The Dog Ate My Data

Yep, it's definately time we'll be hearing the "T" word. Oh, and are these the same people in charge of...the national identity card.

Maybe they can just make up false names and numbers for those; just like they make up fake information for war, fake terror alerts, fake newsreports, and all their fake crisis.

~not on topic, but very important this morning:

re: Sen. John Kerry & the Downing Street memo:

The Senate Foreign Relations committee will be holding a confirmation hearing at approx. 10 AM Eastern this morning, on the appointment of Zalmay Khalilzad as the next US Ambassador to IRAQ: Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad is a PNAC neocon & has been an assistant to Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney & Big oil, and was directly involved in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps Sen Kerry will address the Downing Street memo during this hearing.
It will be covered LIVE via CSPAN, beginning around 10 AM Eastern this morning:

Iraq Ambassador Hearing
Zalmay Khalilzad, Pres. Bush's choice as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on his nomination.
The former U.S. ambassador
to Afghanistan, he would
replace John Negroponte,
the newly appointed National Intelligence Chief.
http://www.cspan.org/homepage.asp

~more on Zalmay Khalilzad, from DemocracyNow:

Khalilzad was born in Afghanistan, immigrated to the United States and first began working in the government in 1984, the State Department, under Paul Wolfowitz. He moved over to Defense under Dick Cheney and again Wolfowitz under the George H. W. Bush administration in 1988. And in 1992, he was the author of the first articulation of the strategy now in effect that the United States should prevent the rise of any rival powers. This was the so-called Defense Planning Guidance. This was a paper that also paid particular attention to making sure that the US controlled the Persian Gulf and its oil supplies there. So, we can see the genesis of the 2003 invasion over a decade earlier when he and the other neoconservatives in the Bush government were out of office, when Clinton took over, they spent the decades of the 1990s elaborating this vision of US global hegemony, of vociferously demanding more aggressive action around the world, as well as in Iraq and including the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, as you mentioned in your run-up. And one of the interesting things, he wrote a book in 1995, titled From Containment to Global Leadership, and this was really a brief for US global power to be extended all around the world. Very interesting, because he noted that in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse, the United States faced both opportunities and also potential dangers, including the rise of new rivals, the shifting of world economic strength toward Asia, and so on, and he called for decisive action to lock in US domination and argued this was an opportunity that the United States may never see again. And the other thing that's interesting about the book is it makes clear that the Bush strategy is not simply directed against the states like Iran and Iraq and North Korea, but it's also ultimately directed against other world powers, including Europe, Russia and China. So, this is really key to understanding the unfolding events, not just the two wars and occupations that we have seen, but also the growing tensions with Russia and China, Europe’s unhappiness with the 2003 war, and so on.

I should also add that in the 1990s Khalilzad was a consultant to Unocal, one of the oil giants at a time when Unocal was negotiating with the then Taliban government for rights to conduct a pipeline across that country. Of course, when George W. Bush took over in 2000, Khalilzad became quite prominent as a National Security Council member. He was a special assistant for Near East, Southwest Asia and North African Affairs. He was involved in planning the occupation and reshaping of Iraq well before the war. Right before that war, he became the emissary to the Iraqi exiles that the US hoped would eventually rule in Iraq. Plans have not turned out as they thought they would. He oversaw the first meeting of those exiles in April, 2003, in Iraq. Later that year, he was named ambassador to Afghanistan, where again he presided over US -efforts to try to solidify control over this very strategically located country. If you take the Middle East where Iraq lies and Central Asia where Afghanistan lies, that's home to 80% of the world's energy supplies, and of course, a militarily strategic area. And we're just learning, the Financial Times just reported yesterday that it seems very likely that the US will be constructing a long term military base in Afghanistan, and we know that they have been considering similar bases in Iraq. So Khalilzad has been at the very center of the efforts to dominate and control the future of the Afghani and the Iraqi people, as well as this broader global agenda that these actions were part of.
more~
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/07/1343234

repost from last thread to On.to.

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at June 7, 2005 09:28 AM

The PNAC mission should be required reading for anyone wanting to register to vote, its enough to turn your hair grey, it is scarey as hell. The fact that so many members of that group hold places of power in this Administration ought to be mainstream "news" however it is largely ignored, as is everything else this admin. does that is harmful to our democracy.

Posted by: April at June 7, 2005 09:35 AM

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at June 7, 2005 09:28 AM

Oh and have you seen they are making a huge issue out of Kerry's grades in college today? Amazing how Bush is not intelligent and has shown this over and over again, yet they will make a huge deal out of what grades Kerry got, when he has proven he is intelligent over and over again! Some believe this is the Neo-Con way of trying to take some heat off the Memo;s. If so its a very lame way to do so.

Posted by: April at June 7, 2005 09:38 AM

The PNAC mission should be required reading for anyone wanting to register to vote, its enough to turn your hair grey, it is scarey as hell. The fact that so many members of that group hold places of power in this Administration ought to be mainstream "news" however it is largely ignored, as is everything else this admin. does that is harmful to our democracy.

Posted by: April at June 7, 2005 09:35 AM

That's why all the talk about "when" we'll leave Iraq is useless...the US will never leave Iraq or Afghanistan, at least not while Bu$hInc is in power, because its part of the larger plan to establish permanent military bases for the future:: their global supremacy plan, the China+Russia threat to their global domination mission, etc.
The US military boondoggle in Iraq does not bother Bu$hInc, that's why he remains so "upbeat" on Iraq...they are only interested in the PNAC vision, and the US military in Iraq is a tool to get those permanent bases... when will America wake up?

waiting for CSPAN to begin coverage of the Foreign Relations Committee on ambassador to Iraq...meanwhile this "domestic agenda" headline just hit the wires: these are high paying, with benefits jobs, folks...gone forever:

GM Plans to Cut 25,000 U.S. Jobs by 2008

By JOHN PORRETTO, AP Writer
8 minutes ago

WILMINGTON, Del. - General Motors Corp. plans to eliminate 25,000 jobs in the United States by 2008 and to close plants as part of a strategy to revive its struggling North American operations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050607/ap_on_bi_ge/general_motors_outlook

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at June 7, 2005 10:12 AM

We need to get GM and Ford to stop blaming unions for low productivity and quality... The real issue with domestic automakers is that they are NOT designing the cars we want to drive. You can't sell cars on patriotism alone.

Restricting access to social security numbers--isn't it time for some members of Congress to run around saying, "Terrorism! Terrorism!"

Posted by Casey Morris at June 7, 2005 09:15 AM

The real problem is that SSN's are being used as virtual National ID numbers... something SSN's were never meant to be. Instead of restricting access, we need to restrict usage of SSNs to SSA related business only.

Even M$N's MoneyCentral yesterday had an article from Liz Pulliam Weston (I think) pointing out that Europeans were far less liberal in their use of national ID numbers for credit and other purposes, leading to far less identity theft.

