The report is in.

This week Gen. David Petraeus gave his long awaited report to Congress on the progress, or lack thereof, in Iraq.  Granted a lot of people had already decided no matter what he said he was going to either just give President Bush’s view of the situation or ‘cherry pick’ the news so that it looks like more progress has been made than really has.  Others insisted that Congress should concern itself more with political, not military, progress because the latter is impossible without the former.  It seems most people already knew what they think about the US presence in Iraq and would find justification in anything the General had to say.

 

No, contrary to early hype, the Iraqis have not met 11 of the 18 benchmarks the Democratic Congress set for them.  My view is military progress cannot happen until there is some political progress and there seems to have been backwards movement there.  Anyone who has paid any attention to this saw it coming.  We went into this war with faulty intelligence, under false pretenses and ignored our commanders when they said we needed to send in more troops and keep the Iraqi army together to help restore order after Saddam was toppled.  Every meeting and hearing I attended in the months leading up to the war ended with the same conclusion:  The military, whose expertise is not nation building, would be in charge of rebuilding Iraq and it would be a train wreck.  Military police are not trained to be street cops and as bad as the Ba’athists were, to shun a major faction of any country from participation in any new government will cause more problems than it solves.  Moreover, al Qaeda was virtually non-existent in Iraq before we invaded has used this war to its advantage and given people with a lot of time on their hands and a disposition to hate the US a place to train and fight us.  The good news is none of the Iraqi factions want them there.

 

With this new report, and any groups who are upset that more has not been done need to really pay attention to this because it was done because they made it happen, even the Bush administration has started to admit it may be time to bring troops home but their timeline is not enough.  We have been operating under the ‘Pottery Barn’ rule; you broke it, you own it but if stability is ever going to take hold we have to give it away.  No one in the Middle East wants the situation to deteriorate further but as long as US troops are in control it will continue to be our problem when it should be theirs.  Setting a date for our departure will not give the terrorists any kind of win, it will force the Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis themselves to step up and take some responsibility for their future.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Six years ago this morning

I was at my desk when my boss came in and asked me if I had seen the news.  As part of my job was to monitor US news coverage of certain topics I assumed she was asking about that and it was what I had just started to do and was really irritated that she had not given me more than a few minutes to finish.  I was wrong, she just wanted to know if I had seen the first plane hit the WTC. My first thought was a small Cessna had hit it (that had happened before and it was a perfectly clear day). I had not but we gathered around one of the office TVs and saw the second one.  We could see the smoke from the Pentagon fire.  I could go into how it feels to be a New Yorker, how I want my skyline back and how scared I was for the people I knew in the buildings or how badly I feel for the people I know who did not make it out and almost as badly for those who did but in the interest of not turning this into a personal therapy session I will stick to the one question I do not think anyone is really addressing:  Are we safer?  My gut tells me after all the investigations and hearings we have had the answer remains ‘No.’

 

We have done a number of things in the US to achieve that goal but none seem to accomplish it.  The Washington Post had a great article on this subject, entitled “Are we safer today?” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702050.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) .  They argue that we are losing the public relations war and making more enemies than before:

 

“U.S. foreign policy has not stemmed the rising tide of extremism in the Muslim world. In July 2004, the 9/11 commission recommended putting foreign policy at the center of our counterterrorism efforts. Instead, we have lost ground.

 

Our report warned that it was imperative to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries. But inside Pakistan, al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability," according to the National Intelligence Estimate. The chief threat to Afghanistan's young democracy comes from across the Pakistani border, from the resurgent Taliban. Pakistan should take the lead in closing Taliban camps and rooting out al-Qaeda. But the United States must act if Pakistan will not.

 

We are also failing in the struggle of ideas. We have not been persuasive in enlisting the energy and sympathy of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims against the extremist threat. That is not because of who we are: Polling data consistently show strong support in the Muslim world for American values, including our political system and respect for human rights, liberty and equality. Rather, U.S. policy choices have undermined support.

