connecting*the*dots

The Black Iris
The Charade

The leader never carries out the killing himself but will always get his hands dirty. So how will the execution of Saddam be seen 200 years from now?

A quarter of a million American troops invade Iraq. Hunt down its leader and set up a tribunal with all the trappings of ‘fairness’ and he is in the end found guilty for being involved in the killing of 148 Shias over two decades ago during a time when America was openly heavily funding Saddam and silent over all these killings.

Americans hand over Saddam to Iraqis to carry out the hanging. On Eid Al-Adha no less; a good PR move to make sure every Arab is at home watching on TV.

In the last 3 years the presence of a quarter million of American forces on Iraqi soil have been responsible for killing an estimated quarter of a million Iraqis.

American forces are still occupying Iraq.

What will a student of history ask himself 200 years from now? Or will history still be written by the victors at that time?

Will they ask about why so many Arabs remained silent? Will they ask whether it made sense that one leader be executed for killing 148 people while another be praised for killing a quarter of a million of those same people? Will they see ancient footage of Colin Powell at the UN displaying doctored satellite photos of now unfound WMDs? Will they understand that 200 years ago, suggesting that a leader from a ’superior’ nation be held to the same standard of accountability as everyone else in the world was unheard of? That suggesting an American is equal to an Arab is equal to a Brit is equal to an African is preposterous? Will they understand that someone like me who had no love for Saddam thought the whole situation to be preposterous?

Bush was right today: ‘a dark and painful era is over in Iraq’, but a new one, that he as a leader is directly responsible for, has already begun.

And the charade goes on and on and on… more Iraqis are being slaughtered…

So to anyone celebrating the execution of Saddam I’m forced to ask: what the fuck are you cheering for?

If you’re cheering the execution of Saddam Hussein, you damn well better be doing everything you can to voice your opinion that this war is illegal and that this administration needs to be held accountable.

Otherwise, you’re nothing but a hypocrite.

(originally uploaded by Hawk Eyes)

Don’t you just love it how he and Bush waited until the shift in power was obvious? As if Donald Rumsfeld didn’t do a terrible job over the years — particularly with the accountability of the Abu Ghraib scandal — and that only a moderate loss of power in Congress would’ve allowed him to stay on?

Later, asshole.

(originally uploaded by ConjugalVisitor)

McClatchy Washington Bureau
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft received warning of al Qaida attack before 9/11
By Jonathan S. Landay, Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The State Department’s disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don’t remember the warning.

One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a “10 on a scale of 1 to 10″ that “connected the dots” in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again.

Former CIA Director George Tenet gave the independent Sept. 11, 2001, commission the same briefing on Jan. 28, 2004, but the commission made no mention of the warning in its 428-page final report. According to three former senior intelligence officials, Tenet testified to commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste and to Philip Zelikow, the panel’s executive director and the principal author of its report, who’s now Rice’s top adviser.

[…]

And people called Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace “crazed?” Sounds much more like it was a factual explosion.

(originally uploaded by anotherview)

Times Herald-Record
We came, we saw, we made enemies
By Nicole Belle

[…]

Short version: Iraq wasn’t a terrorist threat when we attacked it; it is now because we did attack and botched the job so badly that terrorists are dying to go there and learn how to kill Americans anywhere. So the world is safe from Saddam (who was never a threat) but more vulnerable to terrorism, which (back to the beginning) was on the ropes in the early days in Afghanistan.

* * *

This NIC report, revealed this week in stories in The New York Times and Washington Post, is devastating to the Bush administration argument for continuing the fight in Iraq. John Negroponte, Bush’s national intelligence director and the boss of all 16 intelligence agencies, cautions not to form conclusions based solely on these news reports. There’s more to the assessment, he says, and many more judgments than the one linking the war to more terrorism. He says to do that would be a distortion.

Fine. Then release the 30-page National Intelligence Estimate for all Americans to read. Have congressional committees black out the really classified data, if necessary. But let us know what our intelligence agencies say firsthand, not what Bush decides to tell us they said. We’ve been here before, and there are now 2,600-plus reasons to doubt what the president says.