Ally, when I moved here I was shocked at how many people/places wanted my SSN. I finally realized that I could say no. So I do. Heck, even my chiropractor wanted it!

Here's an interesting question posed by NYT columnist Matt Miller: Is Persuasion Dead?

clip:

"The signs are not good. Ninety percent of political conversation amounts to dueling "talking points." Best-selling books reinforce what folks thought when they bought them. Talk radio and opinion journals preach to the converted. Let's face it: the purpose of most political speech is not to persuade but to win, be it power, ratings, celebrity or even cash.

By contrast, marshaling a case to persuade those who start from a different position is a lost art. Honoring what's right in the other side's argument seems a superfluous thing that can only cause trouble, like an appendix. Politicos huddle with like-minded souls in opinion cocoons that seem impervious to facts."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/04/opinion/04miller_oped.html?

FROM OUR FRIENDS AT LUTD:

FROM KEITH OLBERMANN:

Spin, Spin, Spin and How the Left Helps the Right…

Most disturbing in this classic case of spin is how the left-wing helped the right-wing in perpetuating these untruths. In his statement to the Standard Times, Kerry said that the Downing Street Memo, though not being discussed by the media, had not been missed by the internet. No truer words could have been spoken by Senator Kerry, as the internet took off with his statement to the Standard Times, and blogs and forums, right and left had a heyday with their own versions of the statement.

More disturbing the expected conservative twist on Kerry’s statement is the propensity for the some from the left to post the conservative spin as verbatim on left-wing blogs and forums. This propensity in a nutshell does nothing but aid and abet the right-wing spin machine. The question arises once again with this incident… When will we learn?

Not only was Kerry’s statement twisted into a call for impeachment, but it was also twisted into the expectation that Kerry would speak on the Senate floor today on this issue. Yet, Kerry never stated he would speak on the Senate floor today. He said, “When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue.”

RawStory reported yesterday that “Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and his press office remain silent as controversy mushrooms around a planned floor speech” and then contradicted that statement with “RAW STORY has confirmed that Kerry intends to deliver a statement on the Downing Street minutes.” That statement was followed by “Any detail beyond that, however, is up in the air. Spokespersons for the senator have declined to comment further.” Talk about adding to the mushrooming controversy…

A few weeks ago I posted a piece on “The Disinformation Society,” an article in the May issue of Vanity Fair by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Kennedy neatly lays out in that article what David Brock has also spelled out clearly in The Republican Noise Machine; how the right-wing controls the spin with what Brock calls the “echo effect.”

We have an opportunity with left wing blogs and forums to get the truth out those who really want to know the truth. We need to act responsibly and not source information from right-wing sources as verbatim or perpetuate rumors that will be distorted on the internet for time immeasurable. Olbermann may have debunked this story tonight, but it’s not case closed. We have seen far too often, how the lies keep popping up over and over again.

It is no small wonder how news is blown out of proportion and twisted on the internet; it is tantamount to the children’s game of telephone. But, this is not a game and it is a mystery to me why so many people committed to “unifying the left” keep feeding the frenzy on the right. It would make far more sense if we all worked together for the common goal, rather than aid and abet those who have usurped our government and our country.

Dear Vic---

I want to thank you for the last thread and tell you that I really enjoyed how it kept me up thinking till the early morning hours. We must do this more often!!! I sometimes do my best thinking in the dead of night, so here goes.....

Thinking back to how the 'war' got started, we have to remeber it was about WMD, NOT LIBERATION. Even now, with the neocons going on and on and on about spreading freedom and democracy we are not in liberation mode, we are in war mode. Okay, so I sit here and argue semantics with myself and think of dear Lakoff and the frames. The fact is, we waged a WAR, and the person we waged it on is locked up and out of power. Did we win, then?

Coming to where we are now, and I am no fan of the word 'insurgent' or the claim that it's 'foreigners' doing all the damage. That implies that we are the 'good' foreigners. White hats for all American military, please.

The question is, why are we talking about winning at this late date? You don't 'win' democracy by force. We keep hearing about how important it is to 'support the troops' who are fighting for 'our freedom.' We are fighting them 'over there' so we don't have to fight them 'over here.' Give me a break--almost 1700 dead Americans in Iraq are just as dead as the 9-11 dead. Should their deaths matter less because it wasn't on our home soil? Should it matter less that they were soldiers, not civilians?

The right of self determination is something we tend to take for granted. We know all about repressive societies, and we smugly shake our heads about how much better 'everything' would be if everyone were just like us. That is the cure, take two western democracies and call me in the morning. But, think for a minute, about Mid-East culture. What method or model was tested to find out if ANY country in that region would easily become western in its governing? Sure, there are countries who are 'more progressive' in their methods than others, but how long has it taken for them to make those moves, IN PEACETIME AND AT THEIR OWN PACE. Self determination is as messy as democracy.

Look at Afghanistan. Karzai has the title, but he really doesn't run much of the country. The Taliban is still around. Poppies are back as the money crop. The warlords still control their territory. Why is that, and which part of that can we consider being like a 'western democracy?' It's nothing we can relate to.

I can wholly and fully accept that the Iraqi people, (a good number of them) hated the Saddam regime. I have no beef in saying he was not a good guy. What I wonder, is do the Iraqi people think that the way Saddam was dispatched was to their benefit? Did his overthrow suddenly release all the pent up 'democracy' they were feeling?

Sure, we broke it. We burgled the place and we are responsible for restitution. We tore up the joint. All the 'stuff' that governed their daily lives is gone. And, to our very huge detriment, there was nothing there to catch the Iraqi people after we 'won' the war. We lost the peace big time, and the fact is, there is quite possibly no way to get it back. We didn't secure or inspire trust. Maybe we can't just take off the war paint and declare ourselves liberators anymore.

I am a big believer in honesty. Oh, I know you are all going to yell, "BUSH?? TELING THE TRUTH?? YOU MUST BE KIDDING." I'm pretty much sure that the Bush regime isn't going to suddenly do a who bunch of mea culpas any time soon. They are still trying to 'win' freedom and democracy. What folly, what utter stupidity.

It is sad to think that the American people have been dealt such a load of cods wallop on this. On the one hand 9-11 changed everything, but on the other hand we should go on with our lives and not be afraid. On the one hand, there is nothing to fear, but on the other hand, look out for terror warnings based on polling points. On the one hand, we are not at war with Islam, but on the other hand, all Muslims are suspects. On the one hand we are only looking for safety, but on the other hand, it's okay to feel good about taking revenge. There is purposeful confusion and fear handed out to people to deal with. And of course, on the one hand it's all but security, but on the other hand it's about spreading freedom and democracy. No wonder it all looks like it's impossible to fix. Are we trying to be conquerers or are we trying to be friends? When does the realization hit, that we can't have both?

