PLANNING SESSIONS

Sorry for posting the entire article, but it was sent to me without a link. The author is hardly a close friend of progressive causes, and that is what makes this interesting. He speaks truthfully about the abdication of the Democrat's power when the war was just a glimmer in George Bush's eye.

The Greatest Scandal
By Patrick J. Buchanan

10/24/05 "ICH " -- -- While President Bush and his War Cabinet bear full moral responsibility for Iraq, they could not have taken us to war without the complicity of the "adversary press" and "loyal opposition."

Today, this town is salivating over the prospect that Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby will be indicted for outing Joe Wilson's wife as a CIA operative. Thirty months ago, many of those anxious to see the White House brought down were hauling its water. Consider the role played by our newspaper of record, the New York Times.

To stampede us into a war neoconseratives had been plotting for a decade, Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's No. 3, set up an Office of Special Plans. Its role: Cherry-pick the intel that Saddam was acquiring weapons of mass destruction and hell-bent on using them on the United States. Then, stovepipe the hot stuff to the White House Iraq Group, and ignore the contradictory evidence.

A primary source of the hot intel about poison gas vans and nuclear bomb programs was a tight-knit exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress and neocon-Pentagon favorite to lead the new Iraq.

But once the hyped intel suggesting Saddam was an imminent and mortal threat had been extracted, the WHIG needed to run it through a media centrifuge to convert it into hard news.

Enter Judy Miller, self-styled "Ms. Run Amok" and the go-to girl for the War Party. Miller took the cherry-picked intel and planted it on Page 1, enabling War Party propagandists to hit the TV talk-show circuit and reference ominous stories in the New York Times about how imminent a threat Saddam had become.

These propagandists were parroting their own pre-cooked intel, but it now had the imprimatur of the Times. The White House had seduced the good Gray Lady of 43rd Street into turning tricks for war.

While the Times has played this role before, it was usually in leftist causes. In the early 1930s, Walter Duranty got a Pulitzer for covering up Stalin's starvation of the Ukrainians. In the late 1950s, Herbert Matthews used the Times' front page to introduce Fidel Castro to the world as the "Robin Hood of the Sierra Maestre." And who can forget the Times columnists who assured us how much better off the Cambodian people would be under the benevolent rule of Pol Pot?

But the indispensable enablers of war are the New Democrats and potential presidential nominees, Sens. Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden and Bayh. Fearful that Bush and Rove would use their refusal to authorize war in October 2002 to impeach Democrats' patriotism, they voted to give him a blank check for war. Six months later, Bush cashed it.

The Democratic Senate could have slowed the stampede. And if it could not have stopped it, it might at least have gotten answers to crucial questions. How many troops would be needed? What was the probability of guerrilla war? What was our exit strategy? Instead, the Senate surrendered the war powers the Founding Fathers reserved for Congress to the president and abdicated its constitutional duty.

And what of the punditocracy that cheerled us into war? Did they serve their country, or did they service the king and his courtiers by reciting such fairytales as Muhammad Atta's secret meeting in Prague with his Iraqi controllers?

In the run-up to war, from left, center and right, voices were asking exactly what threat Saddam posed to America.

His nation had been crushed in six weeks and his army routed in 100 hours in Desert Storm. His weapons factories had been demolished. Terrified of U.S. retaliation, he had not used one WMD. The United Nations had rummaged through Iraq and destroyed other WMDs and their factories. He had not imported a tank, plane or gun in 12 years. Mohammad ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency had scoured Iraq and found nothing. Saddam had invited the CIA in to have a look.

Though 40,000 U.S.-British sorties had been flown over Iraq since 1991, he had been unable to shoot down a single plane. There was no evidence he or his regime had any role in 9-11, any connection to the anthrax attack, any tie to al-Qaida or committed any act of terror against us.

Why, then, was it necessary to go to war?

Whatever the sins of the WHIG in savaging critics, however, at least most of them believed in this war. But what is to be said for those who transmitted to a trusting public what they had to know or at least suspect were propaganda fabrications to dupe the people into sending their sons and daughters to fight and die in an unnecessary war? This is the greater scandal. This is the real scandal.

© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Here's the link oncall.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=9161

Posted by: oncall at October 25, 2005 09:00 AM

Oncall,

Something is very wrong with Patrick Buchanan. He's beginning to sound like the "Three Faces of Eve," or "Sybil."

While sometimes he comes across as absolutely coherant and makes the same points I can agree with, the next day he reverts back to his other persona.