[…]

Someone, anyone, come up with a scenario for me where invading Iraq wouldn’t have created a similar state of affairs.

Take your time…

Now, it probably would’ve helped if we had taken this operation seriously and created a reconstruction plan before trucking into Iraq, but as Donald Rumsfeld so eloquently stated in the pre-war planning stages, “the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war.”

The result of such rhetoric, you ask?

Rumsfeld intimidated his planners out of creating any plans for reconstruction following the capture of Saddam — you know, these last 3 years come December.

Now we have jihadists and near enemy soldiers training and killing in the sandbox of our creation, using Iraqi citizens as pawns, targets and propaganda to rile up even more anti-American fury across the middle-east and the world.

But I digress…

Here are my three top reasons for why Iraq has become a hotbed of terrorist activity:

1. The Project For The New American Century
   If PNAC is the neoconservative playbook, this administration is an all-pro team for its execution. If I stumbled across this direct and coded language for the invasion of Iraq (and anywhere else for that matter) just ten days into the Iraq invasion, I’m betting that this document has been used by a few terrorists to up their enrollment prior to 9/11. And as soon as the invasion of Iraq was a sure bet, I’m guessing it became a major recruitment tool. The only reason I can come up with as to why (potential) leaders of this nation would publicize a document such as PNAC, is that they wanted the reality we now find ourselves knee-deep within and they needed their own recruitment stake-in-the-ground.
2. Poverty, Chaos And Fear: A Perfect Storm For Revenge
   If a child is killed in Iraq nowadays, we’re ultimately held responsible by his/her family. If a child’s father is killed, that child will most likely grow up with a propensity towards revenge. If a child’s uncle’s wedding is wiped out with a car bomb… well, you get the picture.
3. Let’s Talk About Sects, Baby
   Compare how much you know about, say, the Shia/Sunni relationship today with what you knew in 2003. You probably didn’t even know the names of any Islamic sects back then, right? And now I hope you realize that there is more internal conflict within Islam itself than with the West in general. Now realize that our government absolutely understood the issues between these sects — from their religous differences to their standing within the entire middle-east region to how they would respond to the overthrow of Saddam. I’m not cynical; if you believe we went in there without a clue, you’re only kidding yourself.

What are yours?

(originally uploaded by Comandante Agi)

Duluth News Tribune
Army general says Rumsfeld refused to plan for post-war Iraq
By Stephanie Heinatz

[…]

In 2001, Scheid was a colonel with the Central Command, the unit that oversees U.S. military operations in the Mideast.

On Sept. 10, 2001, he was selected to be the chief of logistics war plans.

On Sept. 11, he said, “life just went to hell.”

That day, Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of Central Command, told his planners, including Scheid, to “get ready to go to war.”

A day or two later, Rumsfeld was “telling us we were going to war in Afghanistan and to start building the war plan. We were going to go fast.

“Then, just as we were barely into Afghanistan Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq.”

Scheid said he remembers everyone thinking, “My gosh, we’re in the middle of Afghanistan, how can we possibly be doing two at one time? How can we pull this off? It’s just going to be too much.”

Planning was kept very hush-hush in those early days.

“There was only a handful of people, maybe five or six, that were involved with that plan because it had to be kept very, very quiet.”

There was already an offensive plan in place for Iraq, Scheid said. And in the beginning, the planners were just expanding on it.

“Whether we were going to execute it, we had no idea,” Scheid said.

Eventually other military agencies like the transportation and Army material commands had to get involved.

They couldn’t just “keep planning this in the dark,” Scheid said.

Planning continued to be a challenge.

“The secretary of defense continued to push on us that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we’re going to take out the regime, and then we’re going to leave,” Scheid said. “We won’t stay.”

Scheid said the planners continued to try “to write what was called Phase 4,” or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like security, stability and reconstruction.

Even if the troops didn’t stay, “at least we have to plan for it,” Scheid said.