I have this impossible dream about Iraq. I imagine getting a huge number of people, from Iraq and from their neighbors. Get laborers and professors. Get farmers and scientists. Get women, get students, get people from every spectrum and strata and religious persuasion together. Sit down with them, and find out what the Iraq of tomorrow looks like, from the Iraqi ideal to what it might be like to be a neighbor. Ask them who they want to work with, and to what degree.

Religion and land disputes and cultural beliefs do not dry up because we tell people that our way is better, smarter, and the correct thing to do. We have to stop telling the world and the Iraqi people that their country is a thorn in our side in the 'war on terra.'

I would propose the following. We sit down with the Iraqi people and tell them that starting immediatley, we are going to reduce troops by say 5000 a month. By city or by region. We announce which area we are leaving and then we leave it, and we keep leaving, no matter how hard it is. People will know in advance that American military presence is withdrawing. If they want water or electricty or safety, it will be up to the people who live there to hire the help they want. We leave the money for it there, but the Iraqi people decide how to spend it. Our job now is to hand over self determination to the people of Iraq.

It was not WMD, or fear of attacks that got us into Iraq. It was not liberation of an oppresed people. It was not out of the goodness of our hearts that we bombed their country and killed their civilians. We did not become safer, and they did not become freer. It is time to acknowledge that American safety lies in other directions and that Iraqi freedom can be delivered at the muzzle of a gun. We are not the benevolent parents bestowing tough love on a wayward child. That was not ours to do or decide.

It is nice to speculate that if there was some way to plant democracy in the Mid-East, that all the rest of the region would be happy, and that people who are willing to blow themselves up will go away and never be heard from again. But, we have no proof that there is a successful way to 'do democracy' by the 'just plant, add water, and watch it sprout' method. All the blood of all the lost humans are no guarantee that what comes after will be democracy as we recognize it. There is no escape from the axiom that 'you reap what you sow.'

As hard as it will be to do it, I believe the right thing is for everyone and everything American should leave Iraq. From the military, to the private security, to the mercenaries, to the war profiteers, and the so called investors. We all leave. Iraq will stand or topple on it's own. Sunni, Shia, Kurd, whatever. Civil war is ugly. But, the fact is, the peoples of the country have issues with each other, issues they had long before we went in and made an even bigger mess. If they want to deal with those issues first, it is not our place to tell them to stop it, drop it and work on their western democracy. If they can't or won't, that is the ultimate, final and deciding factor in us leaving. They can call us for help later, if they choose to, once they've decided just what they are going to do with their right of self determination.

While I imagine that things have a very great chance of going even worse, and getting even uglier, I still find it preferable to say that out of respect for struggles of the past that the Iraqi people have lived through, and out of respect for the love they have for their country, we are stepping out because we must trust in the hope that they will build something that works for them, and that that right goes above and beyond our right to impose America on anyone.

Why is it so hard to fathom that Iraqis love Iraq any less than Americans love America? Isn't that part of what we should be talking about?

OH!!!! HEY!!!!

What does everyone think of this idea? I've heard it twice in the last week or so. How would we spread the word and get news out all over the country about a nationwide 'bring home the troops' light night.

On July 5th, if you support bringing home the troops turn on your porch light and leave it on till midnight. On the day after our independence holiday, turn on the light and make it known that the troops should be a home where their lights and loves are!!!!

Can the blogs get out the word? Can we get to out local media's? Is this worth pursuing? Am I the only one who has heard this, TWICE no less???

Tut --

You make some good points... I appreciate your approach.

We know that Bush lied when he said we had a reason to go in there. Period.

Having said that, our policy has made Iraq a magnet, a haven, a recruiting ground for terrorism. My concern if we pull out too soon is that we really will have created the kind of terrorist stronghold that they told us was already there. It's so completely ironic.

I'm not sure what the correct answer is. Iraq is a complicated place, our contribution making it only more so... but I know this: That retard Rumsfeld tried to test his theory of smaller, more mobile forces, which has endangered our troops every day since arrival. I feel that it would speed the process there to send more troops. I think it would help with reconstruction, security, all of it...

And here's why I think this: My hope is that if we could get enough troops there to actually show progress (the real kind, not the fake sound byte kind) that the Iraqi people would start to get a better sense of their own potential. The people would start to see working electricity, buildings going up, jobs, less violence and fear... they would start to have some faith in their new government and feel like they had a stake in it...

I believe that could start things in the direction that will untimately allow us to leave.

That's my theory anyway... it may be too late for anything to work. I don't know. But I do think our troops would be safer if there were more of them there, and I could live with that.

Victoria,

Clearly, the less is more theory didn't work. So that literally leaves two opposing plans: 1. get everyone out and let them kill each other, or 2. commit more people.

No one side wins. Those of us with draft age children chose the first and those of us who hate the idea of innocent lives loss don't want one or two.

Some plan Bush had, huh! Personally, I'm of the mind that anyone who voted FOR Bush should go--including their kids and anyone who voted otherwise can stay here and rebuild THIS country.

Very interesting to read this June 2003 (note the date) essay by John Dean (yes, that John Dean) about missing WMD's and whether or not lying about them is an impeachable offense.

Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?

The whole article is well worth reading... here's a snippet from his conclusion.

~snip~
In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed. ...the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

From Democracy Now!

"Another U.S. War Resister Flees to Canada To Avoid Fighting in Iraq Via The New 'Underground Railroad'

"Earlier this week Ryan Johnson and his wife crossed into Canada to escape serving in the military. Over the past month they have traveled across the United States and then into Canada with help from a new underground railroad that has formed to help war resisters. During a stop in New York, Johnson joined us in our studio to explain why he is heading to Canada."

Read the interview here:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/07/1334238

Well, the Downing Street memo was brought up this morning in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but it wasn't by Sen Kerry (he was not present at all). It was discussed, read & entered into the record by Sen Boxer [once again, kudos to Sen Boxer.]
The Foreign Relations Committee met this morning to discuss the nomination of Zalmay Khalilzad as Bu$h's choice for Ambassador to Iraq. (see more on that, upthread).
CSPAN carried the whole thing live, so I watched...I must say, it certainly lacked the drama of the Bolton hearings.
Basically, of the Dems on the FRC, all seem to congratulate Mr. Khalilzad on his nomination & said they looked forward to working with him, so no one voiced any opposition to this nomination at all. In fact, Dems Biden, Dodd & Feingold did not spend much time asking any really direct questions & Mr. K used his time to ramble on so much, I was not enlightened much by what he had to say.
Until Sen. Barack Obama used his time to ask 2 questions that he said his constituents back home were asking him:
Are we in Iraq to usurp their oil and are we in Iraq to build permanent military bases? [kudos to Sen Obama for asking]
Mr. K's answer sounded something like, Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqi's and we were not in Iraq to build permanent military bases and we would leave Iraq when/if the Iraqi's ask us to. [which is a non-answer, if we have a puppet govt. in Iraq, of course they will never ask us to leave].
[Sen Obama had to cut his questioning short, since he had to go to the Senate floor to vote on cloture on the JRBrown juducial vote.]
Then came Sen Boxer, with 2 questions: did Mr. K share bu$hcheney's "rosy" scenario on conditions in Iraq and "What about the Downing Street memo"??? And she read basically the entire Downing Street memo aloud.
Mr. K's reply was that he hadn't been physically in Iraq himself in over 2 years and that he agrees the situation in Iraq is presently "difficult, but that we can succeed". And he said he had not read the Downing Street memo and that he does not think Bu$h had made up his mind to go to war in Iraq ahead of time.
At which time Sen Boxer asked to have the entire Downing Street memo placed into the record.