He dilutes both messages by doing this. Maybe he needs to decide: Is he a wingnut or a anti-war, anti-corruption progressive.

Sparrow

Buchanan is a traditional conservative, fiscally conservative and isolationist. So he is a wingnut, but an old school wingnut. I think even Barry Goldwater would be disgusted with what is going on.

I agree with some things he says too, but not flat tax and other loony rightwing ideas he probably has his own reasons for. He's a good writer. I've been reading him for a long time but yes he's a wingnut.

I wonder if others of his ilk are bailing from the neocons? The problem is they would not want to join Dems, libs, progs - whatever they're called - because they also tend to believe "every man for himself" so don't like social programs, more in the vein of Libertarians.

In summary, Buchanan is a con but not a neocon.
& just think, the some of the main neocons used to be Dems and spout "liberal" sounding ideas like spreading democracy, but somewhere along the end they picked up the idea that it's ok to do it using violence, which is very Orwellian. War is Peace & so on.

Sparrow,

Yes, Pat Buchanan does cross over from coherent to dangerous. I thought it was worth posting an article by somebody who is no friend to the Progressive movement. I think that his statements in the article are important when considered together with the thread head. We are starting to see even the most conservative pundits agree that this "war" is a horrible mistake. Perhaps it will be the "lost artists" that Karen describes who will help those Conservatives deliver their anti war message to their constituents. Currently Pat Buchanan is not a very popular person in the Washinton power circles. Remember he did run as an independent for President and he can't be pigeon holed as either Republican or Democrat IMO. Maybe he just needs groups like the one Karen met with yesterday to help deliver his message?

Posted by: oncall at October 25, 2005 09:43 AM

I wonder if the wingnuts respect him still or if he's completely isolated from any person.

But you're right, it is interesting to see his comments when he breaks loose from BushCO.

We're #1 on this list....

above rawstory, dailykos, truthout, etc.

http://www.d-a-w-n.org/newslinks.html

I like this page the best!!

http://www.d-a-w-n.org/DAWN1.htm

It shows what just people can do.

Time to make phone calls and write some letters to the editor. They are stark raving mad in the White House.

White House Seeks Exception in Abuse Ban

By ERIC SCHMITT
NYTimes.com, Published: October 25, 2005

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - Stepping up a confrontation with the Senate over the handling of detainees, the White House is insisting that the Central Intelligence Agency be exempted from a proposed ban on abusive treatment of suspected Qaeda militants and other terrorists.

The Senate defied a presidential veto threat nearly three weeks ago and approved, 90 to 9, an amendment to a $440 billion military spending bill that would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any detainee held by the United States government. This could bar some techniques that the C.I.A. has used in some interrogations overseas.

But in a 45-minute meeting last Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney and the C.I.A. director, Porter J. Goss, urged Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who wrote the amendment, to support an exemption for the agency, arguing that the president needed maximum flexibility in dealing with the global war on terrorism, said two government officials who were briefed on the meeting. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the discussions.

Mr. McCain rejected the proposed exemption, which stated that the measure "shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."

Spokesmen for Mr. McCain, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Goss all declined to comment on the matter Monday, citing the confidentiality of the talks.

Human rights organizations said Monday that it was unclear whether the language in the changes proposed by the White House meant that the president would decide exemptions case by case or whether there would be more of a blanket authority. But they said the administration's proposal would seriously undermine Mr. McCain's measure.
~snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/politics/25detain.html?ex=1287892800&en=c48e1c73e236a6c9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Here's more on what the proposed revision to the McCain 'no-torture' amendment really means from Jack Balkin at Balkinization...

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/10/beware-augmented-mccain-amendment.html

I just finished a radio appearance a couple of hours ago with our friend Peter B. Collins on KXRA 540AM up in Monterey, CA. Peter was joined, in studio, by Tony Anchundo, the Registrar of Voters in Monterey County, CA for a demonstration of a brand-spankin' new Sequoia DRE (touch-screen) voting machine that Achundo was very proud to announce would be in use for the first time in the special State Election coming up out here on November 8th.

Achundo walked Peter through the use of the machine, which prints out a "paper record" (as Achundo referred to it) that voters are to "verify" before leaving the voting booth. That "paper record" is printed on a small thermal-ink roll of paper, akin to what you get with a credit card purchase, and stays behind plexiglass, never to be touched by the voter.

The votes, however, are counted on a "memory cartridge" in the machine, not on the "paper record." This raises the question (which I attempted to ask many times, in many different ways) as to what good that "paper record" actually is in the first place...beyond giving the voter a completely false sense of security and confidence.

