Iraq trumps the Supreme Court

My newspaper yesterday had two major headlines, however one crowded out the other dramatically. The main headline was that Iraq was now sovereign. Great news, and hopefully it will continue to be so. We have cut and run and left them with a raft of problems, but it is a positive step, no matter how flawed.

The second headline was that the Bush Administration lost nearly all of its arguments in the supreme court regarding the status of "illegal combatants" held in Guantanamo and in the United States. The ruling of course was that these prisoners have the right to a trial in U.S. courts, the right to counsel, etc.

Both were huge news items, and one could be considered positive for the Bush Administration, one negative. When I first heard that the sovereignty handover had come early, my conspiracy theory gene revved into overdrive. I had visions of Scalia calling up Cheney, letting him know that the decision against the Administration was coming, and then Cheney moving the deadline for handover of power to the Iraqis to the same day as the Supreme Court news would break. In this way, the positive news of the handover would have pushed out the negative news of the court decisions.

There was (I thought) some good evidence for this. The handover seemed to be planned on very short notice, there were very few reporters actually there, and even the Iraqis involved seemed to be surprised at the speed. It seemed to make sense that the Bush Administration would be concerned with how their image would suffer with the Supreme Court decisions against them, and so they felt they needed to bury that story the only way they knew how.

Well I think I was giving them too much credit again. MSNBC is reporting today, that the Bush Administration appears to not have even considered that they might lose the Supreme Court cases. They had talking points ready for the contingencies of winning or a partial win, but apparently they didn't have one for if they lost. This helps me understand what they did end up saying yesterday, which was that the Supreme Court has upheld the Bush Administration's position, which made no sense under the circumstances. It now looks like they were just lost because they had not prepared for this eventuality.

According to the MSNBC article, they hadn't prepared any contingency plans as far as dealing with the expected court challenges by detainees either. They were so convinced they had the supreme court in their pocket that they simply didn't plan in any way.

So my conspiracy theory involving Cheney and Scalia is likely wrong. However it is interesting that the Bush Administration is so unprepared to lose a court case. I guess they figure that since God is guiding them in all they do, they don't need to second guess themselves. That is what worries me the most.

NRA Assault Weapon Petition

The Assault Weapon ban is ready to expire, and the NRA is spending vast amounts of money, and all of their influence, to defeat a bill that would extend the ban. We need to stop them.

Click here to sign the petition.

I understand that people feel they need to have hunting weapons, and even hanguns for protection. But no-one needs an AK-47.

Ashcroft Lied. Under Oath. Two FBI sources allege.

NBC Nightly news is going to run a report tonight (according to this article) that claims that the 9/11 commission has recently interviewed two FBI agents, who have contradicted sworn testimony by Ashcroft.

You see back on April 13th, acting FBI Director Tom Pickard was questioned by the commission, and at that time he claimed that the FBI had strong evidence of increased Al Qaida activity, however when he attempted to brief Ashcroft, "he got the brush off". He claims that Ashcroft told him that he didn't want to hear any more about the threats.

Pickard of course was furious about the brushoff.

Later, on the same day as Pickard's testimony, Ashcroft was questioned about the alleged brush-off. He denied the allegation, claiming "I did never speak to him saying that I didn't want to hear about terrorism." This was under oath, so either the head of the FBI, or the Attorney General, were lying under oath.

However since that day the 9/11 commission has received sworn testimony from two other FBI agents, both contradicting Ashcroft's testimony. The first was a now retired FBI agent whose name has not been released, who testified that he spoke with Pickard on the same day as the brush-off, and Pickard was furious at Ashcroft. Even more damning, another FBI agent, Ruben Garcia, the head of the criminal division of the FBI at the time, was actually at the meeting. He confirms that Ashcroft indeed dismissed Packard's warnings.

Now there were two others at that meeting. One was Ashcroft aide, and he supports Ashcroft's version of the events. The other was Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, who says he can't remember what occurred at the meeting.

Sounds to me like Ashcroft has been caught lying again, and this time it is critical, and under oath. If he truly was ignoring warnings from the FBI about the terrorist threat just months before 9/11, then this is a severe indictment of the Attorney General.

One of these men is lying. The question is which, and with this latest information it looks more likely that it was Ashcroft. Don't you just love these right wing supposedly christian moralists? Gotta cover your butt, even if it means lying under oath to a commission dedicated to solving the problems that lead to the most deadly attack on America in history. What a guy.