On the DEM side, absent from the hearing panel were Sens. Sarbanes, Kerry, and Nelson of FL.
Pretty much a rubber stamp to this nomination, but kudos to Sens. Obama & Boxer for asking REAL questions, even though the answers they received were rather vague, it seems to me.
So, once again the bu$hcheneyrumsfeld PNAC neo cons place yet another PNAC-er into another position of authority in the MiddleEast.

Great post tutter.

Who are we to shove democracy down someones throat...Iraq will now begin to defend Iraq, not against liberators but against occupiers. WMD became liberation, terrorists became insurgents, the US Military became Invaders.

We are at this juncture because our goals are not just and Honorable. We did not invade Iraq to find WMD, we invaded Iraq to build the largest US military base in the world. As pointed out in previous posts and other blogs, this Adminstration is promoting an Agenda known as PNAC. Truth was the first casualty in this Agenda then Iraq. What is next...Iran? Syria? Democracy? This needs to stop.

This WHite house must continually change the cause and reason for this War because it is based on lies and Deceit. As one lie is exposed, another reason must be created. The Media was complicit in this, and that is inexcusable.

It is up to Progressives to Take this Nation Back.

Vic--

I think I tend to look at it from the other side. By leaving, we force the Iraqi people and the people THEY decide to trust to get things done. Sure, we managed to make it a happy hunting ground for terrorists, but they use US as the reason they are blowing up their own people in droves. What if there is no US there to blame for the homicide bombers? The people are getting blown up trying to take the jobs WE offer, cooperatng with what WE say. I know that there are outsiders and former baathists, and maybe they feel like they have nothing to lose by keeping everything in a state of constant turmoil. I know we seeded a breeding ground. But, what is their true aim? Sunni's back in power?Tthe other people are not quite as vulnerable to that kind of domination now. To install Wahabism? Theocracy? Iranian style governing? Even if we stayed until the end of time, we may not be able to hold off religion from government. Is someone thinking that this is the place to set up the new terror camps to plan an execute the next 9-11? My head tells me that if someone wants to plan some horror like that, they don't need a camp in Iraq to get the dirty deed done. There are quieter places to make plans. (I don't mean to frighten anyone, it's just my opinion.)

Our being there is throwing gasoline on the flames. We did it all wrong, for disgusting reasons, and it's not a big secret anymore. The world kind of knows that the Bushies are wasting lives and rubbing their hands together anticipating the big payoffs coming their way. Staying is like announcing that lives, ours and theirs are worthless when there is a profit to be made. This is going to be held against us, and the longer we try to proclaim how good our intentions are, and the longer we stay or even send in more troops to make our intentions attempt to overtake the orignal lying motives, the less credible we are. ESPECIALLY if Bush would be the one to send more troops now. Besides which, where are we going to get these additional troops? Recruitment is way down. Too many military and reserves are being back doored.

I can't help but think MORE would be worse. MORE would be throwing in the Iraqi's faces that we don't believe in them. MORE would be telling the region that we have stuck ourselves beyond our knees in the quicksand, we are in over our hips, and will soon be up to our necks. Meanwhile, as fast as someone blows themselves up in the market place, some other guy steps up to be next. We can't catch them all, and we can't lure them all to Iraq and finish them off there. As long as we have MORE going in, they will also have MORE to drive the car bombs. We escalate, they escalate, and I don't care how much weapon technology we have, they outnumber us in the 25 million range. WE cannot protect every person, every school, hopsital, market, and mosque.

Besides which, people are listening to their spiritual leaders about what a bunch of terrible people we are. They mind their own people getting blown up, but if an American gets it, well, they deserve it. And, on top of hating us, all their old hates from ancient history are getting aired out, and they would thank us very much for butting out about something we know nothing about.

I disagree, Vic, about sending more troops in, in an effort to grab the bad guys and somehow that produces a better, new and improved Iraqi. Our promise to snatch up all the 'insurgents' so that they can settle down with democracy is just plain foolish. They also want to settle old scores that might go on for decades, and I can't stand seeing us stuck there talking about freedom being on the march.

More fascinating reading... this time from a 27-year veteran of the CIA..

Proof Bush Fixed The Facts
Ray McGovern
May 04, 2005

"Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in black and white—and beneath a SECRET stamp, no less. For three years now, we in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying that the CIA and its British counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries' leaders to "fix facts" to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq. More often than not, we have been greeted with stares of incredulity.

It has been a hard learning—that folks tend to believe what they want to believe. As long as our evidence, however abundant and persuasive, remained circumstantial, it could not compel belief. It simply is much easier on the psyche to assent to the White House spin machine blaming the Iraq fiasco on bad intelligence than to entertain the notion that we were sold a bill of goods.

Well, you can forget circumstantial. Thanks to an unauthorized disclosure by a courageous whistleblower, the evidence now leaps from official documents—this time authentic, not forged.
~snip~
In emotionless English, Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has decided to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." Period. What about the intelligence? Dearlove adds matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

At this point, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw confirms that Bush has decided on war, but notes that stitching together justification would be a challenge, since "the case was thin." Straw noted that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

~snip~
I cannot quite fathom why I find the account of this meeting so jarring. Surely it is what one might expect, given all else we know. Yet seeing it in bloodless black and white somehow gives it more impact. And the implications are no less jarring.

One of Dearlove's primary interlocutors in Washington was his American counterpart, CIA director George Tenet. (And there is no closer relationship between two intelligence services than the privileged one between the CIA and MI-6.) Tenet, of course, knew at least as much as Dearlove, but nonetheless played the role of accomplice in serving up to Bush the kind of "slam-dunk intelligence" that he knew would be welcome. If there is one unpardonable sin in intelligence work, it is that kind of politicization. But Tenet decided to be a "team player" and set the tone.

Politicization: Big Time

Actually, politicization is far too mild a word for what happened. The intelligence was not simply mistaken; it was manufactured, with the president of the United States awarding foreman George Tenet the Medal of Freedom for his role in helping supervise the deceit. The British documents make clear that this was not a mere case of "leaning forward" in analyzing the intelligence, but rather mass deception—an order of magnitude more serious. No other conclusion is now possible.

Small wonder, then, to learn from CIA insiders like former case officer Lindsay Moran that Tenet's malleable managers told their minions, "Let's face it. The president wants us to go to war, and our job is to give him a reason to do it."