“I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that,” Scheid said. “We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

“He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war.”

[…]

Anyone who cared more about finding Osama bin Laden than wasting lives and money on trying to reshape the face of the middle east via a neo-con wet dream, immediately saw where our “war on terror” went wrong. No sooner did we commit to hunting down the mass murderer responsible for 9/11, the administration shifted focus and began to implement war planning in Iraq.

That’s like beginning the manhunt for the Son of Sam and then a month into it, sending the entire NYPD after the mob because, well shit, they’re both bad for the city.

But the temerity of Donald Rumsfeld to forgo the advice of his war planners — even threatening to fire them if they continued to present their opinion on post-regime change rebuilding — well, it speaks volumes to how this administration rolls.

Rumsfeld tells his staff that the American public wouldn’t back a long war. Fast forward three years into this debacle and the administration decides to present the terminology of The Long War to the American public in a “suck it up and deal with it” kind of way.

If that doesn’t make you pause for a moment and think about how planned chaos can occur, I don’t know what will. A military industrial complex doesn’t thrive in times of peace, you know.

Not properly planning for the war in Iraq was beyond foolish — it was inhumane — but that’s practically a moot point, because we never should have been there in the first place.

Here’s my deal: I’m tired of my government using 9/11 as their business card; their credentials for running amok in the middle east. It’s not what I wanted as I watched F-16’s buzz over my old pad in Brooklyn for a week in the fall of 2001. My former neighbors are tired of this administration hijacking our personal memory of that day as well.

Anyone with a conscience is tired of it.

Donald Rumsfeld spoke at The American Legion National Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah the other day (full transcript), attempting to solidify the position of this administration’s war on terror; that we are fighting an enemy similar to Adolf Hitler — an Islamofascist.

Analogies to the attitudes years prior to WWII ebbed and flowed with the greatest of ease from Rumsfeld, all pointing to the absolute righteousness of this administration in their self-assigned task to rid the world of the threat of terrorism.

As a resident of New York City on 9/11, I’d be extremely satisfied with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda lying in ruins before treading any deeper in potentially self-polluting waters, but apparently this administration doesn’t care what me and my former neighbors think about the matter at hand:

[…]

Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and the destruction of then recent memory of WWI, could be avoided.

It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis — the rise of fascism and Nazism — they were ridiculed, or ignored.

Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated.

[…]

I recount that history because, once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism.

Today, another enemy, a different kind of enemy, has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington D.C., Bali, London, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history’s lessons.

We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

With the growing lethality, and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, someway, vicious extremists can be appeased?

[…]

I have many thoughts on this line of reasoning, but first, take a listen to Keith Olberman’s perspective on the matter:

[…]

That about what Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this:

This is a democracy, still. Sometimes, just barely. And as such, all voices count. Not just his. Had he or his president, perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama bin Laden’s plans 5 years ago; about Saddam Hussein’s weapon’s 4 years ago; about Hurricane Katrina’s impact 1 year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard and accept their omniscience as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris. Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina to flu vaccine shortages to the entire fog of fear that continues to envelop our nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and their cronies have, inadvertently or intentionally, profited or benefited, either personally or politically,

And yet he can stand up in public and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask for the receipt for the Emperor’s New Clothes.

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

[…]

Rumsfeld, in his eagerness to equate this administration’s strategy in Iraq with Winston Churchill’s call to watch Hitler and a Germany on the rise to destructive power once again, misses the mark entirely. But let’s not waste energy with generalizations; instead, let’s speak to historical fact regarding the nation of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

The facts are that the United States of America financially backed Iraq in the early 1980’s. President Reagan sent this very same Donald Rumsfeld to speak with Saddam Hussein in December of 1983, during the peak of the Iraq-Iran war, to ensure that all was well in the struggle against that decade’s flavor of tyranny.

Only one month prior to the visit, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against both Iranian soldiers and his own people. Even though our intelligence confirmed such actions, nothing was said by Rumsfeld at the time.