I was able to get Anchundo to confirm that the entire technology used to count votes in Monterey County, California will have to be "faith-based". We'll just have to "trust" him, and his 30 years of experience as Registrar, that everything is fine and that votes will be counted accurately.

http://www.bradblog.com/

Oh Karen, that sounds wonderful and I wish I was there but we are still plugging along in Illlinois. NSPI is working overtime in planning vigils around the Chicago area to mark the 2000 soldier lost and we are also working on follow up lobbying of our Senators and Congressmen at their local offices including getting some letterwriting going.

Excellent diary from dailykos which must be read in its entirety... but here's a snippet to get you started...

Niger/Uranium: FACTS everyone NEEDS to know
by Todd Johnston
Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 03:27:33 PM PDT

The issue of whether Iraq sought to buy yellowcake from Niger is and has always been irrelevant. The White House -- Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley; the intelligence community -- Tenet and CIA, DOE, and the State Department; Valerie Plame, and Joe Wilson, have all understood this from day one. Plame herself called the idea "crazy."

What has been utterly misunderstood, misrepresented, and lost amid the babble of speculation and intrigue, is that Iraq didn't need yellowcake. They'd had a million pounds of it sitting around "in country" for over a decade, but with no viable means whatsoever of making it into nuclear weapons.

It is all about the cover-up.

The science is what's missing. Understand that and the real fraud will smack you right between the eyes, that someone rammed the Niger/yellowcake 'angle' down the intelligence community's throats. And everyone in the IC knew it, choosing to either toe the line or mutter quietly in the halls.

Except Joe Wilson. He picked the scab that mattered, pointed to the elephant in the room. Niger. God willing, I'll find a way to make these subtle but important distinctions clear. Please bear with me.
~snip~

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/24/182733/96

Oh Karen, that sounds wonderful and I wish I was there but we are still plugging along in Illlinois. NSPI is working overtime in planning vigils around the Chicago area to mark the 2000 soldier lost and we are also working on follow up lobbying of our Senators and Congressmen at their local offices including getting some letterwriting going.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051025/ts_afp/iraq_051025110145

Sadly the death toll just reached the 2000 mark. Make sure you plan your vigil. Cindy and all who are participating in civil disobediance, our thoughts and prayers are with you.

Could Fitzgerald charge people under the terrorism act?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5162764

This statement if correct, means that Miers confirmation is toast that Mehlman recognizes that.

"'If you look at Reagan who had two [failed Supreme Court] nominees, who lost control of the Senate and had Iran-contra, did he still have a successful final three years? Absolutely,' Mehlman said in an interview. So, too, will Bush, he predicted."

Ira, I think Mehlman is right about Bush's final three years, and that is what has been bothering me about the celebratory mood of the progressives in this Plame affair. I suspect it will be Bush's opportunity to shift all the ugly stuff onto others, bring in some new blood, and rescue both his presidency and the Republican party.

It is so good to see Cindy Sheehan smiling again.

Posted by: oncall at October 25, 2005 09:00 AM

This is, in my opinion, one of the most honest and balanced pieces I have read in a long time.

I saw an interesting discussion on C-Span 2 this past weekend between Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter.

Scott Ritter is the author of the book titled "Iraq Confidential", and Seymour Hersh (does he need an introduction?) is the author of the book titled "Chain of Command: The Road from 9-11 to Abu Ghraib."

Ritter said his opinion is that there is going to be a civil war of sorts in Iraq, no matter when we leave. He said in his opinion the best we could do is mitigate failure there and leave. He said the death toll would be less from the civil uprising, a matter of perhaps 60,000, if we pulled out now, as opposed to pulling out years from now after the unrest has continued to fester for years. He said years down the road the death toll would be much, much higher, at least 600,000.

Do we need to be wary of politicians on the left as well as the right who say we must fulfill our duty to stay in Iraq? Do we have a guarantee that things will be better in a couple years? Or are these left wing politicians playing in to the hand of the military machine? Are there left wing politicians who are corrupt also?

I think these are very serious questions that we should be asking ourselves at this juncture. No, it's not politically popular to ask these questions. Neither then, is the death of thousands more of our sons and daughters in a long, strung out war, and additional pre-emptive wars.

I think we need to ask these questions in earnest and demand answers.

World Can't Wait people did an interview with Katrina survivors; check it out:

http://www.worldcantwait.org/media/no9days.mp3