Small wonder that, when the only U.S. analyst who met with the alcoholic Iraqi defector appropriately codenamed "Curveball" raised strong doubt about Curveball's reliability before then-Secretary of State Colin Powell used the fabrication about "mobile biological weapons trailers" before the United Nations, the analyst got this e-mail reply from his CIA supervisor:

"Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the powers that be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about."

[Edited: ...say what... TPTB don't care about the truth? and that was a direct quote from a CIA supervisor? Helloooo...]

~snip~
Seldom does one have documentary evidence that intelligence chiefs chose to cooperate in both fabricating and "sexing up" (as the British press puts it) intelligence to justify a prior decision for war. There is no word to describe the reaction of honest intelligence professionals to the corruption of our profession on a matter of such consequence. "Outrage" does not come close.

Hope In Unauthorized Disclosures

Those of us who care about unprovoked wars owe the patriot who gave this latest British government document to The Sunday Times a debt of gratitude. Unauthorized disclosures are gathering steam. They need to increase quickly on this side of the Atlantic as well—the more so, inasmuch as Congress-controlled by the president's party-cannot be counted on to discharge its constitutional prerogative for oversight.

In its formal appeal of Sept. 9, 2004 to current U.S. government officials, the Truth-Telling Coalition said this:

We know how misplaced loyalty to bosses, agencies, and careers can obscure the higher allegiance all government officials owe the Constitution, the sovereign public, and the young men and women put in harm's way. We urge you to act on those higher loyalties...Truth-telling is a patriotic and effective way to serve the nation. The time for speaking out is now.

If persons with access to wrongly concealed facts and analyses bring them to light, the chances become less that a president could launch another unprovoked war—against, say, Iran.

Read the entire article here:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/proof_bush_fixed_the_facts.php

let's not miss the forest for the trees

Most of America is focusing on the trees (our soldiers, Iraq's oil, corporate reconstruct $$, etc)
We supposedly went into Afghanistan as pay back for 9-11. Bu$hInc's agenda for going into Iraq was WMD, which has now morphed into at least 2 doz. other reasons.
Look at a map....what geographically separates Afghanistan & Iraq??
IRAN
We went to Afghanistan for a legitimate reason (although OBL is still on the loose). We were bu$h-bamboozled into Iraq for choose-your-favorite-reason...
end result::: permanent military bases in BOTH Afghan. & Iraq...so Bu$h is correct: Mission Accomplished.
We're never getting out of Iraq, even if conditions improve to the point we can bring "some" troops home, the US is never leaving Iraq or Afghan. They're our bookends around Iran.

Vic, everybody,

I'm sorry. I should have thought to say that I truly believe that our troops really stepped up and took on this war thinking that they were faithfully protecting this country. I think that cleaning up the camps in Afghanistan was a must. And, I think that had we stayed there and devoted all our efforts to that task, we would be in a much better place right now.

I believe that like all of us, 9-11 was burned into the retinas of our brave troops. I know that there are many of them who would like nothing more than to put back what was destroyed in Iraq. I think there are probably many thousands, who even if they can't admit it right now, they feel that they were duped into this war. They killed or watched their friends get killed. It is like visiting the deepest vestige of hell to admit that this did not have to be. If it feels like that for us, imagine how it must feel for the ones who have been there?

IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE. I hear that in my head with every rosy report, and every time I hear some numbskull putting their positve spin on it. It just did not have to be.

Right this minute there is some young soldier somewhere, still over there or back here stateside who has said that this just did not have to be. Only people who truly have a conscience can fully grasp the regret. Only people who have faced the whole truth can fathom just how much this did not have to be.

Even those soldiers who are holding on to the idea that they are there to help, I can feel for them. What else can they hold onto with this kind of despair looming? When I hear that quote, 'who wants to be last last person to die for a mistake?' I think about who that person will be, and who will the people be that walk away with their pockets full of money, and a smile on their faces.

I hope I live long enough for the next generation of history books, because there needs to be a chapter on 'The War That Just Didn't Need To Be'

I'll do a partial repost from the last thread:

I think the issue we all have with the term "winning" is that many, if not all, of us feel like we've already lost so much that it is hard to think in terms of "winning" in the traditional sense.

If we pulled out today, and left Iraq in the huge mess BushCo has created for them, we would lose even more lives by the hatred we would create. BushCo has already put us in danger of generations of terrorists rising up. If we pulled out now, we would be doing no better.

We have to have a plan for rebuilding and returning Iraq to some sense of normalcy before we just leave them in the lurch. I hate every death that this war has caused. .....
Posted by: Carol at June 7, 2005 01:41 PM

Then I'll say something new:

I was pretty disgusted to hear Biden say today, when questioning the Ambassador, that many other countries have offered help in re-building Iraq, only to be pushed aside or ignored by Bu$hCo.

Those bastards don't care how many kids, fathers, mothers, PEOPLE they sacrifice for their empire.

IMPEACH.

Tut --

I don't think we send more troops to get more bad guys. They'll keep making new ones.

What I do think more troops could do is generally raise the security level, make it safer, and speed up reconstruction, which I think is a huge factor. It's hard to believe in your country and brand new government when the nation is in ruins.

But I just don't think there are enough troops now to control the situation. And until it's controlled, we won't be leaving.

Hell, maybe the plan was never to leave anyway. I don't know.

I don't know ultimately if more troops would help the situation either... but I do know that where we are now isn't working, and I just don't see signs that we're intending to leave until it's better.

I'm trying to think of gettting to "better" sooner.

That's the problem with the astounding ineptitude of these idiots running this show... they've screwed it up so bad, it may not be possible to fix it.

My point in putting this idea out there is this:

We know the disaster that Neocon leadership has created. Now we need to have a Progressive alternative.

It's not enough to say it's a mess. We know that. The question looming very soon in 2006 is this:

What are progressives doing about it?

That's what I'm thinking about...

Vic,

I'm on the same page as you. We need a plan. Bushco doesn't have one. We need to be thinking about it and talking about it now, so that in 2006, we have a plan in place so we can win back seats, so that we can make progress in Iraq. With a red Congress, we are getting nowhere except deeper into the mess.

We need to come up with a viable strategy that works for a broad range of folks - a plan to rebuild Iraq so we can bring the troops home. If we don't win seats back in both houses, we will get no where. We can talk about it all we want, but Bushco will just keep on telling their lies and counting their millions. And the media will sit idly by.

Post-ABC Poll: Bush Ignoring Public Concerns

By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 12:03 PM

A clear majority of Americans say President Bush is ignoring the public's concerns and instead has become distracted by issues that most people say they care little about, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 58 percent of those interviewed said Bush is mainly concentrating in his second term on problems and partisan squabbles that these respondents said were unimportant to them. Four in 10--41 percent--said the president was focused on important problems--a double-digit drop from three years ago.

