODAY.
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030626/5275812s.htm
More from Carney in a Reuters release on his thoughts.
U.S. Mishandling Postwar Iraq, Says Official
Thu Jun 26, 6:35 AM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - An American who spent two months working on a U.S.-led reconstruction team in Iraq accused Washington Thursday of failing to prepare for the post-conflict situation.
Timothy Carney, a former U.S. ambassador who until recently had been overseeing Iraq's Industry Ministry, said most of the focus was placed on the military campaign and very little on the security and political problems that could ensue.
"What we didn't understand was the lack of resources and priority that would be assigned to our efforts," Carney told BBC Radio in Washington.
"Those military officers simply did not understand or give enough priority to the transition from their military mission to the political military mission," added Carney, who had been working with the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) in Iraq.
Asked whether the White House had thought through the post-conflict situation, he answered: "Clearly not. I'm not aware of any discussion of post-conflict Iraq taking place before November or December of last year."
The United States and Britain, whose troops toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in their invasion of Iraq, have come under fire since then with aid workers accusing them of leaving the country in a state of anarchy.
The security problems were highlighted this week when six British soldiers were shot dead Tuesday. The U.S. military has suffered several losses since the war, many at the hands of Iraqis who oppose the presence of foreign troops.
Carney said "billions of dollars" were needed to fund the reconstruction effort and he said neither the U.S. military nor officials were prepared for the task at hand.
"There is a lack of...doctrine on how to do such political military missions and that has caused many of the problems," he said, adding: "There was a great gap in our knowledge of what Iraq was like."
Speaking to the BBC from Iraq, Britain's International Development Secretary Valerie Amos said restoring security was the top priority but that efforts were being hampered.
"Without getting the security environment right it's going to very difficult indeed to deal with all the other issues. The people in Iraq want their basic services to be up and running but we are being sabotaged the whole time. There are forces here that don't want the coalition effort to succeed," she said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=10&u=/nm/iraq_reconstruction_dc
U.S. Mishandling Postwar Iraq, Says Official
Thu Jun 26, 6:35 AM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - An American who spent two months working on a U.S.-led reconstruction team in Iraq accused Washington Thursday of failing to prepare for the post-conflict situation.
Timothy Carney, a former U.S. ambassador who until recently had been overseeing Iraq's Industry Ministry, said most of the focus was placed on the military campaign and very little on the security and political problems that could ensue.
"What we didn't understand was the lack of resources and priority that would be assigned to our efforts," Carney told BBC Radio in Washington.
"Those military officers simply did not understand or give enough priority to the transition from their military mission to the political military mission," added Carney, who had been working with the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) in Iraq.
Asked whether the White House had thought through the post-conflict situation, he answered: "Clearly not. I'm not aware of any discussion of post-conflict Iraq taking place before November or December of last year."
The United States and Britain, whose troops toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in their invasion of Iraq, have come under fire since then with aid workers accusing them of leaving the country in a state of anarchy.
The security problems were highlighted this week when six British soldiers were shot dead Tuesday. The U.S. military has suffered several losses since the war, many at the hands of Iraqis who oppose the presence of foreign troops.
Carney said "billions of dollars" were needed to fund the reconstruction effort and he said neither the U.S. military nor officials were prepared for the task at hand.
"There is a lack of...doctrine on how to do such political military missions and that has caused many of the problems," he said, adding: "There was a great gap in our knowledge of what Iraq was like."
Speaking to the BBC from Iraq, Britain's International Development Secretary Valerie Amos said restoring security was the top priority but that efforts were being hampered.
"Without getting the security environment right it's going to very difficult indeed to deal with all the other issues. The people in Iraq want their basic services to be up and running but we are being sabotaged the whole time. There are forces here that don't want the coalition effort to succeed," she said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=10&u=/nm/iraq_reconstruction_dc
News from the people assessing the war's damage in Iraq and trying to fix it...and it ain't looking good (so what else is new?).