 

No word is more poisonous to the reputation of the United States than Guantanamo. Fundamental justice requires a fair legal process before the U.S. government detains people for significant periods of time, and the president and Congress have not provided one. Guantanamo Bay should be closed now. The 9/11 commission recommended developing a "coalition approach" for the detention and treatment of terrorists — a policy that would be legally sustainable, internationally viable and far better for U.S. credibility.

 

Moreover, no question inflames public opinion in the Muslim world more than the Arab-Israeli dispute. To empower Muslim moderates, we must take away the extremists' most potent grievance: the charge that the United States does not care about the Palestinians. A vigorous diplomatic effort, with the visible, active support of the president, would bolster America's prestige and influence — and offer the best prospect for Israel's long-term security.”

 

Moreover, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seems to be in disarray.  Its creation was originally proposed by the then Vice President Al Gore in his reinventing government report, in which he also suggested more be done to make air travel safer but no one wanted to hear it then.  Anyone who travels regularly and though different airports will tell you the Transportation Security Administration (http://www.tsa.gov/) or TSA, implements its rules differently from one airport to the next.  Yes, they are there for deterrence but seriously, my lip balm is not a threat to anyone. 

 

DHS is more than TSA.  It took a number of agencies and put them under the same roof, the goal being to improve communications between the agencies but all it seems to have done is create more bureaucracy and red tape.  It also gave the current administration the idea that it had the right to ignore any parts of the Constitution they felt were cumbersome. (see the FISA post, I am just glad Alberto Gonzalez quit, we ARE safer since he did that.  But the creation of a new and very huge government agency has not increased communication.  A plane entered the Washington, DC airspace and the local government was not informed until AFTER it was found to be safe and diverted to another route (it was a governor’s plane that accidentally flew almost directly over the Capitol building).

 

The bottom line is we were attacked and rather than focus on the enemy we had we went after a bad guy who lacked any real means to hurt us.  By doing this we did more to help the people who wish us harm by giving them more reasons to want to so.  Additionally, we have stretched our military so thin we have left our ‘homeland’ even more vulnerable to another attack.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Proof part one

So many lies, so little time.

 

The common view among many people is that all politicians lie.  Campaign promises are meaningless because ‘we all know politicians lie and will say anything to get elected.’  I do not believe either is true and think our entire system is based on listening to what candidates say and expecting them to follow through.  I understand that governing differs from campaigning and that once privy to inside information; the responsible thing to do may be revise one’s approach or position in response to the new information.  I believe our justice system works in a similar way, if new information becomes available after a trial, a person convicted of a crime can use that to get a new trial, for instance.

 

Having said that, it is very important to note when a politician changes their stance on an issue once they get into office and when they do not.  Governor George W. Bush ran a very good campaign in 2000 and was very clear about some of the things he would do once he got into office so I will start there.  Not with his lies but with things he said he would do.  Off the top of my head there are two areas where I disagree with him but appreciate his honesty:  drilling in the arctic and abortion.  He said we needed the oil and supported legislation to drill in , environmentalists were angry but he did say he supported the idea.  He has opposed abortion since day one.  Kudos for keeping your word.  Oh, in case anyone cares, I refer to GWB as Dubya because my personal favorite nickname (rat-f*&$er would probably not go over well).

 

But what else?  Now, the person who wanted proof did not specify if I could include other members of Dubya’s team so I will still with him.  During the 2000 campaign, the charter plan was named “Responsibility One,” because this administration was going to ‘restore honor to the White House.’  I don’t think it was needed but in that spirit, what has he done?  It is my opinion that he has done nothing to make the White House look more honest or be more honest.  Why do I think that?  Going chronologically would take me too long so I will just go topic by topic.  I won’t get to all of them but I will get to as many as I can.