Polls - Not looking good for Bush

Poll watching is an interesting sport. It is the statistics in the game of politics, and political junkies watch them as obsessively as a baseball fan watches the numbers of his favorite teams. While I know that polls are easily manipulated, and can be biased in one direction or another, they are still pretty much the only way we have of quantifying the race.

Two recent polls have been unkind to Bush. One is a description of his status in the U.S., the other his status in Iraq. Both are moving in the wrong direction for him.

The Washington Post and ABC news recently released a very interesting poll. Over the last few months, Bush and Kerry have polled fairly close on many issues. In fact in a lot of issues, like the environment, the economy, education etc, Kerry has been out polling Bush fairly significantly. However there has been one area that Bush has been consistently far out polling Kerry, that is his handling of the war on terror. By a large margin, most Americans have felt Bush would do a better job on this.

Well that has changed dramatically. In the poll today, Bush actually trails Kerry by 1 point. He has had a drop of 13 points in just two months. That is a huge swing, and is very significant. This is especially important, because this issue is what Bush has hung his reelection chances on. He has tried to portray himself as a war president, who has done what it took to protect America from terrorists. Up until now that has been a winning strategy, but it looks like Americans are no longer buying it like they used to.

The poll also had some other interesting statistics. Many recent polls have shown Kerry and Bush neck a neck in a three way race that includes Nader. Now Kerry is shown winning even if Nader is included. He is shown beating Bush by 4 points with Nader in the race, and 8 points if Nader is excluded. As for the war in Iraq, more than half of Americans now say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, and that is the first time that a majority have felt that way. Also, 70% of Americans now think that there have been an unacceptable level of casualties in Iraq.

There are a couple of brighter points for Bush, including a large increase (up to 50%) who now feel that we are making significant progress towards a Democratic Iraq. I am assuming this is because we are close to the handover, and could change dramatically depending on how that goes. Also, with the high number of people saying that the war was not worth it, that diminishes this number somewhat.

Bush's overall approval rating is at 47%, with disapproval at an all time high of 51%. Also, when asked who they see as more trustworthy, Kerry gets 52% to Bush's 39%. Not a good sign for Bush.

What about in Iraq? How are the Iraqis feeling now they are getting close to taking back the reigns? Not good for Bush.

A recent U.S. funded poll showed that half of all Iraqis would feel safer if American soldiers just left immediately. The poll:

also found radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is surging in popularity, 92 percent of Iraqis consider the United States an occupying force and more than half believe all Americans behave like those portrayed in the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse photos.

The coalition's confidence rating in May stood at 11 percent, down from 47 percent in November, while coalition forces had just 10 percent support. Nearly half of Iraqis said they felt unsafe in their neighborhoods.

And 55 percent of Iraqis reported to the pollsters they would feel safer if U.S. troops immediately left, nearly double the 28 percent who felt that way in January.

Whether you look in Iraq, or look here at home, things are not going well for Bush. Maybe the American people are finally understanding what is going on? We can only hope so.

I just can't leave this alone.

The past few days have been just amazing. The Bush Administration has been on a rampage, desperately attacking the findings of the 9/11 commission on every front. They have no other choice, because if enough people start listening to the findings, and realize there was no connection between Al Qaida and Iraq, then the American People's confidence in the President and the war in Iraq will wane. They are hinging their re-election hopes on the war on terror, and it is threatening to fall apart.

The thing about this that just drives me mad is the absolute bald faced lies they are spreading in the media, and the fact that no-one seems to be calling them on it. According to an opinion piece in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank (Click here for a link), the lies have been flying fast.

The Bush Administration has been saying that "The 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion as the administration regarding ties between Iraq and al Qaeda,", and that the blame for people thinking that they said there was no connection lies with the Kerry campaign and the lazy media. Basically they are saying that we are just misinterpreting what the 9/11 commission said. So when the 9/11 commission said that there was "no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida" we just simply misheard them. They actually meant to say that there was a significant longstanding relationship -- at least that is that the Bush Administration now expects us to believe.

Cheney even tried to say that the commission hadn't even been trying to find any evidence of general collaboration. He told the nation on CNBC that "what they [the commission] were addressing was whether or not they [Iraq] were involved in 9/11," he said. "They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in other areas, in other ways."