Eight Weeks in Baghdad
We're Getting In Our Own Way
By Timothy Carney
Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page B0
(Timothy Carney, a former U.S. ambassador to Haiti and Sudan, just completed 90 days of work on reconstruction in Iraq. His views do not necessarily reflect U.S. policy or analysis.)
I should have had an inkling of the trouble ahead for our reconstruction team in Iraq from the hassle we had just trying to get there. About 20 of us from the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) showed up at a military airport in Kuwait on April 24 for a flight to Baghdad. But some general's plane had broken down, so he had taken ours. A couple of hours passed before we could get another. Upon arrival in Baghdad, we discovered that the military convoy scheduled to pick us up at the airport had given up and left. We had to wait two more hours before ORHA scrounged another convoy to fetch us.
Those delays were prophetic, signs of the low priority and scarce resources given to the U.S. reconstruction effort in Iraq so far. I just finished eight hot, dusty weeks there trying to get the Ministry of Industry and Minerals running again. I offer these vignettes to show how flawed policy and incompetent administration have marred the follow-up to the brilliant military campaign to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime. It will take the determination and imagination of Iraqis themselves to make nation-building there a success...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17934-2003Jun20.html
Eight Weeks in Baghdad
We're Getting In Our Own Way
By Timothy Carney
Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page B0
(Timothy Carney, a former U.S. ambassador to Haiti and Sudan, just completed 90 days of work on reconstruction in Iraq. His views do not necessarily reflect U.S. policy or analysis.)
I should have had an inkling of the trouble ahead for our reconstruction team in Iraq from the hassle we had just trying to get there. About 20 of us from the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) showed up at a military airport in Kuwait on April 24 for a flight to Baghdad. But some general's plane had broken down, so he had taken ours. A couple of hours passed before we could get another. Upon arrival in Baghdad, we discovered that the military convoy scheduled to pick us up at the airport had given up and left. We had to wait two more hours before ORHA scrounged another convoy to fetch us.
Those delays were prophetic, signs of the low priority and scarce resources given to the U.S. reconstruction effort in Iraq so far. I just finished eight hot, dusty weeks there trying to get the Ministry of Industry and Minerals running again. I offer these vignettes to show how flawed policy and incompetent administration have marred the follow-up to the brilliant military campaign to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime. It will take the determination and imagination of Iraqis themselves to make nation-building there a success...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17934-2003Jun20.html
Well, it's not like when Cronkite questioned Viet Nam and Johnson realized, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the rest of the country," but many of my conservative pals swear by George Will so it gives you a talking point to hold up to them. This $#@! is hitting the fan if Will is questioning Bush's reasons to go to war.
The Bush Doctrine At Risk
By George F. Will
Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page B07
An antidote for grand imperial ambitions is a taste of imperial success. Swift victory in Iraq may have whetted the appetite of some Americans for further military exercises in regime change, but more than seven weeks after the president said, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," combat operations, minor but lethal, continue.
And overshadowing the military achievement is the failure -- so far -- to find, or explain the absence of, weapons of mass destruction that were the necessary and sufficient justification for preemptive war. The doctrine of preemption -- the core of the president's foreign policy -- is in jeopardy...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17845-2003Jun20.html
The Bush Doctrine At Risk
By George F. Will
Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page B07
An antidote for grand imperial ambitions is a taste of imperial success. Swift victory in Iraq may have whetted the appetite of some Americans for further military exercises in regime change, but more than seven weeks after the president said, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," combat operations, minor but lethal, continue.
And overshadowing the military achievement is the failure -- so far -- to find, or explain the absence of, weapons of mass destruction that were the necessary and sufficient justification for preemptive war. The doctrine of preemption -- the core of the president's foreign policy -- is in jeopardy...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17845-2003Jun20.html
The "Quackmire" management by Bush is graded by the experts and fails. They even want the UN to come in now and help because our "liberation" of Iraq has become a colossal failure.
