wOrE aNd PiEcE: 07/13/2003

The Beginning of the End?
Bush's Cover-Up Precedes the Scandal
by Ted Rall, 7/15/03

Another blog piece on the wore:
... the war ticker ...

Weapons of Mass Destruction
by Googlism

Check out the last entry. Sad.

Gen.: G.I.s who rip leaders will pay
By Helen Kennedy, New York Daily News Washington Bureau, Thursday, July 17th, 2003

"WASHINGTON - The military will punish demoralized soldiers in Iraq who are bluntly venting their frustration to reporters, the Pentagon said yesterday.

"[...]"

Dissonance
Time for Damage Control
The Bush lies are the least of our worries in Iraq
by Marc Cooper, in the LAWeekly, July 18 - 24, 2003

"Maybe the White House should start footnoting George W. Bush’s speeches so we know whom to turn to anytime we hear a lie fall from his lips.

"[...]

"Yes, the Bush administration’s story about the Niger nukes is fraudulent. But so is much of the current debate boiling around it. Next time you hear John Kerry or Dick Gephardt or Tom Daschle or Joe Lieberman deplore the prevarications of the White House on this matter, keep in mind this uncomfortable fact: They, along with a pack of other Democrats, voted Bush full authority to prosecute this war months before the president even told his little fib about African uranium. These Democrats bear much the same responsibility as Bush for the Iraqi debacle. Bush bullied and bullshitted to get his way, and the top Democrats fully accommodated him.

"[...]"

"Not Just Sixteen Words"
t r u t h o u t | Statement | Senator Carl Levin | Ranking Member Senate Armed Services Committee
Congressional Record, 108th Congress, First Session, Tuesday 15 July 2003

Check out Cursor.org NOW!

Most Iraqis want troops to stay, says poll
Michael Howard, Baghdad, Thursday July 17, 2003, The Guardian

A majority of Baghdad residents feel US and British troops should stay in Iraq for at least a year, according to the first attempt at an opinion poll.

The You.Gov poll results were released as news emerged that a ground-to-air missile was fired at a US military plane near Baghdad airport.

The poll said 31% wanted troops to stay "a few years", while 25% said "about a year."

Only 13% said they should leave now, while 20% said they should go "within 12 months".

The survey also found that half thought the US-led coalition was right to invade.

You.Gov said there was no certainty that the 798 respondents were a representative sample and that several interviews were conducted with gunfire in the background.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

The spies who pushed for war
Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force
The Guardian, Thursday July 17, 2003

Leaders face growing pressure for answers over Iraq
By Rupert Cornwell, Washington Bureau Chief, The Independent, 17 July 2003

a regular google search for impeach bush
("Results ... about 54,000. Search took 0.13 seconds.")

a google news search for impeach bush

a google news search for cheney resignation

Articles featured in Working for Change ...

Occupation watchers, Bill Berkowitz - WorkingForChange

The lazy days of summer, Geov Parrish - WorkingForChange.com

No more free ride, E.J. Dionne, Jr. - Washington Post Writers Group

'The Devil's Dictionary' revisited, Sean Gonsalves - Cape Cod Times

A firm basis for impeachment, Robert Scheer - Creators Syndicate

The peace from hell, Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

Romper room, Geov Parrish - WorkingForChange.com

Cheney under pressure to quit over false war evidence
Anger grows on both sides of Atlantic at misleading claims on eve of Iraq conflict
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington and Marie Woolf, The Independent, 16 July 2003

Meanwhile: What about Africa?
You know, that continent Bush hid in (visited) for a week...

It Wasn’t Supposed to Be Like This
Carol Brightman, AlterNet, July 14, 2003

"Quit beating around the bush," snaps the Wall Street Journal: "America faces a guerrilla war." And so it does. But an odd paralysis still grips the U.S. military command. While the number of American soldiers killed or wounded in ambushes increases by the day, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and proconsul Paul Bremer continue to speak of "remnants" and "bitter-enders" who can't get with the program, even as word spreads through the ranks that there is a well-organized resistance campaign underway in Iraq.

"[...]"

The Other Bush Lie
Jim Lobe, TomPaine.com, July 15, 2003, featured in AlterNet.org

"As calls mount for a full-scale investigation into the Bush administration's manipulation of intelligence on Iraq's nonexistent nuclear and chemical weapons program, let's hope that the other causus bellum on which the administration based its war -- the alleged link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein -- also gets the scrutiny it deserves.

"[...]"

Core of weapons case crumbling
By Paul Reynolds, BBC News Online world affairs correspondent, published: 2003/07/13 23:48:52 GMT

Of the nine main conclusions in the British government document "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction", not one has been shown to be conclusively true.