Of course the next day, the spokesman for the 9/11 commission came right out and confirmed what we all heard the first time, that "the commission was addressing the broader relationship. "We found no evidence of joint operations or joint work or common operations between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government, and that's beyond 9/11,""

Remember, this isn't a Democratic think tank saying these things. This is a bipartisan commission, made up of 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, all hand picked by the President himself. They are chaired by a Republican. They had security clearance. They spent 18 months interviewing everyone up to and including the President himself. They viewed all the documents, and they came to the conclusion that there was no connection. Yet Bush et al are now trying to simply say that we don't understand what they are telling us.

It is even worse than that. The Bush Administration even released a press release of talking points, that trumpeted the fact that the 9/11 commission's finding supported the Administrations position of collaboration! Are they serious? Do they really think that if they just say it often and loudly enough that people will just believe it? I guess they do. We live in an age where the President of our country simply ignores all evidence and contradicts bipartisan findings with no evidence of his own, just his word.

Cheney even had the temerity to insist that maybe the 9/11 commission didn't have all the facts (18 months of wasted time I guess) and that he knew more than they did about the connections. Well the commission called him on it:

Late last week, commission leaders invited Cheney to provide intelligence reports that would buttress the White House's insistence that there were close ties between Hussein and al Qaeda, a commission member said. Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton told the New York Times they wanted to see any additional information in the administration's possession after Cheney said Thursday in a television interview that he "probably" knew things about Iraq's ties to terrorists that the commission did not.

Am I awake, or is all this just a bad dream. How can we live in a world like this, where our leaders simply baldfaced lie to us, and expect us to believe it? How can we live in a world where so many Americans do believe it? It seems that most Americans are simply to lazy to think for themselves, and would rather just believe in the word of their President. It must just be easier, although it is extremely dangerous.

The perfect example of this is the words of Andrew Kohut, who directed a recent poll, who predicts "Bush will be able to keep al Qaeda and Iraq tied in the public's mind; about half believe such a connection has been proved, various polls indicate. "So many people believe it because he's saying it," Kohut said. "Bush's hanging tough on this gives him the credibility he has.""

I am just appalled and amazed. This is just impossible to believe. We went through impeachment proceedings because a guy lied about his personal infidelities. We sit back and smile when another guy lies about issues that have caused the death of thousands, and cost us billions, and alienated our allies. WAKE UP!!!!!!!!

Bush is insane or a criminal - You Choose

Bush is either insane, or he is withholding evidence and intelligence from the 9/11 commission, a criminal and foolhardy act.

Yesterday the 9/11 commission reported that after 18 months of research, interviews and intelligence review, they had found no credible connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and Al Qaida. None. Zip. Nada.

Cheney a couple of days ago stated that there was a long standing connection between them, but then again that is Cheney. His brain doesn't get enough blood and he is hiding out in a secure location most of the time, it is understandable.

But today in a press conference, Bush was asked about this same issue. He was asked why his administration continues to insist on the connection, when the 9/11 commission has said there is no connection. Here is Bush's response:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaida, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaida."

He then gave two examples, the meeting between Iraqi agents and Al Qaida in Sudan, and Saddam's connection with Abu Nidal, a Palestinian spinoff terrorist group. The only problem is that we also know that nothing came of the meeting in Sudan, and Abu Nidal is an anti Israeli terrorist group with no connection to Al Qaida. So these two connections are so weak that they are laughable.

So why do I say he is insane or a criminal? Well if he truly believes that there is a connection, even after the best intelligence experts in our country as well as a commission that studied the issue for 18 months both say there is no connection, then that is an obvious sign of insanity.

But what about the criminal connection? Well maybe he has access to evidence that does show a connection? Well that would be a criminal act, as he obviously did not share that information with the 9/11 commission that was supposed to have access to all the information, and included people with top level security clearance. So Bush is obstructing justice, or he is insane.

You decide.

Here is the link to the CNN article from today.

Job Creation: Bush's new big issue

Bush and his cronies have been crowing about the increase in job creation over the last three months. We have had significantly high job creation numbers, and there is truth to that. Well I hate to burst their bubble, but there are still a couple of problems.