US fails post-war Iraq examination
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - In a sign of flagging confidence in the Bush administration's performance in post-war Iraq, a task force from the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has called for the occupation authority to give the United Nations a much greater role in establishing Iraqi political institutions, among other measures.
In a 25-page report, former UN ambassador Thomas Pickering and former defense secretary James Schlesinger offered what they politely called "several recommendations for mid-course adjustments" in the US-dominated occupation which appeared, however, to amount to a vote of no-confidence in Washington's course to date.
As a first step, it said, President George W Bush should give a major foreign policy address to the nation to explain the importance of the mission, as well as the costs and risks of US engagement there, subjects that senior US officials have preferred to avoid to date.
The implicit and, at times, explicit criticism contained in the report is particularly remarkable given the prominence of the two authors, who chair a CFR task force in Iraq of 25 former senior US policy makers and regional experts. Pickering, the highest-ranking US diplomat when he retired from the foreign service in the mid-1990s, served as former president George H W Bush's ambassador to the UN during the first Gulf War in 1991.
Schlesinger, who served in several cabinet positions under a number of Republican presidents, was an outspoken supporter of the decision to go to war in Iraq and has long been close to Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, who is responsible for US military operations in Iraq and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) headed by the civilian administrator, L Paul Bremer.
The report faults the administration for "a series of false starts" and failing to offer any clear "vision and strategy" for Iraq's political future, to more aggressively engage Iraqi leaders at all levels, to speak with one voice about how it will deal with Iraqi oil, and to encourage the active involvement of the UN secretary general's special representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, in stabilizing the situation and building international support for reconstruction.
And, in advice which the administration is unlikely to want to hear at the moment, it calls for Washington to make clear that it will be prepared to sustain the some 200,000 US troops currently deployed in and around Iraq "for as long as necessary".
Rest at:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF27Ak01.html
US fails post-war Iraq examination
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - In a sign of flagging confidence in the Bush administration's performance in post-war Iraq, a task force from the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has called for the occupation authority to give the United Nations a much greater role in establishing Iraqi political institutions, among other measures.
In a 25-page report, former UN ambassador Thomas Pickering and former defense secretary James Schlesinger offered what they politely called "several recommendations for mid-course adjustments" in the US-dominated occupation which appeared, however, to amount to a vote of no-confidence in Washington's course to date.
As a first step, it said, President George W Bush should give a major foreign policy address to the nation to explain the importance of the mission, as well as the costs and risks of US engagement there, subjects that senior US officials have preferred to avoid to date.
The implicit and, at times, explicit criticism contained in the report is particularly remarkable given the prominence of the two authors, who chair a CFR task force in Iraq of 25 former senior US policy makers and regional experts. Pickering, the highest-ranking US diplomat when he retired from the foreign service in the mid-1990s, served as former president George H W Bush's ambassador to the UN during the first Gulf War in 1991.
Schlesinger, who served in several cabinet positions under a number of Republican presidents, was an outspoken supporter of the decision to go to war in Iraq and has long been close to Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, who is responsible for US military operations in Iraq and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) headed by the civilian administrator, L Paul Bremer.
The report faults the administration for "a series of false starts" and failing to offer any clear "vision and strategy" for Iraq's political future, to more aggressively engage Iraqi leaders at all levels, to speak with one voice about how it will deal with Iraqi oil, and to encourage the active involvement of the UN secretary general's special representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, in stabilizing the situation and building international support for reconstruction.
And, in advice which the administration is unlikely to want to hear at the moment, it calls for Washington to make clear that it will be prepared to sustain the some 200,000 US troops currently deployed in and around Iraq "for as long as necessary".
Rest at:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF27Ak01.html
"Quackmire". It would be funny if it weren't so damn true.