Underlying that finding is a continuing deep and bitter partisan divide that has fueled increasingly bitter fights in Congress, most recently over some of Bush's nominees to the federal courts. Relatively few Americans viewed that issue as particularly important.

According to the poll, nearly eight in 10 Democrats say Bush is not concentrating on issues they personally view as vital while three out of four Republicans disagree.

Ominously for Bush and the Republicans, a strong majority of self-described political independents--68 percent--say they disagreed with the president's priorities. That suggests Bush's mixed record in the second term on issues the public views as critical--particularly on Iraq and the economy--may be as much a liability for GOP candidates in next year's mid-term election as his performance in his first term was an asset to Republican congressional hopefuls last year and in 2002.

Overall, the president's job approval rating stood at 48 percent, virtually identical to where it was last month. Currently 52 percent of the public disapproves of the job Bush is doing as president, the highest negative rating of his performance since taking office.

Continuing violence in Iraq continues to fuel negative views of the White House. Four in 10 Americans currently approve of the job that Bush is doing in Iraq while 58 percent disapproved. It marked the 13th consecutive month that less than half of the country approved of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq.

A total of 1,002 randomly selected adults were interviewed June 2-5 for this survey. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Complete results of this Washington Post-ABC News poll will be available at washingtonpost.com at 5 p.m. today.

I think Biden's comments are really telling, and maybe we need to find out who all those countries are that are offering to help re-build. And use them as part of our strategy. Maybe THAT is where the extra "troops" will come from - except maybe they won't be troops. If our troops can focus on the military end of things, and humanitarian folks from other countries can focus on the re-building end - we can work to gether and get this thing done so our troops can come home.

Think Progress has come out with a Comprehensive National Security Strategy paper. A whole new approach to the issue that I think is really good. They're asking for feedback.

You can read about it and comment here:

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1041

Carol --

I agree... if we don't win back some seats, none of this will matter. It gets worse and worse with these guys every day...

Guess I'm not the only one with Security/Foreign Policy on the brain today.

The Think Progress Strategy Memo has a lot of really good stuff in it.

I heard Sen Biden say this morning during FRC that Pres. Chirac of France had offered to train about 1500 mid-level Iraqi officers, and the bu$h WH did not accept Chirac's offer. Isn't that kinda sorta exactly what JK said during the election???

re: guns & butter
bu$hInc seems to have gotten US into a quagmire that we can no longer afford both, guns & butter. If all of our tax $$ go towards military expenditures (war machine), there is very little left for "butter", domestic concerns...of course, bu$h has arranged it where his class pays fewer & fewer taxes, and the cost burden of the military wars are put on the next generations' credit cards..
Progressives are wearing themselves out, trying to focus on all the bu$h-fires.
Bu$hInc has forced this on us but the time may come soon when we may have to decide:
guns OR butter.
And how do we make that decision?

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=742277
Think Progress:
The Executive Summary sounds like a positive step in the correct direction. The bullet points sound like a very good plan for a new direction for America.
But wait...they sound very familiar...its pretty much identical to everything John Kerry called for during the election season, and only half of America listened.

A plan, a plan, my kingdom for a plan!!!!

You know how you look at every angle? Stay? Leave? Send more troops? Draw down troops? What to do that looks and fits better than what we've done so far. What is the correct thing to do that will make up for what was so wrong?

I want the Iraqi people to pull together and tell ALL of us foreigners, that this is their country to fix and their destiny to fulfill, yet I know that some of that spirit must have been devastated beginning with 'shock and awe' and carrying over to the most recent car bomb. How much do you expect someone to take? We owe that country their water supply and their sewage systems and their electric grid. We owe them supplied hospitals and paved roads and rebuilt schools. We cannot repay them for the lives lost on the bogus war on terra that we dropped on their neighborhood.

For anyone, I don't care WHAT party a person is, to come out right now, and say that they have all the answers, would be foolish. There isn't one perfect answer, because every answers has its own pitfalls. Short of a super-hero, draped in their cape, I don't see the perfect answer.

I recently talked to a woman whose family came from Syria when she was fairly young. She says that going beyond the whole Israel and America's support for them, there is a feeling of, "Why are you Americans always so hot to show off how much better than the rest of the world you are? Your God is better, your science, your movies, your products, you have to be the top, the best, the most at everything. Why don't you know anything about being equal?"

How do you answer that when it's clearly obvious that EQUAL doesn't play well in this country? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discover that some people are more equal than others. This is part of the arrogant America we must all be familiar with. We can fix anything, top anybody, and bend the entire planet to our will, and since we are AMERICA, its all good. What we say, goes. Period, full stop. Dissenters within country are unpatriotic, dissenters without are insurgents or terrorists. YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US.
(I hate hate hate that sentence!!!)

As time has gone on, and we talk about our warage
(my new word) children that we don't want to go off fighting this liars war, I wonder about the warage Iraqis who have no choice but to see it outside their doors. One thing I know is this. We have probably lost a large number of people who trusted in in even the smallest way. Hate is not a gene, it is a learned action. And, so, as a mother of big childen and little children (call me crazy, my kids are 28-26-23-10-6)our best chance is with the ones who have not been fed hate along with their daily bread. I do NOT teach my children to look down, to belittle, to think of themselves as better than. Can we find a way as caring people, many of us parents, who would tell an Iraqi child that America has good people, millions and millions of them.

I'll sign my kids up to be pen pals, friends, world neighbors. If I have to choose between the politics and the children, thanks, I'll take the kids! This isn't my little drop in the bucket for 'heart and minds' SCREW THAT. I am over punditocracy catch phrases. Mothers are mothers, and I'll stake my life on that. We all want our kids to have a better world.

Guys, gals, gang, family, what are we missing? We haven't yet hit on that ONE thing that is going to produce the CURE. Curse politics for getting in the way of true concern for our fellow man. Name me on Iraqi parent who has not tasted the sad, salty tears of burying a child who cannot compare their pain to ours. I sound like my dear friend Indy (love you, kiddo) The person who will be able to make Iraqi's people, just like us, will be the person who can lift us up out of this mess. It might well be a politician, but I'm not holding my breath. After all, 'can I get elected on it' will matter more than if it's the correct thing to do.

A picture is worth a thousand words. I said above but I'll say again - we need billboards.

Of regular Iraqis. Looking at the camera. In the rubble. With the word "WHY?".

Of our troops. Looking in the camera. Holding dead Iraqi children. With the word "Why?".

The media isn't showing it. We need to.

Casey - I liked the thread! And look - we're talking about other stuff, too! Just like always. Keep up the amazing job you are doing!

sorry to keep on the billboard thing but....

TV commercials last 15-30 seconds and are gone. Newspaper ads go in the recycling, if people even see them.

If you drive by an in-your-face billboard every single day, you can't get away from it. You can't help but register it. You can't avoid it. You have to address it with yourself, and maybe anyone else in your car.

Thank you, Carol. You are always so sweet. And yes, we do get around to talking about other things.