First, we have lost over 2 million jobs since Bush took office. While we are starting to add jobs again at an increasing pace, we are still way down deep in the hole. In fact, just to keep up with the new job seekers in the country, you have to add 100,000 jobs every month. So Bush managed to add about 1.3 million jobs between middle of 2003 and now. However we are still down over 700,000 jobs, AND, in order to keep up with those new workers, we would have needed to add 1.2 million jobs a year over the last 3.5 years. So we are WAY behind.

Second, the jobs that are being created are not the same as those that have been lost. According to a new report out by the Pew Hispanic Center, the growth in jobs has been at the low end of the economy, and overall wages have been stagnant or decreasing:

Has the recovery in job growth translated into growth in wages so far this year? The answer, for most workers, is no. Even as Latinos and non-Latinos have secured jobs in greater numbers than in 2003, real wage growth has either remained slow or decelerated for many workers, despite strong growth in labor productivity in both 2002 and 2003, by historical
standards. This is evidence of remaining slack in the labor market.

So wages are lower or the same, which means that people are not earning more for the same jobs. Plus the jobs that are being created are generally low income jobs.

Third, of the jobs that have been created, 28.5% are being taken by immigrants. Since immigrants only make up 9% of the workforce, that is an interesting statistic. What it translates to is that many of the new jobs that are being created are low income no skill jobs, which generally are taken by immigrants. Another group of workers that this includes is those workers who are brought in from overseas to fill skilled positions.

As stated here:

The high proportion of new jobs going to recent immigrants may reflect the fact that the current recovery has thus far been different from most past upturns. In recent months, as overall job growth has begun to improve, most of the new jobs appear to have come in categories that require relatively low skills and pay relatively low wages — the kinds of jobs for which new immigrants are strong competitors. In the past, the early stages of economic recoveries have been marked by growth in industrial jobs that pay above-average wages.

So the reality is that Bush doesn't really have a lot to crow about. It is good news that the job market is starting to pick up. The bad news is the quality of the jobs that are being created. Along with outsourcing, it doesn't bode well for the future of America. That is why Kerry has started talking about Quality not Quantity. That is why we need to get rid of Bush.

A few posts ago I talked about the Flip Flopping of Kerry, and how I believed that an ability to change one's mind based on changing circumstances or evidence is not necessarily a bad thing. I say that as full disclosure before I post the information below.

The main reason this "flip flopping" is an issue, is because Bush is using it as a campaign ploy against Kerry. A friend of mine sent me an email with examples of Bush's flip flops, and it is damning evidence when you consider the hypocrisy of the whole situation. Anyway, just for fun :) here is the whole list. I don't know who put it together first, so I apologize to them for posting it without credit, however I congratulate them on their effort.

Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]


Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

*********************************

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that's fallen out of favor within your administration. I'm wondering if you feel that he provided any false information, or are you particularly-

A: Chalabi?

Q: Yes, with Chalabi.

A: My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him.

-President Bush, in a Rose Garden exchange with reporters, June 1, 2004.


ONLY FOUR MONTHS EARLIER:

Q: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?

A: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

-President Bush, in an Oval Office interview with NBC's Tim Russert aired Feb. 8, 2004

Cheney is at it again.

Yesterday in Orlando, Dick Cheney again said that Saddam Hussein had "long established ties with al Qaeda". What! Haven't we debunked that idea over and over? Intelligence experts have fully debunked that idea. No-one seems to be making this case anymore except for Dick Cheney, and as usual, he simply expects us to take him at his word, offering no evidence. Kind of like those pesky missing weapons of mass destruction.

Why is he doing this? Have all those months hiding in a "secure location" addled his brain? Is he so ideologically tied up with his preconceived notions that no amount of evidence will persuade him to abandon them? Is he insane?

Obviously he has not seen the memo from the State Department. Colin Powell, Secretary of State, admitted back in January that the claims of ties between Iraq and Al Qaida were tenuous and unproven. He admitted (see here) that the assertions he made to the U.N. were a mistake, however he says an honest one.

Just hours ago, Bush was asked about Cheney's comment in a Rose Garden press conference, and he answered with one word, Zarqawi. For the uninitiated, Zarqawi was a terrorist who was inside Iraq before the invasion. The Bush Administration used his presence as "evidence" of Iraq's association with Al Qaida. There are only a few problems with that evidence.

First was the fact that Zarqawi wasn't even in Iraqi controlled territory. His base was in Kurdish controlled territory (remember, our allies?) and well within the U.S. no fly zone. Even if Saddam had wanted to get rid of him, he couldn't have. He had absolutely no control over the area the base was located.