Asia Times
June 24, 2003
Middle East
COMMENTARY
An Iraqi 'quackmire' in the making
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - "We know where they are," Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld
assured television interviewers about the location of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) March 30, two weeks into the war in Iraq. "They are in the
area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
"I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators," Vice President Dick
Cheney declared on television just as US troops massed along the border
between Kuwait and Iraq on the eve of the war.
"Wildly off the mark," declared Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, when
asked by senators just before the war whether then army chief of staff Eric
Shinseki's estimate that more than 200,000 troops would be needed as an
occupation force after hostilities was reasonable.
"I believe it is definitely more likely than not that some degree of common
knowledge between [al-Qaeda and Iraq] was involved [in the September 11,
2001, attacks]", former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief and member
of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board James Woolsey testified before a federal
court just before the war.
Now, more than two months after US troops established control over the area
around Tikrit and Baghdad, not only have no WMD been discovered, but
evidence of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, let alone Iraqi knowledge or
complicity in the September 11 attacks, is simply non-existent.
If that were not embarrassing enough, Washington still has about 150,000
troops in Iraq - twice the number projected before the war - and is
desperately seeking as many as 30,000 more troops from its "coalition"
partners, all expenses to be paid by the US taxpayer. That such a number may
not be nearly enough was underscored this weekend when unknown persons in a
remote desert area blew up a key oil pipeline that supplies Baghdad power
plants.
The "Q" word - for quagmire - has also made it back into mainstream-media
discourse as the impression grows that US troops may be facing a guerrilla
war, rather than isolated "pockets or resistance" of die-hard Ba'athists.
Rest at:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF24Ak02.html
Asia Times
June 24, 2003
Middle East
COMMENTARY
An Iraqi 'quackmire' in the making
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - "We know where they are," Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld
assured television interviewers about the location of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) March 30, two weeks into the war in Iraq. "They are in the
area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
"I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators," Vice President Dick
Cheney declared on television just as US troops massed along the border
between Kuwait and Iraq on the eve of the war.
"Wildly off the mark," declared Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, when
asked by senators just before the war whether then army chief of staff Eric
Shinseki's estimate that more than 200,000 troops would be needed as an
occupation force after hostilities was reasonable.
"I believe it is definitely more likely than not that some degree of common
knowledge between [al-Qaeda and Iraq] was involved [in the September 11,
2001, attacks]", former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief and member
of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board James Woolsey testified before a federal
court just before the war.
Now, more than two months after US troops established control over the area
around Tikrit and Baghdad, not only have no WMD been discovered, but
evidence of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, let alone Iraqi knowledge or
complicity in the September 11 attacks, is simply non-existent.
If that were not embarrassing enough, Washington still has about 150,000
troops in Iraq - twice the number projected before the war - and is
desperately seeking as many as 30,000 more troops from its "coalition"
partners, all expenses to be paid by the US taxpayer. That such a number may
not be nearly enough was underscored this weekend when unknown persons in a
remote desert area blew up a key oil pipeline that supplies Baghdad power
plants.
The "Q" word - for quagmire - has also made it back into mainstream-media
discourse as the impression grows that US troops may be facing a guerrilla
war, rather than isolated "pockets or resistance" of die-hard Ba'athists.
Rest at:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF24Ak02.html
More evidence that Bush lied and that there was massive pressure from the White House to create false intelligence. Just what we need with REAL terrorists running around the globe plotting to destroy America. Bush and his cabal of neo-coms ("cabal" is their term for themselves) are (a.) corrupting the effectiveness of our intelligence agencies to accurately and reliably report what is happening around the world, (b.) he's diverting major resources and OUR TAX MONEY to take over a country for its oil and (c.) killing innocent people (including children) while causing the deaths of American soldiers in a messy political quagmire for possibly decades. That's what you get when you have a president who wasted half his life in a bottle because he was the rich son of a former statesman and president. You can't wake up at 40 and play catch-up on world politics and history if you never used your brain for anything more than chewing gum, chugging beer and singing frat songs with a lampshade on your head at parties.