 

CIA Leak:  This administration has been very strict when it comes to what information they disclose, the current scandal surrounding the eight US Attorneys proves that, so it seems ironic that one high ranking member of the W. team was found guilty of leaking the name of a covert CIA operative.  It should be clear that if the President himself leaked the name it would not be a crime because any sitting president can declassify anything they want.  In 2004 when asked if he would fire anyone involved in the leak, he said he would.  He didn’t.  (source: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/cialeak.html) This may not seem like a big deal because Scooter Libby did resign but it is because when he leaked her name, and if you can prove to me there was any reason that wasn’t political to do so, please go for it, he exposed her and all her contacts.  There is a reason why is it a crime to do this.  You may wonder why Patrick Fitzgerald did not indict Libby for that; my understanding of that law is that it is very difficult to prove.  I don’t know many people who really believe Libby acted on his own rather he was told to do so by Vice President Cheney.  According to books listed later in this post, the VP was really angry about Joe Wilson and wanted to discredit him any way he could.

 

Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein:  In December 2001, Dubya had a press conference where he was asked about bin Laden, whether he was a threat and what actions the was going to take to get him.  The response was that he did not know where bin Laden was but that he would be found and ‘brought to justice.’ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011228-1.html). I don’t need to prove we never caught bin Laden but later Dubya changed his tune and remarked, “I do not know where he is, he is not important and is not our priority” (sorry I no longer have a link for that, I did have a White House link but that has been removed).  In his defense, some of his original statements were, “Bring it on” and that bin Laden “is wanted ‘dead or alive.”  He later recanted, saying his tough talk may have sent the wrong message and made matters worse for our military around the world.

 

A more important lie was that there was a link between the terrorist group and Saddam Hussein.  He said this, “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda” during his State of the Union (SOTU) Address in January 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html).  He repeated it the next day in , “He is a danger not only to countries in the region, but as I explained last night, because of al Qaeda connections” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030129-2.html).  This Bush Administration repeated there was a connection often.  VP Cheney said it a number of times on different TV shows, such as Meet the Press.  I do not have poll numbers on this but anecdotally, I would guess that most Americans thought there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.  No proof of that has ever been found.  Moreover, Osama bin Laden hated Hussein because of the secular nature of his government.  Hussein was a bad man for sure but women had more rights under his government than they do in other countries in the area – including our ally, .  Much of what I am saying here has also been published in different books, including but not limited to: Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War  , by Michael Isikoff (Author), David Corn (Author) – http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling/dp/030734682X/ref=sr_1_1/002-8156637-3173631?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176320685&sr=8-1; State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III by Bob Woodward (Author) – http://www.amazon.com/State-Denial-Bush-War-Part/dp/0743272234/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8156637-3173631?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176321051&sr=1-1

 

The war, before and during with a pit stop at after in between:   It is really hard to know where to start with this.  Paul O’Neill, this administration’s first Treasury Secretary  appeared on 60 Minutes, “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.” (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5510.htm).  This is important because, if true, colors everything they said about .   I have no idea why getting rid of Hussein was so important to Dubya, some people think if he wasn’t so focused on Iraq that 9/11 could have been prevented but I am not one of them, but I also don’t think the government planned it so if anyone reads this and feels the need to send me links to sites with video or other ‘proof’ that the WTC were blown up by US, the UN is about to take over the US with black helicopters or any other conspiracies – please don’t).  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/scheer

 

Pre-war intelligence, sketchy at best.   According to the books above, Dubya began planning the war years before he got permission from Congress to do it.   At the SOTU mentioned above, Dubya said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from .”  Former Ambassador Joe Wilson was sent there to investigate the claim and found no evidence to support it.   They admitted this was false and George Tenet, CIA Director quit over it.  How do I know he was lying – look at the above books.  They assert that the White House was almost desperate to find evidence against Hussein.  No one in the intelligence community believed this and some asked the White House to remove this sentence from the speech but Dubya himself put it back in.   Oh, and as for the claim that had ‘weapons of mass destruction’, none have been found and the evidence they ever existed is sketchy at BEST.  PS.  Your military was decimated by a global super-power but you have really dangerous weapons, do you use them when the same super-power attacks or do you let them come in and kill you?  I am no military expert but I would use them if I had them. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/scheer