Second, there is no evidence of any communication or connection between Zarqawi and Saddam. We have no reason to believe they were working together, or that Saddam was directing his actions.

Third, the claims that Zarqwi worked for Al Qaida were tenuous at best. A letter was sent by Zarqawi to Al Qaida back before the war, and that letter was intercepted by U.S. intelligence. The letter was an offer of mutual assistance, an offer to work together. However the U.S. also apparently has evidence that this offer was rebuffed by Bin Laden.

So we have a guy who has no ties to Saddam, doesn't even live in territory controlled by Saddam, and was rebuffed by Al Qaida. This does not mean he is not a dangerous man, however this was the evidence used to tie Saddam to Al Qaida. Pathetic.

Even more pathetic is Bush and Cheney continuing to perpetuate this piece of propaganda. The only purpose of which is to attempt to retain justification for their war.

Now, do you want to hear the second worst part? Back in March, NBC news reported that before the war, we had a number of opportunities to take Zarqawi out. However every time, the National Security Council voted against it. Why? Because the "administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

Did you read that correctly? We could have taken out Zarqawi three times before the war, but decided not to, because his presence in Iraq provided a way of tying Saddam to Al Qaida, and thus a reason for war. It was a false connection anyway, but we allowed him to live so we could use it.

Now the worst part. We didn't catch Zarqawi. In fact he is still on the loose in Iraq, and has been accused of being behind many of the worst acts of terrorism in Iraq during the occupation. He has killed hundreds, and all because we decided not to take him out. We made a decision to keep him around because it conveniently helped our fictional reasons for war, and helped the Bush Administration to prosecute the war they wanted so badly since the beginning of their term.

That is insane. That is criminal. That is putting ideology and politics before truth and lives. That is Cheney and Bush.

Terrorism. Is it decreasing or increasing?

The big argument between the left and the right over the results of Bush's War on Terror, and especially his adventure in Iraq, has been whether this has increased or decreased the danger to Americans. The right claims that the aggressive prosecution of the war has the terrorists on the run, and that they now have two less sanctuaries for recruitment and training (Iraq and Afghanistan). The left of course claims that the war on terror has only increased the threat from terrorists. This is especially true in the prosecution of the war on Iraq, and ignoring the problems between Israel and the Palestinians. These things have only increased antagonism towards the U.S., boosted Al Qaida's funding and recruitment, and made it more likely for regular Muslims to support the terrorists.

Well back on April 29th, the U.S. State Department released their annual report on terror. The report was a delight to the right, who noted that the number of terrorist incidents was down sharply in 2003 from 2002 and 2001. This was evidence of the success of the war on terror in their minds. They trumpeted from the rooftops that Bush's war on terrorism was winning, and it was clear in the numbers that we had them on the ropes.

The left responded that the numbers might be down, but the devastation and injury caused by each attack was greater than before. Yes we might have less total attacks, but the ones we are still getting are more deadly. While this was true, it had a hollow ring to it, amid the jubilation of the right.

Well guess what. The chickens have come home to roost, and the State Department is now saying that there were major numerical errors in the report, and that terrorist incidents were actually sharply up in 2003.

Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, “We got the wrong data and did not check it enough.”

He added, “Our preliminary results indicate that the figures for the number of attacks and casualties will be up sharply from what was published.”

“Errors crept in and, frankly, we did not catch them,” Powell said of the report that showed a falloff in the number of attacks worldwide in 2003.

So now it is clear that the numbers don't support the right's expression of joy over us winning the war on terror. Bush no longer can use this as a campaign issue, and the evidence is clear that terrorism is becoming more of an problem, not less of one. The left have been arguing all along that attacking Iraq increased the danger, not decreased it. Now we see support in the same numbers the right used just a month ago.

Here is the article

The Flip Flopper?

There has been a lot of talk lately (mostly sparked by Bush's attack ads) that Kerry is a flip flopper. The Bush campaign has even used guys in Dolphin suits called Flippy the flippy flip flopper, or something similar, to mock Kerry on this supposed weakness.

The real question to me though, is why is this even an issue? The more I think about this, the more it seems strange to me that this is seen as a negative by people at all.