Donald Rumsfeld doesn’t have a leg to stand on in a comparison with Winston Churchill. If anything, he is complicit in the build-up of aggression that “islamofascists” have against our nation.

Similarly, America, circa 1980 to 2006, is in no way analogous to a European continent that fell into conflict with a powerful, internal rogue state and their techniques of propaganda, fear mongering, terrorism, territorial occupation and mass executions.

If anything, this speech by Rumsfeld — one that holds both loaded arguments and misconstrued analogies of the highest order — is closer itself to propaganda than “the beacon of light in times of darkness” message that both he and this administration so very wishes to convince us of believing.

Olbermann, who might not speak for political analysts, but does for millions of Americans with quelled voices in this nation, put it best when he directly challenged this administration’s self-righteous claim to ownership of truth, by saying:

“And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a new type of fascism. As he was correct to remind us as how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that, though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. This country faces a new type of fascism, indeed.”

The only problem is that if you’re a student of history, it really isn’t that new.

Another milestone in Iraq has come and gone. As of yesterday, America’s occupation in Iraq has officially eclipsed the length of time America spent in World War II.

No matter your personal view on the potential of terrorist tactics, we’re not at war to stop an advancing fascist or an existing genocide dead in its tracks (such as modern-day fascist Kim Jong-il of North Korea or the current genocide in Darfur).

There’s only one similarity between WWII and the occupation of Iraq; in both cases, it took an attack on US soil to rally and motivate the American public to back entering an armed conflict. Of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor directly emanated from the ongoing conflict of WWII, whereas the emotional ties between the events of 9/11 and the perception of Iraqi leadership remain simply that — emotional.

Iraq has never been an immediate threat to our nation; no weapons of mass destruction ever threatened our safety from afar. Could that situation have changed for the worse over time? Sure, but so could any number of scenarios in the world, which is exactly why the tactic of preventive war is considered state-sponsored terrorism in many people’s eyes.

Fact: The combined death toll from all major, classically defined terrorist activities over the past twenty years pales in comparison to the loss of life at the hands of the Nazi fascist state.

This administration twisted false stories of Iraq hunting for yellow cake in Niger into a narrative that fit our administration’s desire to go to war in Iraq and delivered this false case to Congress to justify an invasion.

In a post-9/11 America still freshly licking its wounds, we all should have known what would happen within our political arena:

Who Lied To Whom?: …”Two days later, Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing before a closed hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also cited Iraq’s attempt to obtain uranium from Niger as evidence of its persistent nuclear ambitions. The testimony from Tenet and Powell helped to mollify the Democrats, and two weeks later the resolution passed overwhelmingly, giving the President a congressional mandate for a military assault on Iraq.”…

When that cover was blown by, well, reality, our government simply began to whisper false ties to 9/11 to go after a client-state that refused to play nice anymore, all beginning with its 1991 invasion of Kuwait.

What we have “accomplished” in Iraq since the occupation began in 2003 is quite amazing, actually. A Shi’ite majority has now been voted into power — something that no US planner would have hoped for, but constitutes a perfect example of what democracy at the end of the barrel of a M-16 will get you.

Essentially, we’ve backed the formation of a government and a constitution that leans in the opposite direction from modernity and strengthened the potential for a collaborative, radical mid-east region, at the cost of more than 2 billion dollars per week, while losing close to 3,000 US patriots and killing at least 50,000 Iraqi civilians.

One can only imagine how that loss of life is going to be avenged.

Picnic, Muayad Muhsin (oil-on-canvas)

(photo by Vincent44)

Donald Rumsfeld vs. Ray McGovern, former CIA (video)

McGovern: and so I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people, why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary, that has caused these kinds of casualties? Why?

RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven’t lied. I did not lie then. (applause) Colin Powell didn’t lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. the president spent weeks and weeks with the central intelligence people and he went to the American people and made a presentation. I’m not in the intelligence business. they gave the world their honest opinion. it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

McGovern: You said you knew where they were.

RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and we were…..just…(crosstalk)

McGovern: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.

RUMSFELD: My words…. my words were that …. no, no, no wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.

McGovern: This is America, Huh.

(applause)

RUMSFELD: You’re getting plenty of play, sir.

McGovern: I’d just like an honest answer.

RUMSFELD: I’m giving it to you.

McGovern: Well we’re talking about lies and your allegation there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. Was that a lie? or where you mislead?

RUMSFELD: Zar…, Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

McGovern: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That’s where he was.

RUMSFELD: He was also… (crosstalk) He was also in Baghdad.

McGovern: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital. Come on, these people aren’t idiots. They know the story.

RUMSFELD: You are… Le…,Let me, Let me give you an example it’s easy for you to make a charge, Um, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq put on chemical weapon protective suits, because they like the, ah, style (laughter) They honestly believed that there where chemical weapons Saddam Hussein had used Chemical weapons on his own people previously, he’d used them on his neighbor the Iranians and they believed he had those weapons. We believed he had those weapons.

McGovern: That’s what we call a non-sequitur, it doesn’t matter what the troops believe, it matters what you believe.

(crosstalk)

Moderator: I, I Think, I think, I think mister secretary the debate is over we have other questions, that courtesy to the audience.

Hit the road, Rummy.

Jim Lobe - Inter Press Service
New Military Offensive Against Rumsfeld

WASHINGTON - Three years after the fall of Baghdad and the city’s disastrous plunge into chaos, U.S. military brass appears engaged in a new campaign: getting rid of Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.

While the offensive has so far been limited to generals who have recently retired from the service, they claim strong support for their views on the part of active-duty officers.

The latest demand for Rumsfeld’s resignation came Wednesday when Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq, called for a “fresh start in the Pentagon”.

“We need a leader who understands teamwork, a leader who knows to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation,” Batiste told a CNN interviewer.

Batiste’s remarks, which follow highly public demands from three other top generals for Rumsfeld’s resignation over the past several weeks, came as public confidence in the policies of the administration of Pres. George W. Bush both in Iraq and in the more general “war on terror” has dwindled to all-time lows.

The growing perception, fueled by recent disclosures regarding the selective leaking of intelligence authorised by both Bush and Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, that the administration consciously tried to manipulate the public into supporting the Iraq war and discrediting its critics has contributed to the continuing erosion in popular support, even among Republicans.

The conviction that Rumsfeld made major strategic errors by insisting on invading Iraq with a relatively light force that proved incapable of imposing order on the country, let alone suppressing the insurgency that followed, has also taken hold, particularly after last month’s publication by two New York Times reporters of an authoritative account of the war, “Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq”.

Based on extensive interviews with both retired and active-duty officers who took part in the war, the book found that Rumsfeld and his top aides believed that Washington could “oust a dictator, usher in a new era in Iraq, (and) shift the balance of power in the Middle East in the United States’s favour” on the cheap and that the war “would suddenly be brought to an end when the regime’s ministries were seized and its leader toppled”.

The brass’s unease with Rumsfeld’s plans for going to war date originally from his summary dismissal in early 2003 of then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s testimony before Congress that the occupation of Iraq would require “several hundred thousand troops”.

Shinseki’s effective early retirement, apparently in retaliation for speaking out with such candour, was taken by most of the brass as a message from Rumsfeld that public disagreement with his views could have serious career consequences.

When, by early 2004, it had become clear that Washington had indeed not deployed sufficient troops to control Iraq, a number of retired generals began speaking out forcefully against Rumsfeld and his civilian advisers.

In May 2004, the former head of the U.S. Central Command, ret. Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, accused them of “dereliction of duty” in failing to prepare adequately for the war and called on Bush to fire them if they did not resign.

In recent weeks, Zinni has renewed those demands, stressing in various public appearances that Rumsfeld had deliberately ignored extensive contingency planning developed under his command in the late 1990s for an Iraq invasion and overruled officers who raised questions about his own plans.