I found it ironic that the members of Congress all of the sudden started to understand the way the rest of us might feel about the Patiot Act and it's intrusions, once they faced the prospect of a little lost data. Which was, the point of the post.

And if anyone wants an in depth discussion of the Downing Street Memo, there are other blogs covering that.

And if anyone wants a Bush impeachment blog, this is not the place to come, as there are certain limitations put on us due to the nature of our IRS status and our other filings. But I am sure there are plenty of Bush impeachement blogs out there, and perhaps someone would like to post the address of one of them in the comments section for those wwho may be interested in following that line of action.

Posted by: Carol at June 7, 2005 04:16 PM

I absolutely agree that bill boards would be good. Some of the most powerful messages I can remember were from bill boards in Israel... the size also make them stick in your mind longer.

http://www.democrats.com/node/4743

So - how do we find an outdoor advertising company that is democratically run?

"Guys, gals, gang, family, what are we missing? We haven't yet hit on that ONE thing that is going to produce the CURE."

Posted by: tutterfly at June 7, 2005 04:00 PM
====================================
Tut --

I don't know yet, but dammit, we're gonna figure it out!

Bush climate change policy called 'misguided'
Academies call for greenhouse gas reductions
Tuesday, June 7, 2005

LONDON, England (AP) -- Science academies of the G-8 countries joined Tuesday in a call for prompt action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and warning that delays will be costly.

Lord May, president of Britain's Royal Society, said in releasing the statement that U.S. President George W. Bush's policy on climate change was "misguided" and ignored scientific evidence.

The statement published by the science academies of Britain, France, Russia, Germany, the U.S., Japan, Italy and Canada, along with those of Brazil, China and India, called on G-8 countries to "identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reductions in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

The statement called on the G-8 nations to "recognize that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost."

The statement was released as British Prime Minister Tony Blair was meeting with Bush in Washington. Blair has made action on climate change, along with aid to Africa, his priorities for the July G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland.

"It is clear that world leaders, including the G-8, can no longer use uncertainty about aspects of climate change as an excuse for not taking urgent action to cut greenhouse gas emissions," Lord May said.

He noted that the statement was endorsed by science academies of Brazil, China and India -- nations "who are among the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world."

"The current U.S. policy on climate change is misguided," May added.

"The Bush administration has consistently refused to accept the advice of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The NAS concluded in 1992 that, 'Despite the great uncertainties, greenhouse warming is a potential threat sufficient to justify action now,' by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

"Getting the U.S. onboard is critical because of the sheer amount of greenhouse gas emissions they are responsible for. For example, the Royal Society calculated that the 13 percent rise in greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. between 1990 and 2002 is already bigger than the overall cut achieved if all the other parties to the Kyoto Protocol reach their targets."

Read more... http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/06/07/global.warming.ap/index.html

Gwen Ifill, of the The Newshour, asked Tony Blair about the Downing Street Memo. Blair discounted its significance, saying that he and Bush went to the UN to give Saddam one final chance to cooperate - and hence, no decision had actually been reached. Gwen Ifill refused to challenge him on some key points (at least in my view):

1) How could Hussein possibly cooperate if he had no weapons?

2) Didn't Bush's true intention to go to war come through when he chose to overide the inspectors' reasonable request for more time, and the French and Russian objections (not to mention at least 30% of his this country) to a rush to war?

3) Didn't the US' and Britain's continual military buildup - in spite of reports that Saddam was beginning to cooperate - force both nations to launch the war sooner rather than later (rather than force the troops to sit, and decrease their readiness in Qutar and Kuwait)? Wouldn't 50,000 American troops in Kuwait have provided pretty much the same motivation for Saddam to cooperate as would 150,000?

I was going to post a video clip of bush and Blair responding to a question on the Downing Street Memo, but it's just the same crap we've been hearing forever now.

If anyone's still interested, though:
http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/6/7/144157/6521

I think there are probably many thousands, who even if they can't admit it right now, they feel that they were duped into this war.
~*~ snip ~*~
and
Right this minute there is some young soldier somewhere, still over there or back here stateside who has said that this just did not have to be.
~*~ snip ~*~

Posted by tutterfly at June 7, 2005 01:57 PM

There is. And he is very near and dear to my heart. He will have to live with this the rest of his life, when he comes home from his third tour of duty in Iraq.

As a mother, I don't want my children's blood spilled over a lie. I am with others on this:
"Over my DEAD body."

The Hunting Of The President
Patrick Doherty / TomPaine's Uncommon Sense blog ~
Monday 5/6/5
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050606/the_hunting_of_the_president.php

A few weeks ago, I wrote that for the Downing Street Memo to have any effect, members of Congress would have to get behind an investigation
into the document. Now, it seems, the game is on.

"But for those aligning with the Conyers camp, it will not be easy to raise awareness in the mainstream media, even with CNN's belated
recognition. We learned from the 2004 election cycle that the mainstream media will not pursue controversial investigations without political backstopping."

I'm pleased to report that early congressional support has made a difference. Rep. John Conyers gathered 88 signatures on a letter to the White House demanding that the president explain the memo. That letter was rebuffed by the White House but it was enough to get CNN and the LATimes on the case. A few days later, the Washington Post filed its own story.

On Thursday, Senator John Kerry announced he would be raising the Downing Street Memo in Congress upon his return from recess. That,
predictably, led to a reaction from the conservative media machine.

In today's National Review Online, the conservatives reveal their concern and unease. In their opening salvo, James S. Robbins attempts to argue that the memo is "old news." He argues that the three major pieces of information contained in the memo were all previously known and where necessary, previously discredited.

Robbins treats the Downing Street memo as a series of new accusations. This is wrong. The Downing Street Memo is a new source document that is evidence, not accusation. It is evidence that the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq by April 2002. It is evidence that the Bush administration acted on that decision and was using Operations Northern and Southern Watch to hit Iraqi command and control targets to prepare the battlefield in advance of a declaration of war and Congressional authorzation. It is evidence that the Bush administration had decided to "fix the facts" around the policy they could not otherwise justify to the American people.

So, when Robbins says, for example, that the "The charge of intelligence fraud (if it is such a charge) has already been investigated and found baseless," his statement relies on an investigation (the Silberman-Robb Commission) that was not only unable to look at the political use of intelligence, it relies on an investigation that did not have in hand the evidence he is attempting to refute.

What Robbins does not do, however, is provide a refutation that deceiving the American people and Congress is not an impeachable offense. If the evidence in the Downing Street Memo can be further
corroborated-which will most likely require more high-level leaks-the Downing Street Memo could be the equivalent of the Watergate break-in.

And now John Kerry is stepping into the fray. Perhaps Senator Kerry can expand the protective umbrella around the media and enable a new
generation of Woodwards and Bernsteins to dig into this story. It will take time and patience, but there must be a few officials left in office who-for whatever reason-are willing to reveal the truth.