Flip Flopping is a derisive way of saying that a candidate will change their positions on issues. The implication is that they have their finger to the wind, and are willing to go wherever the wind takes them. I can see that at first glance this might seem like a bad thing. However flexibility in decision making is a strength, not a weakness.

The alternative is a politician who is set in his feelings about issues, and will not change them no matter what evidence to the contrary they have. This kind of politician is convinced they know the right side of every issue, and will not budge for any reason, not if the people of the country want them to, and not if evidence shows that their position is untenable. This kind of politician is inflexible and dangerous. Sounds a lot like Bush, doesn't it? Bush has been unwilling to give up on his favored policies, no matter how disastrous they may now appear. He is willing to spend billions of dollars, and the lives of American soldiers, simply because he is unable to reasses his position. He is never wrong, and can't be convinced that he is on any issue.

Personally I would much rather have a politician who is willing to admit that his position on an issue has changed, because circumstances have changed, or because new evidence has appeared that had to be considered. I would much rather have a politician that is willing to admit they were wrong, and that after careful consideration they are changing their mind. This is a poliitican who is intellectually engaged, and constantly reassessing the situation. This is a flip flopper. Almost sounds good, doesn't it?

Bush erratic, Tenet fired?

There is an interesting article that a friend of mine sent me a link to, that is worth a read. I wouldn't take it all without a hint of skepticism, since there are no named sources, but it does seem to fit the pattern of what we have been seeing. The article quotes unnamed Whitehouse sources saying that Bush's:

increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.
In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

The article goes on to describe Bush Aides explaining that the erratic nature of Bush's focus has caused many of the problems in the fight against terror and the war in Iraq. That to me seems a bit of a stretch, since I have a feeling he isn't running much of that at all in the first place.

One interesting item in the article though is the claim of a Bush Aide that Tenet was fired for disloyalty:

"Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and wouldn't hear of it," says an aide. "That would have been the opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election campaign but when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."

Tenet was allowed to resign "voluntarily" and Bush informed his shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the President actually described the decision as "God's will."

Very interesting stuff, I am just not sure how much of it is true. You can make up your own mind here:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml

Ronald Reagan RIP

I am not a fan of Ronald Reagan, however he was the President of our country, and that alone deserves some respect. He is considered by many the spiritual or at least thematic predecessor of our current President, and I think that is true in many ways. Both had little interest in facts and reality, and both found it very easy to say one thing in public and do another in private.

That said though, my thoughts do go out to his family. I cannot grieve Ronald Reagan the President, however I can grieve Ronald Reagan the family man, and the human being. RIP.

Farenheit 9/11 trailer now online

Looks good!

http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/

Old conservative email

My Mom sent me a old email I have seen before, that talks about how wrong the Democrats are in their opposition to the war in Iraq. It is a little old, since some of the items are already way out of date, but I thought it would be fun to go through each statement and look at them individually. Anyway, I thought I would post it here also! :)

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of

January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January.

This is a strawman argument if I ever saw one. I have heard this argument from conservatives before, they make it as if to say that combat deaths are no big deal, since we have more people dying in one of our American cities. There are a number of problems with that argument.

The first is that the deaths in Detroit are not necessarily preventable. They could probably be reduced if we had reasonable gun control in the U.S., but conservatives don’t want that either. However the deaths in Iraq were entirely preventable. We didn’t have to invade Iraq. Bush made that decision, and it was a choice, not a necessity. If Iraq had truly been an immediate threat to the U.S., then maybe this would be different, but we now know they had no WMD stockpiles, they had no current WMD programs, they had no ties to Al Qaida, and they were not involved in 9/11. They were not an immediate threat, and therefore the war was a war of choice.

So every death in Iraq is a preventable one. Each of these 39 soldiers would likely be alive today if it wasn’t for that choice. Since the start of the war, over 700 U.S. soldiers have been killed, over 5000 wounded, thousands of Iraqi’s have been killed, and 200 billion dollars have been wasted. All for that choice.

Also, this argument tries to make the death rates comparable. However you have to remember that Detroit has 4.7 million people. There are only 130,000 U.S. soldiers in all Iraq. You are 40 times more likely to die as a U.S. soldier in Iraq, that you are to be murdered in Detroit.