U.S. Delays Pullout in Iraq
The Pentagon again postpones a withdrawal of 3rd Infantry soldiers. The move comes as India backs out of its promise to send a contingent.
By Esther Schrader and Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers, Tuesday 15 July 2003, featured in TruthOut

U.S. troops shocked by move to keep them in Iraq
ALERTNET NEWSDESK, 15 Jul 2003 16:26:12 GMT

Table of casualties in Iraq
ALERTNET NEWSDESK, 16 Jul 2003 07:56:36 GMT

16 Words, and Counting
By Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times, Tuesday 15 July 2003, featured in TruthOut

"After I wrote a month ago about the Niger uranium hoax in the State of the Union address, a senior White House official chided me gently and explained that there was more to the story that I didn't know. Yup. And now it's coming out.

"[...]"

CIA kept Niger claims out of Bush speech
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington, 14 July 2003, The Independent

"The CIA kept suspect claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction out of a speech by President George Bush last October - more than three months before their appearance in his State of the Union address.

"[...]"

North Korea Says It Has Made Fuel for Atom Bombs
By David E. Sanger, The New York Times

Niger: Straw accused of 'new deception'
By Andrew Grice and Ben Russell, in the Independent, 15 July 2003
"Jack Straw stood accused of misleading the public over the threat from Iraq last night after he cited evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to build a nuclear bomb without saying it was 12 years old.
"[...!...]"

Iraq had no A-bomb capability, inspector says
Associated Press, from The Globe and Mail, updated at 9:08 PM EDT, Monday, Jul. 14, 2003

Bush: Intelligence Is 'Darn Good'
Washington Post, Monday, July 14, 2003; 4:48 PM
Bush defended the quality of intelligence he receives as "darn good" despite an uproar over disputed reports that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons.

Iraq Cost Could Mount to $100 Billion
Impact on Other Programs Feared
By Jonathan Weisman, The Washington Post, Sunday 13 July 2003

Attention U.S. taxpayers and/or citizens:

TruthOut indicates: "While the vast majority of U.S. Service men and women are dedicated and professional, this image is a stark reminder that the taking of human life is attractive to some. From the Washington Post's Multi Media Photo Essay: "Eyes on the War" (Photo: Andrew Cutraro)"

CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in October
Why Bush Cited It In Jan. Is Unclear
By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, Washington Post Staff Writers, Sunday 13 July 2003

20 Lies About the War
Falsehoods ranging from exaggeration to plain untruth were used to make the case for war. More lies are being used in the aftermath.
By Glen Rangwala and Raymond Whitaker, The Independent, 13 July 2003

A Martin Sheen interview
by David Kupfer, at The Progressive Magazine, July 2003 issue

"[...]

"Q: Assess the Bush Administration.

"Sheen: In order to understand this Administration it is helpful to have a background in [Alcoholics Anonymous's] Twelve Step, because it is real clear to those of us who understand the Twelve Step program that these are very dysfunctional times. We live in a very dysfunctional society, and this is a very, very dysfunctional Administration. The proven way for this Administration to keep power is to keep us all in fear. As long as we are afraid of the unknown and afraid of each other, he, or anyone like him, can rule. It's like they will take responsibility for protecting us. It's when we take back the responsibility for protecting ourselves that they get scared. I am amazed by the level of arrogance within the Administration.

"[...]"

Ambushed
Torture-Lite
by Christine Pelisek, in the LAWeekly, July 11 - 17, 2003

"President Bush is right: There is a difference between us and the bad guys.

"For one thing, the bad guys will torture you.

"And we . . . well, actually, we might torture you, too, but we’re nicer about it. And that’s what counts.

"[...]"

It's about time:

Democrats Attack Credibility of Bush
By ADAM NAGOURNEY, The New York Times, July 14, 2003

WASHINGTON, July 13 — Democratic presidential candidates offered a near-unified assault today on President Bush's credibility in his handling of the Iraq war, signaling a shift in the political winds by aggressively invoking arguments most had shunned since the fall of Baghdad.

In interviews, town hall meetings and television appearances, several Democratic presidential candidates, who had been sharply divided over whether to go war, declared that President Bush's credibility had been harmed because of his use of unsubstantiated evidence in supporting the looming invasion of Iraq in his State of the Union address in January.

They also criticized the administration for what has happened in postwar Iraq, especially the continued deaths of American military personnel, which many attributed to Mr. Bush's failure to enlist the help of the United Nations in conducting the war. They questioned the failure to uncover the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons Mr. Bush had cited in pressing for war.