In the meantime, we've learned from Rep. Conyers' office that he has opened up his letter to the American people and has received 100,000
signatures already. As Bill Moyers suggested last friday, it's time to wade in. Sign up with Rep. Conyers and ask your editorial board to cover the story.

June 7, 2005

STATEMENT BY CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY JOHN BONIFAZ ON BEHALF OF AFTERDOWNINGSTREET.ORG ON TODAY'S JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE WITH PRESIDENT BUSH AND BRITISH PRIME MINISTER BLAIR

President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair continued today to try to hide from the explosive revelations in the Downing Street Minutes.

Neither President Bush nor Prime Minister Blair denied today that the Downing Street Minutes are, in fact, the official minutes of the secret meeting that Prime Minister Blair held in London on July 23, 2002, with his top national security officials to receive a briefing from Richard Dearlove, then director of Britain's CIA equivalent, MI-6.

Neither President Bush nor Prime Minister Blair denied today that Mr. Dearlove, in reporting on his meetings with high U.S. Government officials in Washington, stated at that meeting: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD[weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The Prime Minister asserted that "the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all."

The President claimed that "[t]here's nothing farther from the truth" with respect to Mr. Dearlove's statement that the President had decided, by July 2002, to invade Iraq, months before submitting his resolution on Iraq to the United States Congress and months before he and the Prime Minister asked the United Nations to resume its inspections for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The American people deserve to know the truth. Mr. Dearlove's report in July 2002 directly contradicts what the President and the Prime Minister said today. Only a full congressional investigation, with subpoena power, will reveal the truth.

AfterDowningStreet.org, a broad coalition of veterans groups, peace groups, and public interest organizations across this country, renews its call today for Members of Congress to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether the President of the United States has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. This inquiry must now answer the question: Has the President engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq? If the President has committed a High Crime, he must be held accountable under the United States Constitution.

Guys, gals, gang, family, what are we missing? We haven't yet hit on that ONE thing that is going to produce the CURE."

Posted by: tutterfly at June 7, 2005 04:00 PM

The one thing that I find missing is an HONEST news media. Without an honest news media people who disagree with our nation's current policies will be dismissed as poorly informed crack pots. If the media did its job (as mentioned by Hilary Clinton yesterday), then the general population would see how we have been lied to. The media has been hamstrung by the right wing. The media has become afraid (yes, afraid) to live up to its responsibilities. As I said yesterday, I think one way we can combat this is by working with others to organize large mass protests at the headquarters of the major media companies. Despite the fact that more and more people are relying on the web for their information, the majority of the population relies upon the major networks and cable outlets for their news. It is only when the propaganda is exposed as the message of the corporate dominionists that people will seriously consider the solutions to the disaster that we are experiencing.

oncall et al,

Bill Moyers said as much last week. How do we draft him into leading this battle?

George Bush told the United States Senate:

"Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

The Downing Street memo indicates that the Bushwacker lied to the United States Senate and the American people. Lied. Not mislead. Lied.

Lied. Not about sex with an intern, in a nuisance prosecution. Bush lied about war and peace, and about matters of urgent national security.

LIED.

How about we make up some:

"Bush lied, others died"

teeshirts?

Wouldn't that be a popular clothing item this summer?

from ABC News::::

Poll: Bush Performance Ratings Plummet
Concerns on Iraq and Domestic Policy Underlie a Rising Political Alienation

Analysis by Gary Langer
Jun. 7, 2005 - The corrosive effects of the war in Iraq and a growing disconnect on political priorities have pushed George W. Bush's performance ratings -- notably on terrorism -- to among the worst of his career, casting a pall over his second term and potentially over his party's prospects ahead.

For the first time, most Americans, 55 percent, say Bush has done more to divide than to unite the country. A career-high 52 percent disapprove of his job performance overall, and, in another first, a bare majority rates him unfavorably on a personal level. Most differ with him on issues ranging from the economy and Social Security to stem-cell research and nuclear power.

Iraq is a major thorn. With discontent over U.S. casualties at a new peak, a record 58 percent say the war there was not worth fighting. Nearly two-thirds think the United States has gotten bogged down in Iraq, up 11 points since March. Forty-five percent go so far as to foresee the equivalent of another Vietnam.

Fifty-two percent, the first majority to say so, think the Iraq war has failed to improve the long-term security of the United States, its fundamental rationale. As an extension -- and perhaps most hazardously in political terms -- approval of Bush's handling of terrorism, the base of his support, has lost 11 points since January to match its low, 50 percent in June 2004 when it was pressured both by the presidential campaign and the kidnapping and slaying of American Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia.

All these underscore a broad sense of lost promise for the president: In January, 55 percent of Americans expected Bush to do a better job in his second term than in his first. Today, vastly fewer, 30 percent, say in fact he's doing so. And even though they remain staunchly supportive, the letdown in expectations is biggest in Bush's own back yard, among Republicans.

continue~
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=826934&page=1

ACTION ALERT - People For the American Way
June 7, 2005
_________________________________________

Dear Friends,

Today, the Senate will enter into the final hours of debate on two of the three judicial nominees which the bipartisan group of senators agreed not to filibuster.

We sent you a message last week on the records of these nominees - Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor - detailing how far out of the mainstream their views are.

Why has the Radical Right pushed so hard for the approval of Bush's most extreme nominees, even if it means abolishing the filibuster? Quite simply, it's because they understand how much is at stake.

If they can install on the federal bench judges who will rule in their favor, they know they can restrict the enforcement of our environmental laws. They can sharply limit protections against discrimination in the workplace. They can chip away - or overturn - Roe vs. Wade and our basic reproductive privacy rights. They can threaten decades of progress on issues of social justice.

Of course the Supreme Court is the ultimate prize for those who would turn back the clock on progress. The far right knows this, and that's why they considered the Senate compromise on the nuclear option a failure. We also know what's at stake - that's why we have redoubled our efforts to build the progressive momentum that will be necessary to keep extreme nominees off the Supreme Court when there is a vacancy.

Before then, we must continue to show that radical judges are not acceptable on the federal judiciary below the Supreme Court. Pryor and Brown have been nominated to the federal circuit courts of appeal, the courts that have the final word in the vast majority of federal cases.

Tell your senators: do not approve judges whose radical judicial philosophies are out of the mainstream, and threaten basic, hard-won freedoms.

Send messages to your Senators: Vote against Pryor and Brown

ACT NOW!

Send a message to your Senators:

Oppose the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown:
http://pfaw.kintera.org/brown

Oppose the nomination of William Pryor
http://pfaw.kintera.org/pryor

LEARN MORE

Our affiliate, People For the American Way Foundation, recently issued a report examining how a far-right nominee would impact our rights: "Courting Disaster 2005: Americans' Constitutional Freedoms and Legal Protections are Threatened by the Radical Right. The report concludes that over 100 important precedents spanning 70 years of legal history could be overturned with just one or two more justices like Thomas and Scalia on the Court.

Go here to read the report online:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11111

________________________________________________________________