Also, this argument leaves out all the other deaths in Iraq, as if the Iraqi people themselves are irrelevant. There have been thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, some estimates up to 10,000 just during the initial invasion, although around 3,500 is more likely. Iraqi civilians continue to die every day as the result of murders, combat, bombings etc, that are all boosting these numbers.

That's just one American City, about as deadly as the entire war torn
country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state
the following....

FDR... led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us, Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per
year.

This statement is false. Japan physically attacked the U.S, but Germany also declared war on the United Sates. The United States did not choose to go to war with Germany, the war was declared on them. Germany felt it had to support its Japanese allies, and also felt that the U.S. would inevitably join at that point, so it needed to.

Also, there was a real threat from Germany. Germany had conquered Europe, had subjugated millions of people, was in the process of murdering millions of Jews, was poised to invade Great Britain, had Russia on the ropes. There is absolutely no comparison to the “threat” posed by Iraq. This is preposterous.

TRUMAN... finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea
never attacked us. >From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average
of 18,334 per year.

North Korea invaded South Korea, our Ally. Also, the Korean War was a United Nations war, approved by the U.N. The war was also fought under the auspices of the Cold War, which indeed was a threat. Iraq was and never will be the threat that the Soviet Union was.

JOHN F. KENNEDY... started the Vietnam Conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
attacked us.

Using Vietnam is a little bald faced, since it was a disaster as well. We should never have gone to Vietnam, and we should never have gone to Iraq.

JOHNSON.. turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000
lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

As above

CLINTON... went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia
never attacked us. He was offered Osama Bin Laden's head on a platter,
three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple
occasions.

There was ongoing genocide in progress in Bosnia when we invaded. Nothing like it was happening in Iraq. Iraq was a stable country when we invaded, there were no ongoing pogroms or genocide. While Saddam had done these things in the past, George Bush senior declined to invade to help the Shiites when they were happening, so conservatives cannot use this argument.

As for Osama Bin Laden, it is true that we could have done more with him in the past. But this argument is like saying it is ok for our guy to invade a country, kill thousands, waste billions of dollars on a mistake, because your guy failed to capture a terrorist. Doesn’t make any sense.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us:

PRESIDENT BUSH HAS... liberated two countries. Crushed the Taliban.
Crippled al-Qaida. Put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North
Korea without firing a shot and captured a terrorist who slaughtered
300,000 of his own people.

Afghanistan is a mess, there is nothing like liberation there. Most of the country is under the control of warlords. These same warlords were the guys that we were actually glad to see beaten by the Taliban years ago, because of their brutality. The Taliban are reconstituted in most of the country. If we had committed the resources we wasted in Iraq to the Afghanistani situation, then maybe things would be different there. Osama Bin Laden is likely still holed up in Afghanistan, that is how “liberated” it is. He is a little more dangerous to us than Saddam was.

Al Qaida is far from crippled. In fact a recent study out of England said that their fundraising has increased tenfold since the war in Iraq began. The war in Iraq has brought them thousands of new sympathizers and recruits, and we are in more danger today than we were before the war in Iraq started. If we had spent all that wasted effort and resources from Iraq in fighting Al Qaida, we might be safer today.

Libya did open up its nuclear program, but mostly because of economic pressure from Europe, since they wanted trade concessions there. I do not deny that the invasion of Iraq might have helped push them through that door, but it was not the prime reason. Iran and North Korea are even more closed and dangerous than ever before. They learned one thing from the Iraqi war, that is you can only escape American invasion if you do actually have nuclear bombs. Many experts agree that the nuclear programs in both of these countries has likely accelerated, as they are determined to get the bomb as soon as possible, so they can deter U.S. aggression.

Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, and no-one is sad to see him go. However these 300,000 of his own people is a number that comes from the Iraqi exiles lead by Chalabi, who has recently been accused of betraying the U.S. and giving intelligence to Iran. He is also the source of most of the U.S. intelligence on WMD in Iraq. Not a very credible source. Also, the mass graves that we have found were all from back in Bush Senior’s administration, when he encouraged the Shiites to rise up against Saddam, and then left them to their own devices when he cracked down.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the
Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

This is obviously an old article, since we are now over a year into the war. Bush claimed that the war was over a long time ago. Since then we have suffered 500 combat deaths.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time that it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing
records.

Once again this is old information. We have been looking now for nearly a year and a half, and we now have full control of the country, we can go anywhere we want, talk to anyone we want. We have found nothing. Very few still cling to the idea that we will find anything.