"The most important attribute that any president has is his credibility — his credibility with the American people, with its allies and with the world," Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who voted for the war resolution last fall, said in a telephone interview today. "When the president's own statements are called into question, it's a very serious matter."

Mr. Edwards added, "It's important that we not lose sight of the bigger picture, which is the enormous failure that is looming in Iraq right now."

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who also supported Mr. Bush last fall, cited the intelligence failures in an interview today as he challenged Mr. Bush's ability to protect the nation from terrorism.

"Americans have a right to ask a question, `Are we safer today than we were three years ago?' " he said. And, criticizing Mr. Bush's failure to enlist international support before starting the war, he said: "It's obvious now with the lack of international support in Iraq that our troops are at risk because we don't have the kind of plan that would have come with adequate diplomacy."

The shift in the debate from the Democratic side reflected a sudden confluence of events: the administration's admission of error regarding the State of the Union speech, the continuing carnage in Iraq and the failure of the United States to find the weapons that it used as a justification for invading Iraq. Until now, most of the Democrats had been reluctant to criticize a war that had appeared successful and, polls suggested, was largely supported by the American public.

"It's the first time we've seen them sweat," Jennifer Palmieri, the spokeswoman for Mr. Edwards, said of the White House. "It's the first time anything has ever stuck."

There were signs today that the White House had put been on the defensive by the wave of criticism of the State of the Union speech and the deteriorating events in Iraq. It dispatched top administration officials to the television talk shows to explain what had happened with the speech and assure the American public that events in Iraq were under control.

While it remained too early to measure whether this has genuinely changed the political landscape more than a year before the presidential election, it clearly has altered the dynamics in the Democratic primary. The recent problems in Iraq have offered Democrats who supported the war a way to criticize Mr. Bush's war policy without appearing to be admitting any past error.

Among them are Mr. Kerry, Mr. Edwards, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, all of whom have been increasingly critical of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy.

And the changing sentiments about the war have provided a new affirmation for the position taken by Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor whose opposition to the war has helped power him into the front tier of the Democratic competition. Dr. Dean said today that he foresaw the shortfalls of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy from his perch in the Vermont Statehouse last fall — and mockingly questioned why his opponents in Congress had failed to do so.

"I think they bear some responsibility here," Dr. Dean said. "If I as governor of Vermont can figure out the case is not there to invade Iraq, how can three senators and a congressman who claim to have authority in public affairs manage to give the president unilateral authority to attack Iraq?"

"It looks like my analysis was the correct one and theirs was the incorrect one," he continued. "It's going to be hard for them to make the case that I don't have the credentials on foreign policy after this."

Dr. Dean also called today for the resignations of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and Stephen J. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, pointing to reports that both men knew in October that the disputed information — that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear information from Africa — was incorrect.

For all the flurry today, the situation could turn again if, for example, dangerous weapons are discovered, as Mr. Rumsfeld predicted in interviews on ABC's "This Week" and NBC's "Meet the Press."

Still, there was abundant evidence that there has been a broad change in the nature of the Democratic presidential campaign.

Mr. Kerry has scheduled a speech in New York City on Wednesday that will include what one aide described as a "blistering critique" of Mr. Bush's foreign policy, and Mr. Gephardt has scheduled a speech on the same subject for next week in San Francisco.

Last week, Mr. Lieberman wrote an Op-Ed column in The Washington Post asserting that the opportunity to build a stable Iraq "was now in jeopardy."

On "Meet the Press," Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who voted against the Iraq resolution and has long accused the administration of holding back critical intelligence data, suggested today that the White House had manipulated public opinion in making the case for war.

"There was a selective use of intelligence; that is, that information which was consistent with the administration's policy was given a front-row seat," Mr. Graham said. "Those questions that were not supported were either put in the closet or were certainly in the back rows."

At a town hall meeting today in Dubuque, Iowa, Mr. Gephardt repeatedly attacked Mr. Bush, even as he struggled at times to contend with catcalls from audience members critical of the central role he played as minority leader by supporting Mr. Bush's Iraq policy last fall.

"We had a president from Missouri named Harry Truman, and he had a sign on his desk that said, `The buck stops here,' " said Mr. Gephardt in the meeting, which was televised on C-Span. "I think the president has to get that sign back on the desk."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

High-ranking officials defend Bush
By CHRISTINE BOYD, Monday, Jul. 14, 2003, Globe and Mail, POSTED AT 12:19 AM EDT

"Top U.S. cabinet members are standing behind a controversial claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium in Africa, even as the statement threatens to erode U.S. public support for the occupation of Iraq and chip away at President George W. Bush's credibility.

"[...]"