Agency Disputes View of Trailers as Labs
By DOUGLAS JEHL NY TIMES
WASHINGTON, June 25 — The State Department's intelligence division is disputing the Central Intelligence Agency's conclusion that mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making biological weapons, United States government officials said today.
In a classified June 2 memorandum, the officials said, the department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said it was premature to conclude that the trailers were evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program, as President Bush has done. The disclosure of the memorandum is the clearest sign yet of disagreement between intelligence agencies over the assertion, which was produced jointly by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency and made public on May 28 on the C.I.A. Web site. Officials said the C.I.A. and D.I.A. did not consult with other intelligence agencies before issuing the report...
http://nytimes.com/2003/06/26/international/worldspecial/26WEAP.html
Agency Disputes View of Trailers as Labs
By DOUGLAS JEHL NY TIMES
WASHINGTON, June 25 — The State Department's intelligence division is disputing the Central Intelligence Agency's conclusion that mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making biological weapons, United States government officials said today.
In a classified June 2 memorandum, the officials said, the department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said it was premature to conclude that the trailers were evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program, as President Bush has done. The disclosure of the memorandum is the clearest sign yet of disagreement between intelligence agencies over the assertion, which was produced jointly by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency and made public on May 28 on the C.I.A. Web site. Officials said the C.I.A. and D.I.A. did not consult with other intelligence agencies before issuing the report...
http://nytimes.com/2003/06/26/international/worldspecial/26WEAP.html
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Well, thank God for those tax cuts for the upper wealthiest elite that Bush pushed through. Added to their already falling tax cuts, you can see how the Middle Class will be further burdened to take up the slack. You know. You can't make up this kind of cruel political manipulation. And the rich just keep getting richer.
Very Richest's Share of Income Grew Even Bigger, Data Show
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
The 400 wealthiest taxpayers accounted for more than 1 percent of all the income in the United States in the year 2000, more than double their share just eight years earlier, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. But their tax burden plummeted over the period.
The data, in a report that the I.R.S. released last night, shows that the average income of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers was almost $174 million in 2000. That was nearly quadruple the $46.8 million average in 1992. The minimum income to qualify for the list was $86.8 million in 2000, more than triple the minimum income of $24.4 million of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers in 1992...
http://nytimes.com/2003/06/26/business/26TAX.html
Very Richest's Share of Income Grew Even Bigger, Data Show
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
The 400 wealthiest taxpayers accounted for more than 1 percent of all the income in the United States in the year 2000, more than double their share just eight years earlier, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. But their tax burden plummeted over the period.
The data, in a report that the I.R.S. released last night, shows that the average income of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers was almost $174 million in 2000. That was nearly quadruple the $46.8 million average in 1992. The minimum income to qualify for the list was $86.8 million in 2000, more than triple the minimum income of $24.4 million of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers in 1992...
http://nytimes.com/2003/06/26/business/26TAX.html
The fix is in! Bush appointees in the FERC reject allowing California to renegotiate the energy contracts made with power sellers at the height of the manipulated energy "crisis". Bush wouldn't allow the Feds to investigate the fraud at the time (since proven in mountains of evidence) and now he's penalizing CA for having to pay the high rates. Why? Because he is out to undercut Gray Davis at every chance because he and his political thugs desperately want to turn the Democratic tide in the state. It's a major objective to win one for the "Gipper's" old state.
Federal Regulators Uphold California Energy Contracts
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. NY TIMES
WASHINGTON, June 25 — Federal energy regulators today rejected a request by California to invalidate more than $12 billion in energy contracts signed at the height of the state's electricity crisis, even though they have determined that widespread manipulation helped drive prices higher...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/politics/26FERC.html
Federal Regulators Uphold California Energy Contracts
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. NY TIMES
WASHINGTON, June 25 — Federal energy regulators today rejected a request by California to invalidate more than $12 billion in energy contracts signed at the height of the state's electricity crisis, even though they have determined that widespread manipulation helped drive prices higher...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/politics/26FERC.html
More evidence of White House pressure to cook the intelligence to go to war with Iraq. You remember that war. We killed thousands while American soldiers are still dying daily in Iraq and Afghanistan for such lying.