It took less time for the 3rd infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call
the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

Once again, we are a year and a half later, and 2 American soldiers are dying each and every day.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!!

OUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military moral is
high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

Military morale is awful right now, once again this is old news. Bush just announced that all soldiers in Iraq who were at the end of their mission have been stop lossed, which means they are not allowed to go home to their families and retire.

American military has been involved in Geneva Convention violations with torture and sexual abuse. Their morale has been hit hard by that. American soldiers are increasingly willing to talk out about their moral problems. There are plenty of examples of that. Their morale is at an all time low.

CIA Director George Tenet resigns

Well this was a surprise to many, but not to me. This resignation has been a long time coming, and well overdue. George Tenet has led the CIA through some of the worst intelligence fiascos of CIA history.

First he failed to detect the growing threat of Al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks, and then he presided over the WMD intelligence on Iraq. The CIA cannot be completely blamed for that disaster, since their reports to the Administration were filled with qualifiers, however Tenet was severely loyal to Bush, and refused to contradict Bush and Cheney's assertions about Iraq's WMD. He sat behind Powell at the U.N., while Powell was giving his deeply flawed presentation on WMD. He presided over embarrassment of intelligence coming from Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, which was feeding falsehoods and lies to the Administration and CIA on a regular basis.

His tenure has been a disaster, and as the head of the CIA, he was responsible. So why was I not surprised?

Well the election is coming, and as time goes on, it is more and more obvious that there were no WMD in Iraq, and Bush needed a scapegoat for that miscalculation. If this issue heats up too much during the campaign, he will be able to say that the CIA now has new leadership, and a new direction. He most likely won't specifically blame Tenet, but at least he is gone and with him his association with the Bush Administration.

Now my short list of resignation hopefuls is down to 4! Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Wolfowitz. Pearl is already gone, and so is Tenet. Whoohoo! 2 down, 4 to go.

What a great legacy this Administration has left for our country.

Here is the article on the issue in MSNBC

Political Wrangling in Iraq

Over the weekend some very interesting action was taking place in Iraq. The Iraqi Governing council and the U.S. were at odds over the choice of President for the new Interim Government. The IGC wanted to vote in their current leader, Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer. The United States felt he was not a good choice, because he had spoken critically against the U.S. occupation at numerous times, and they had another man they wanted in the President position. So Bremer, the U.S. lead in Iraq, forced the IGC to postpone a vote they were going to hold yesterday, that would have affirmed their man for the post.

At first I was pretty mad about this. It seemed to be typical U.S. arrogance, and again seemed to expose our hypocrisy. We are supposed to be turning over power to Iraqis in 30 days, and supposedly supporting Democracy for Iraq. Then we block a democratic election for the new leader of Iraq. Seemed pretty short sighted to me. The IGC has little enough credibility with the Iraqi people. If they can be overridden so easily by the U.S., and they can be forced to accept a U.S. appointed president for "Democratic Iraq", then how is the new interim government going to have any credibility at all! It seemed like a really stupid move on the part of the U.S.

Today however, the news was released that the guy that the U.S. wanted for the Presidency declined to take the job. The U.S. reluctantly allowed the IGC to go ahead with their vote, and they elected their choice for the position, much to the chagrin of the U.S. occupation authorities. Or at least that is how it seems on the surface.

Maybe I am giving them too much credit, but I think that it is likely that this was all an elaborate play, done specifically to give credence and credibility to the new Iraqi President. Why would the U.S. do something so stupid as they did yesterday, blocking the Iraqi choice for President, and then so meekly step back from the "brink" today? I think the whole situation was staged so that the new Iraqi President would have the credibility he needed with the Iraqi people.

Most Iraqis see the IGC as a bunch of American puppets already. Yet here they were, defying the U.S. will and democratically electing a guy who has been critical of the U.S. occupation in the past! See them stick it to the U.S.! See the victory of democracy over the heavy handed American occupation! See the new Iraqi President is someone the U.S. didn't want, even fought against!! He must not be a puppet of the U.S.!!!!

This whole thing was engineered as an attempt to give this guy legitimacy, and I think it was fairly well handled. As I said, I may be giving the U.S. occupation authority too much credit, but this seems to be the real reason behind the events of the last two days. It just doesn't make much sense otherwise.

Anyway, here is the link to the news story.