Welcome to the Machine
How the GOP disciplined K Street and made Bush supreme.
By Nicholas Confessore, in The Washington Monthly, July/August 2003

"When presidents pick someone to fill a job in the government, it's typically a very public affair. The White House circulates press releases and background materials. Congress holds a hearing, where some members will pepper the nominee with questions and others will shower him or her with praise. If the person in question is controversial or up for an important position, they'll rate a profile or two in the papers. But there's one confirmation hearing you won't hear much about. It's convened every Tuesday morning by Rick Santorum, the junior senator from Pennsylvania, in the privacy of a Capitol Hill conference room, for a handpicked group of two dozen or so Republican lobbyists. Occasionally, one or two other senators or a representative from the White House will attend. Democrats are not invited, and neither is the press.

"[...]"

National House of Waffles
By MAUREEN DOWD, OP-ED COLUMNIST, The New York Times, July 13, 2003

WASHINGTON

More and more, with Bush administration pronouncements about the Iraq war, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

W. built his political identity on the idea that he was not Bill Clinton. He didn't parse words or prevaricate. He was the Texas straight shooter.

So why is he now presiding over a completely Clintonian environment, turning the White House into a Waffle House, where truth is camouflaged by word games and responsibility is obscured by shell games?

The president and Condi Rice can shuffle the shells and blame George Tenet, but it smells of mendacity.

Mr. Clinton indulged in casuistry to hide personal weakness. The Bush team indulges in casuistry to perpetuate its image of political steel.

Dissembling over peccadillos is pathetic. Dissembling over pre-emptive strikes is pathological, given over 200 Americans dead and 1,000 wounded in Iraq, and untold numbers of dead Iraqis. Our troops are in "a shooting gallery," as Teddy Kennedy put it, and our spy agencies warn that we are on the cusp of a new round of attacks by Saddam snipers.

Why does it always come to this in Washington? The people who ascend to power on the promise of doing things differently end up making the same unforced errors their predecessors did. Out of office, the Bush crowd mocked the Clinton propensity for stonewalling; in office, they have stonewalled the 9/11 families on the events that preceded the attacks, and the American public on how — and why — they maneuvered the nation into the Iraqi war.

Their defensive crouch and obsession with secrecy are positively Nixonian. (But instead of John Dean and an aggressive media, they have Howard Dean and a cowed media.)

In a hole, the president should have done some plain speaking: "The information I gave you in the State of the Union about Iraq seeking nuclear material from Africa has been revealed to be false. I'm deeply angry and I'm going to get to the bottom of this."

But of course he couldn't say that. He would be like Sheriff Bart in "Blazing Saddles," holding the gun to his own head and saying, "Nobody move or POTUS gets it." The Bush administration has known all along that the evidence of the imminent threat of Saddam's weapons and the Al Qaeda connections were pumped up. They were manning the air hose.

Mr. Tenet, in his continuing effort to ingratiate himself to his bosses, agreed to take the fall, trying to minimize a year's worth of war-causing warping of intelligence as a slip of the keyboard. "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," he said, in 15 words that were clearly written for him on behalf of the president. But it won't fly.

It was Ms. Rice's responsibility to vet the intelligence facts in the president's speech and take note of the red alert the tentative Tenet was raising. Colin Powell did when he set up camp at the C.I.A. for a week before his U.N. speech, double-checking what he considered unsubstantiated charges that the Cheney chief of staff, Scooter Libby, and other hawks wanted to sluice into his talk.

When the president attributed the information about Iraq trying to get Niger yellowcake to British intelligence, it was a Clintonian bit of flim-flam. Americans did not know what top Bush officials knew: that this "evidence" could not be attributed to American intelligence because the C.I.A. had already debunked it.

Ms. Rice did not throw out the line, even though the C.I.A. had warned her office that it was sketchy. Clearly, a higher power wanted it in.

And that had to be Dick Cheney's office. Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, said he was asked to go to Niger to answer some questions from the vice president's office about that episode and reported back that it was highly doubtful.

But doubt is not the currency of the Bush hawks. Asked if he regretted using the Niger claim, Mr. Bush replied: "There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace. And there's no doubt in my mind that the United States, along with allies and friends, did the right thing in removing him from power. And there's no doubt in my mind, when it's all said and done, the facts will show the world the truth."

I'm happy that Mr. Bush's mental landscape is so cloudless. But it is our doubts he needs to assuage.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

wOrE aNd PiEcE

Friday, July 18, 2003

Thursday, July 17, 2003

Wednesday, July 16, 2003

Tuesday, July 15, 2003

Monday, July 14, 2003

About Me

Links

Previous Posts

Archives