Expert Said to Tell Legislators He Was Pressed to Distort Some Evidence
By JAMES RISEN and DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, June 24 รข€” A top State Department expert on chemical and biological weapons told Congressional committees in closed-door hearings last week that he had been pressed to tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters to conform with the Bush administration's views, several Congressional officials said today. More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/international/worldspecial/25INTE.html
(A quick registration is required but hey, everyone should be reading the NY TIMES)
Will America ever wake up and realize that major incompetence allowed the 9/11 tragedy? Quick, what's the difference between George Bush and Bill Clinton? Answer. Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden BEFORE the 9/11 attacks (with a Tomahawk cruise missile and the GOP elite attacked him at the time for doing so and saying it was all just for politics!).
Bush Slow to OK Drones in Bin Laden Hunt
Wed Jun 25,10:29 AM ET
WASHINGTON - When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones had recently spotted Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) as many as three times and officials were urged to arm the unmanned planes with missiles to kill the al-Qaida leader. But the administration failed to get drones back into the Afghan skies until after the Sept. 11 attacks later that year, current and former U.S. officials say...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030625/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_predator_plan_18
Well, one thing is still true. The Bush curse concerning the economy has a silver lining waiting to shine forth during the next election. It's tragic that Americans and other countries around the world have to suffer due to his mishandling of the economy but that's what happens when greedy corporate interests overtakes a democracy. Yes, folks. We don't have a democracy in America anymore. Lobbyists for huge corporate interests write the legislation while this administration uses a ruthless PR machine to cover for it. Did you know that when reporters submit stories to the White House to check the facts they rewrite them and return them with a softer spin applied? Yep, we've gone from having a nation governed by one Nixon to a whole political party cloned in his image, hellbent to control and keep power at ANY price.
Economy Lowers Bush's Re-Election Support
Wed Jun 25, 9:15 AM ET
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush basks in high approval ratings, but when potential voters are pressed about giving him a second term, the numbers drop, a reflection of worries about the struggling economy and a general wait-and-see attitude so far ahead of the election...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=16&u=/ap/20030625/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_behind_the_numbers_4
Which brings me around to what it's going to take to kick Bush out on his @$$ the next election. We can't have a sissy-boy running against him. We can't have a right-minded but soft-hearted person trying to remain above the fray. Nope. We are going to have to have a guy or gal willing to crawl in the mud in the middle of the night and take wire-cutters and castrate Bush while he sleeps in his bunker and then force him to eat them on live TV. Because that is what Bush's immoral political machine does (ask John McCain about the outrageous attacks on him during the last election contest for the nomination). This will be the most brutal election ever on record. Remember the Florida recount protests? The Bush election campaign paid to send people down there to shout and kick on that Dade County office door for the TV (and it's been proved by identifying the culprits in that video). Remember the right wing media and political onslaught against Clinton? We need a candidate that will attack Bush where he has no defense. His utterly vapid mind. The Democratic candidate has to slice Bush in every public encounter away from a prepared speech and carefully controlled situations and reduce him to a babbling brook of protoplasm so that all America can gasp and say, "Jeez, is that broken pile of sputtering circuits really our President?" The public pays no attention until the election begins to close and the debates are in process so it's crucial our candidate can take advantage of every opportunity to make Bush lose his control. And you can bet the Bush machine will try like hell to limit debates in all manner and meetings. The Democratic candidate must attack, attack, attack! But with a smile and a wink that he's your pal and looking after your interests while these crooks in the White House are trying to take everything we hold dear about America away.