 

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!! In May 2003, Dubya flew onto an aircraft carrier and announced that the war was over and did it in front of a huge banner that read “Mission Accomplished.” http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/

Among other things I have done, Presidential advance is one of them and I do not need a link or anything else to know the White House was full of crap when they said they were not responsible.  Advance people plan every aspect of events like that and no backdrop goes without approval from the White House.  An event like that would have had the top people working on it.  Not only did they lie about the banner, the banner itself was a lie.  Since we are still there, clearly the mission has NOT been accomplished.

 

To be continued…

 

 

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Media Finally Cares!

News Flash!  Media finally cares that President Bush’s lies have been bad for country, planet

 

Two speeches, two presidents, two political parties and what a difference a political party makes.

 

Anyone awake and alive during the Clinton Administration remembers the eight words that got him into trouble (I did not have sex with that woman).  Sent the GOP, who had been trying to get him out of office since before he moved into  (former Congressman Bob Barr wondered aloud how they could oust him should the impeachment not work).  Once the allegations became pubic during an investigation into some of the ’ investments, a feeding frenzy began.  Never mind the charges levied had nothing to do with the original issue being investigated, EIGHT words nearly brought down one of the most popular presidents of the century.  And it subjected us all to a media circus 24/7 for years.

 

As luck would have it, his successor experienced a similar problem.  Dubya also lied during his 2003 State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress (it is a crime to lie to Congress) about his case for a war against .  Later when criticized about his statement the White House press office was astounded anyone would worry so much about 16 small words.  This was repeated, a lot.  They whined – it was only 16 words.  Of course they were “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from  Africa.”  None of that turned out to be true.  Some people tried to get the word out that this was false and the White House respose was to discredit them anyway they could.  Their methods are known now, they ‘outed’ a covert CIA operative, which ended her career, put countless people at risk and hurt our ability to gather intelligence.   The concern about Saddam's nuclear program is one of the reasons we rushed to war.  Remember Iraq was no threat to us, our allies or its neighbors, destroyed any goodwill generated by the 9/11 tragedy and created more terrorists than we can catch.  Most experts agreed the US had NO IDEA HOW TO RECONSTRUCT IRAQ.  I attended a number of hearing in at NGOs, think tanks and before Congress and was struck by how many people shared that view AND SUPPORTED THE WAR.   It felt like everyone knew a train wreck was about to happen and rather than try to stop it, they cheered it on.

 

As we enter the fifth year of this war – whose supporters said would be swift, take few troops, incur few casualties, there would be little or no insurgency and Saddam would have ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction”  – we know THOSE THINGS WERE WRONG.  WE ALSO KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO PUSHED THOSE IDEAS KNEW THEY WERE FALSE BUT THEY SENT OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN TO DIE ANYWAY.  Not to mention the scores of injured Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis.  Of course, VP Dick Cheney has made a ton of money (is that too cynical?).

So here we are in a war we cannot win.  Dubya has not given us any idea what victory will be.  At this point, I think it is just that there are no more American troops in a country where we are not wanted and our miliatary has started the rebuilding process.  The problem is that these people lie so much and about so many things that we have turned into that proverbial frog in the boiling water.  The temperature was raised so slowly that he didn’t notice he was being boiled to death and no one notices when they lie.  At most the new elicits a yawn.  Maybe.  If that.

 

Until today. 

 

Today all that changed when the press finally wrote up a full summary outlining all the failures, lies and incompetence of the Dubya White House and called for many high-ranking officials to be impeached or fired.

GOTCHA!  APRIL FOOLS DAY!  NO ONE CARES ANYMORE TODAY THAN YESTERDAY ABOUT ANYTHING THEY DO. 

 

One wonders, does George W. Bush have to shoot someone himself for people to notice he sucks?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend