From today's Washington Post:
"BAGHDAD, July 4 -- Several senior clerics of Iraq's disaffected Sunni Muslim minority will soon issue a decree calling on followers of the faith to vote in upcoming elections and help write a new constitution, a prominent Sunni leader said Monday. The step could draw Sunni Arabs away from the insurgency and into a political process they have steadfastly rejected."
I hope this takes hold, because a Sunni commitment to establishing a stable Iraqi government is, I believe, the only way to achieve a peaceful conclusion to the insurgency in that country. A military solution seems impossible. The mighty US military is unable to defeat the insurgents. The notion that an Iraqi force could succeed at such a task is absurd.
The key to ending the insurgency is for the Iraqi insurgents to decide that participating in their own governmental process is a superior course of action to the never-ending environment of violence and chaos that they have now. At that point, a united Iraq would have the strength to repel the foreign insurgents pouring across its borders.
The tricky part: how much of this Sunni cooperation will hinge on US forces leaving Iraq in a timely manner? Will the neo-cons in the administration balk at abandoning their dream of a permanent military base of operations in the heart of the Middle East?
If you haven't seen it yet, read this 2004 article from The Christian Science Monitor on "enduring bases" in Iraq.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Monday, July 04, 2005
Heroes and Villians
It's difficult to say at this point whether Karl Rove directly outed undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that "Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between [Time Magazine reporter Mitchell Cooper] and Rove."
Whether or not Rove was among the first to out Ms. Plume, it's clear that once Novak had exposed her intelligence agency connection, Rove took action to spread the story. Again, from Isikoff: "Immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC 'Hardball' host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was 'fair game.'"
By which Rove meant "fair game for exposure and slander."
Fair game to discredit a CIA sponsored trip to Africa by Ms. Plame's husband--former ambassador and Bush White House critic Joseph Wilson--to investigate the administration's claim that the nation of Niger was arranging to sell uranium to Saddam Hussein.
The Team Bush assertions of a Niger-Hussein uranium connection have turned out to be false, and it's quite apparent that the powers that be were bound to use whatever means necessary--including commission of felony crimes--to ensure that Wilson's debunking of one of their prime pretexts for the invasion of Iraq got squelched.
If it turns out that Rove both leaked the info on Valerie Plame and lied about it to the special grand jury, I'll frankly be glad. His special brand of Orwellian propaganda and mass mind control is the most significant and dangerous blight on the political and cultural landscape of our nation that I have seen in my half-century of the American experience.
But more important than determining Rove's individual culpability in the Plame case is shedding light on the size and scope of the conspiracy within the administration to protect the hoax it had concocted to lead America into the invasion of Iraq.
I’m hoping that's what special prosecutor Fitzgerald is really looking to do. Funny how Fitzgerald--up to now castigated by the mainstream media for pressuring journalists to reveal their sources--may turn out to be the hero who unearthed the truth that the mainstream media itself failed to expose.
Happy Independence Day, everybody.
Jeff
Whether or not Rove was among the first to out Ms. Plume, it's clear that once Novak had exposed her intelligence agency connection, Rove took action to spread the story. Again, from Isikoff: "Immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC 'Hardball' host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was 'fair game.'"
By which Rove meant "fair game for exposure and slander."
Fair game to discredit a CIA sponsored trip to Africa by Ms. Plame's husband--former ambassador and Bush White House critic Joseph Wilson--to investigate the administration's claim that the nation of Niger was arranging to sell uranium to Saddam Hussein.
The Team Bush assertions of a Niger-Hussein uranium connection have turned out to be false, and it's quite apparent that the powers that be were bound to use whatever means necessary--including commission of felony crimes--to ensure that Wilson's debunking of one of their prime pretexts for the invasion of Iraq got squelched.
If it turns out that Rove both leaked the info on Valerie Plame and lied about it to the special grand jury, I'll frankly be glad. His special brand of Orwellian propaganda and mass mind control is the most significant and dangerous blight on the political and cultural landscape of our nation that I have seen in my half-century of the American experience.
But more important than determining Rove's individual culpability in the Plame case is shedding light on the size and scope of the conspiracy within the administration to protect the hoax it had concocted to lead America into the invasion of Iraq.
I’m hoping that's what special prosecutor Fitzgerald is really looking to do. Funny how Fitzgerald--up to now castigated by the mainstream media for pressuring journalists to reveal their sources--may turn out to be the hero who unearthed the truth that the mainstream media itself failed to expose.
Happy Independence Day, everybody.
Jeff
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Rove's Lawyer Says No...
From the Washington Post, Rove's lawyer says Rove talked to the reporter but didn't reveal Plame's undercover role.
From Newsweek:
Luskin [Rove's lawyer] told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. "He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said. But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing "concern" in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove. Fitzgerald declined to comment.