And finally, we have to run someone with a stellar war record AND a long service on congressional committees that oversee the military. We can NOT win if we don't have that. Karl Rove is on record of stating to his election troops that they are to pound the public about the war and Bush as Commander in Chief over the economy. That is their one shining hope and the source of their downfall. If we have a war veteran candidate that can look Bush in the face with steely-eyed menace and tell him he's a momma's boy for screwing up the "war on terrorism" and the war to save the economy and get him to cry (you think I'm kidding but ol' Bush reverts to tears when he gets his toes stepped on), we can win because many hawkish independents and even Republicans will vote for a guy like that.
Sorry, all you peaceniks and hippie-dippy folk (and I'm a brother in arms with you all). You can forget Dean. Forget Nader. This is the kind of candidate it's going to take to make the folks back in Malden, Missouri (my hometown in the Midwest) and Katy, Texas (where I taught junior high school) give pause and NOT vote for Bush. We've already seen you can't win with just California and New York and the popular vote and being a nice candidate. There's too much at stake this time to leave anything for chance.
Expert Said to Tell Legislators He Was Pressed to Distort Some Evidence
By JAMES RISEN and DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, June 24 รข€” A top State Department expert on chemical and biological weapons told Congressional committees in closed-door hearings last week that he had been pressed to tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters to conform with the Bush administration's views, several Congressional officials said today. More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/international/worldspecial/25INTE.html
(A quick registration is required but hey, everyone should be reading the NY TIMES)
Will America ever wake up and realize that major incompetence allowed the 9/11 tragedy? Quick, what's the difference between George Bush and Bill Clinton? Answer. Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden BEFORE the 9/11 attacks (with a Tomahawk cruise missile and the GOP elite attacked him at the time for doing so and saying it was all just for politics!).
Bush Slow to OK Drones in Bin Laden Hunt
Wed Jun 25,10:29 AM ET
WASHINGTON - When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones had recently spotted Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) as many as three times and officials were urged to arm the unmanned planes with missiles to kill the al-Qaida leader. But the administration failed to get drones back into the Afghan skies until after the Sept. 11 attacks later that year, current and former U.S. officials say...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030625/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_predator_plan_18
Well, one thing is still true. The Bush curse concerning the economy has a silver lining waiting to shine forth during the next election. It's tragic that Americans and other countries around the world have to suffer due to his mishandling of the economy but that's what happens when greedy corporate interests overtakes a democracy. Yes, folks. We don't have a democracy in America anymore. Lobbyists for huge corporate interests write the legislation while this administration uses a ruthless PR machine to cover for it. Did you know that when reporters submit stories to the White House to check the facts they rewrite them and return them with a softer spin applied? Yep, we've gone from having a nation governed by one Nixon to a whole political party cloned in his image, hellbent to control and keep power at ANY price.
Economy Lowers Bush's Re-Election Support
Wed Jun 25, 9:15 AM ET
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush basks in high approval ratings, but when potential voters are pressed about giving him a second term, the numbers drop, a reflection of worries about the struggling economy and a general wait-and-see attitude so far ahead of the election...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=16&u=/ap/20030625/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_behind_the_numbers_4
Which brings me around to what it's going to take to kick Bush out on his @$$ the next election. We can't have a sissy-boy running against him. We can't have a right-minded but soft-hearted person trying to remain above the fray. Nope. We are going to have to have a guy or gal willing to crawl in the mud in the middle of the night and take wire-cutters and castrate Bush while he sleeps in his bunker and then force him to eat them on live TV. Because that is what Bush's immoral political machine does (ask John McCain about the outrageous attacks on him during the last election contest for the nomination). This will be the most brutal election ever on record. Remember the Florida recount protests? The Bush election campaign paid to send people down there to shout and kick on that Dade County office door for the TV (and it's been proved by identifying the culprits in that video). Remember the right wing media and political onslaught against Clinton? We need a candidate that will attack Bush where he has no defense. His utterly vapid mind. The Democratic candidate has to slice Bush in every public encounter away from a prepared speech and carefully controlled situations and reduce him to a babbling brook of protoplasm so that all America can gasp and say, "Jeez, is that broken pile of sputtering circuits really our President?" The public pays no attention until the election begins to close and the debates are in process so it's crucial our candidate can take advantage of every opportunity to make Bush lose his control. And you can bet the Bush machine will try like hell to limit debates in all manner and meetings. The Democratic candidate must attack, attack, attack! But with a smile and a wink that he's your pal and looking after your interests while these crooks in the White House are trying to take everything we hold dear about America away.
And finally, we have to run someone with a stellar war record AND a long service on congressional committees that oversee the military. We can NOT win if we don't have that. Karl Rove is on record of stating to his election troops that they are to pound the public about the war and Bush as Commander in Chief over the economy. That is their one shining hope and the source of their downfall. If we have a war veteran candidate that can look Bush in the face with steely-eyed menace and tell him he's a momma's boy for screwing up the "war on terrorism" and the war to save the economy and get him to cry (you think I'm kidding but ol' Bush reverts to tears when he gets his toes stepped on), we can win because many hawkish independents and even Republicans will vote for a guy like that.
Sorry, all you peaceniks and hippie-dippy folk (and I'm a brother in arms with you all). You can forget Dean. Forget Nader. This is the kind of candidate it's going to take to make the folks back in Malden, Missouri (my hometown in the Midwest) and Katy, Texas (where I taught junior high school) give pause and NOT vote for Bush. We've already seen you can't win with just California and New York and the popular vote and being a nice candidate. There's too much at stake this time to leave anything for chance.
Remember how our President and Vice President, alleged "experts" in business, especially ENERGY, stood there on national TV and refused to allow federal investigation of the California "energy crisis", stating that it was a market issue to be solved by the market and that the answer was to continue to deregulate the market. Since then many of their biggest and longest contributing political supporters have been found to have grossly manipulated that market.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030625/ts_nm/utilities_california_dc_1
FERC Orders 60 Firms to Justify Calif. Profits
By Chris Baltimore
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Wednesday ordered 60 power sellers and municipal utilities to explain why they should not have to repay unfair profits reaped from allegedly manipulating the market during California's energy crisis... (for more see link above)
Conclusion: Bush and Cheney either LIED about what they knew or they are dumb $#*!$ and know nothing about the very industries they worked in.
This FERC investigation (spurred on by the CA state attorney's findings of massive fraud by the power sellers) has been walking on eggshells and spread out gingerly to keep any large public notice of its findings and now look at this lastest wonder. They are ordering the crooks to justify their profits!!! Smell the putrid odor of more manipulation to come (with tobacco industry-type lawyers defending the crooked power sellers in court and drawing it out for years). People should be in jail right now to send a message that this sort of mass corruption will not be tolerated. But do you think Attorney General Ashcroft is going to throw some of Bush's top financial supporters in jail with an election season starting up? ---Sam
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030625/ts_nm/utilities_california_dc_1
FERC Orders 60 Firms to Justify Calif. Profits
By Chris Baltimore
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Wednesday ordered 60 power sellers and municipal utilities to explain why they should not have to repay unfair profits reaped from allegedly manipulating the market during California's energy crisis... (for more see link above)
Conclusion: Bush and Cheney either LIED about what they knew or they are dumb $#*!$ and know nothing about the very industries they worked in.
This FERC investigation (spurred on by the CA state attorney's findings of massive fraud by the power sellers) has been walking on eggshells and spread out gingerly to keep any large public notice of its findings and now look at this lastest wonder. They are ordering the crooks to justify their profits!!! Smell the putrid odor of more manipulation to come (with tobacco industry-type lawyers defending the crooked power sellers in court and drawing it out for years). People should be in jail right now to send a message that this sort of mass corruption will not be tolerated. But do you think Attorney General Ashcroft is going to throw some of Bush's top financial supporters in jail with an election season starting up? ---Sam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)