In the past three weeks, he has been joined by three other retired generals, including Batiste.

In a remarkably frank New York Times column published Mar. 19, ret. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who had been in charge of training the Iraqi military during the first year of the occupation, argued that Rumsfeld “has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically” and “has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his cold warrior’s view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower”.

“In the five years Mr. Rumsfeld has presided over the Pentagon,” Eaton wrote, “I have seen a climate of groupthink become dominant and a growing reluctance by experienced military men and civilians to challenge the notions of the senior leadership.”

Eaton’s blast was followed this week by an anguished column in Time magazine by ret. Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, the top operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the invasion, who assailed the brass, including himself, for “act(ing) timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard.”

“The consequence of the military’s quiescence,” he wrote, “was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war…”

“My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results,” he asserted, calling for the replacement of Rumsfeld “and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach”.

With his remarks Wednesday, Batiste, who retired from the Army in November and whose forces were based in Tikrit until last May, joined the rebellion, firmly taking Zinni’s side.

“…(W)hen decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision making, sound planning, then we’re bound to make mistakes,” he said. “You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defence.”

The generals’ revolt also comes amid a tiff between Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who, during a trip to Britain last week, conceded that Washington made “tactical errors, thousands of them, I’m sure” in its invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld replied several days later, insisting that such mistakes are inevitable in warfare.

“If someone says, well, that’s a tactical mistake, then I guess it’s a lack of understanding, at least my understanding, of what warfare is about,” he said.

In remarks before a private group in Chicago Saturday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell — a four-star general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself — appeared to side with Rice, and with the generals.

“We made some serious mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad,” he said. “We didn’t have enough troops on the ground. We didn’t impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started, and …it got out of control.” He did not demand Rumsfeld’s resignation, however.

Forget the planning and tactical mistakes, if Rumsfeld gave two shits about America and our perception around the world, he would’ve resigned when the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib broke. “It happened on my watch” would’ve been the line and he could’ve at least retired with a semblance of honor and integrity.

Sorry… I just laughed up my lunch.

UPDATE: More former generals are lining up to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation.

(NO SHIT) UPDATE: Bush backs Rumsfeld:

“Earlier today I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the global war on terror,” the president said. “I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation.”

Mr. Bush said the defense secretary had helped to transform the United States military into a force “fully prepared to confront the dangerous threats of the 21st century” and had, along with the leaders of the services, taken the fight to terrorists on many fronts.

They’re all going to hell in the same handbasket.

You think?

Joby Warrick, The Washington Post
Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War
Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile “biological laboratories.” He declared, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq — not made public until now — had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president’s statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped “secret” and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts — scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons — who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.

None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized. Their accounts were verified by other current and former government officials knowledgeable about the mission. The contents of the final report, “Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers,” remain classified. But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons. Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work.

“There was no connection to anything biological,” said one expert who studied the trailers. Another recalled an epithet that came to be associated with the trailers: “the biggest sand toilets in the world.”

[…]

Here’s the thing: we all know Bush lied. We all know that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush drooled over the prospect of invading Iraq from the moment the first plane hit the WTC. Unfortunately, we also know that we have to continue this charade of shock in order to pressure Congress to do their jobs and impeach this bastard.

It’s amazing to me how this man is able to consistently spin out of any degree of accountability. And while his legacy is already sealed as the most incompetent president of all-time, I often wonder how history will treat us — the men and women that allowed him to run rampant.

I don’t often use these guys as an example of great journalism, but this Hardball segment is on point. They convincingly expose Dick Cheney’s lies regarding the tie between one of the primary 9/11 terrorists and Iraq.

The entire piece screams conspiracy to sell and then launch an illegal war.

Of course, this leaves me with a few questions:

• Who holds these men and woman accountable to such contradictions and lies? Congress? Another special prosecutor?
• Do we have to wait until there’s a Democratic administration in office before an investigation is launched?
• Is Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation expanding?

If it’s proven that this unethical administration schemed to launch an illegal war by knowingly using false evidence — a war which has already killed tens of thousands of people — I want justice.

And no, my sense of justice would not equate with a misdemeanor.

I’ve wanted to put this compilation together for a while now. If you have any favorite moments that you think should be in the Top Ten, let me know. And without further ado…

#10 - Oh, The Hitler Comparisons
Disagree with someone? Think they have an agenda? I know what you’re thinking. They must be a Nazi. Heck, they’re practically acting like Hitler. Um, no… they’re not.
(via Jewish World Review)

#9 - Shrub Speaks To The Iraqi People
Hello, I’m George W. Bush. We’re currently busy tearing out your infrastructure, removing your delicate balance of religious participation in government and replacing your torturous regime… with another torturous regime… led by independent contractors.
(via On Lisa Rein’s Radar)

#8 - Drunken, Belligerent Donald Rumsfeld
What do you do in the middle of a war when you see neighbors acting suspiciously? You challenge them to war! Yee hah! Come and get some! We’ll Shock and Awe you too!
(via On Lisa Rein’s Radar)

#7 - FCC Media Ownership Vote
All we want is one, big, happy family in America. So let’s combine all of those pesky media conglomerates into one so Daddy Warbucks can control our every though with his programming and advertising.
(via On Lisa Rein’s Radar)

#6 - Libby Indictment
Who is this Patrick Fitzgerald shape shifter? Let me try to explain through an analogy… And oh yeah, by the way, this indictment is a good thing for America! Woo hoo! Indictments for all!
(via The Brad Blog)

#5 - Closed Senate… How A Law Is Made
Bill Frist is mad. Harry Reid slapped him and America in the face. Those are some long arms, eh? Jon gets caught in the crossfire.
(via onegoodmove)

#4 - Jon Stewart At The Emmys
Just sit back and enjoy. Classic Stewart.

#3 - Bush vs Bush
Jon manages the coup of all coups—a debate between Governor Bush and President Bush. This exercise  proves that open discourse between politicians can illuminate their differences on key issues. Ugh.
(via On Lisa Rein’s Radar)

#2 - On Jeff Gannon And Bloggers
Just who is that bald guy asking all of those obviously right-wing slanted questions to President Bush? Oh, he’s a right-wing hack/gay web site entrepreneur. And Colbert, I mean, Hitler, exposes the truth behind the blogging revolution.
(via onegoodmove)

#1 - Crossfire Gets Fired
Crossfire was canceled soon after this appearance. Coincidence or…? There has to be a way to get Jon into President Bush’s next cabinet meeting… and if he has any strength left, onto "Survivor."
(via Media Matters for America)

Read this “statement of principles” at newamericancentury.org and try to tell me that this document, written back in 1997, isn’t a premeditated statement of an agenda for a strangle hold on the world based on “our” national interests and values.

This isn’t my stance on their statement; they actually say it themselves! So, do you want to know who they are?

Out of the twenty-five knuckleheads that signed their names to this crap, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld stand out the most as policy influencer’s of the Dubya mentality.

This country is going to hell in a handbag.

Hm, I wonder why most of the world is burning our flag right now? Stating that one of our primary directives is to “challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values” wouldn’t read as code to any educated person would it? This document can only help improve our perception around the world, especially in Muslim nations where Islamicism is becoming more and more blistering, don’t you think?

These PNAC guys refer to hostile regimes, but when the US is the biggest bully on the block, how exactly does one define a “hostile regime?”

One that actually swings back after getting drilled into perpetual third-world status?

What a bunch of asshats we have in power. Sure, post-9/11, we need to remain vigilant in the defense of our country, but we’re on the defensive mostly due to the actions of our government for the past 50 years, very possibly because of documents like this one.

The rest of the world seems to recognize there are shades of gray in how to deal with terrorism. They also seem to recognize “our agenda” because we post it on the friggin’ internet!

Our government should enter itself into the 4×100 relay; administrations have been passing the aggressor and impudent baton to one another for decades now.