In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."
It's interesting to me that Rove's lawyer can't remember exactly how many times Uncle Karl testified before the grand jury. And who knows what to think of anything Scott McClellan says.
J
From Newsweek:
Luskin [Rove's lawyer] told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. "He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said. But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing "concern" in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove. Fitzgerald declined to comment.
In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."
It's interesting to me that Rove's lawyer can't remember exactly how many times Uncle Karl testified before the grand jury. And who knows what to think of anything Scott McClellan says.
J
Saturday, July 02, 2005
A little song, a little dance...
A fellow inmate in his pants.
Lawrence O'Donnell has outed Karl Rove as reporter Matt Cooper's source.
If true, it explains a few things about why Time decided to cough up the documents that implicate the Rovewellian. Let Matt go to jail to cover Karl's carcass? Nah.
Let's watch how Rupert Murdoch's Big Brother Broadcasting Conglomerate tries to make Time the bad guy in all this.
No coverage to be seen on this story in the mainstream media yet. No comment from Bobby Novak either.
Karl could go to prison for perjury.
I'm starting to think that maybe there really is a God.
Lawrence O'Donnell has outed Karl Rove as reporter Matt Cooper's source.
If true, it explains a few things about why Time decided to cough up the documents that implicate the Rovewellian. Let Matt go to jail to cover Karl's carcass? Nah.
Let's watch how Rupert Murdoch's Big Brother Broadcasting Conglomerate tries to make Time the bad guy in all this.
No coverage to be seen on this story in the mainstream media yet. No comment from Bobby Novak either.
Karl could go to prison for perjury.
I'm starting to think that maybe there really is a God.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Meanwhile, Back at the Other Insurgency...
It's another convoluted tale from the Pentagon spin machine, one that they're hiding under the cover of Iraq, Sandra Day O'connor, Tom and Katie and Brooke, and the rest of the white noise.
You can read the mainstream media versions of the latest bad news from Afghanistan here, here, and here.
Here's the bottom line. An "elite group" of US forces got trapped in a firefight with Afghan insurgents, probably elements of the Taliban. (Remember the Taliban? They're the bunch we "ousted" from Afghanistan four years ago.) The US forces on the ground called for back up support. A special operations helicopter loaded with Navy Seals flew in to rescue them and got shot down by a rocket propelled grenade--a tactical engagement that Lieutenant General James Conway, director of operations (J3) at the pentagon called "a pretty lucky shot against a helicopter."
A "pretty lucky shot" my ass, General. The Taliban characters who blew that helicopter away knew exactly where it was going to land, and they placed their RPG team there. They knew where it would land because they've observed our tactics and know our capabilities. They knew what sites in the area constituted suitable landing zones. They also knew that the "stranded" team under attack would call for airborne support.
What Pentagoons like General Conway don't want to admit to the American public is that a handful uneducated guerillas fighting with low tech weapons can defeat the most elite elements of our "best trained, best equipped" military.
Oh, did I mention? They found the bodies of the guys who went in on the helicopter, but they haven't found the guys the helicopter went in to rescue in the first place.
You can read the mainstream media versions of the latest bad news from Afghanistan here, here, and here.
Here's the bottom line. An "elite group" of US forces got trapped in a firefight with Afghan insurgents, probably elements of the Taliban. (Remember the Taliban? They're the bunch we "ousted" from Afghanistan four years ago.) The US forces on the ground called for back up support. A special operations helicopter loaded with Navy Seals flew in to rescue them and got shot down by a rocket propelled grenade--a tactical engagement that Lieutenant General James Conway, director of operations (J3) at the pentagon called "a pretty lucky shot against a helicopter."
A "pretty lucky shot" my ass, General. The Taliban characters who blew that helicopter away knew exactly where it was going to land, and they placed their RPG team there. They knew where it would land because they've observed our tactics and know our capabilities. They knew what sites in the area constituted suitable landing zones. They also knew that the "stranded" team under attack would call for airborne support.
What Pentagoons like General Conway don't want to admit to the American public is that a handful uneducated guerillas fighting with low tech weapons can defeat the most elite elements of our "best trained, best equipped" military.
Oh, did I mention? They found the bodies of the guys who went in on the helicopter, but they haven't found the guys the helicopter went in to rescue in the first place.
Exercise Your Independence
I seldom read an op-ed article I agree with more than Paul Krugman's
piece in today's New York Times.
"It's time to start winding down the war" in Iraq, he says. And he's right.
"It's time to face up to three realities. First, the war is helping, not hurting, the terrorists. Second, the kind of clear victory the hawks promised is no longer possible, if it ever was. Third, a time limit on our commitment will do more good than harm."
Yep, yep, and yep. Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorist training and recruiting until we made it one. We won't turn Iraq into a pliant trading partner. And an unlimited commitment won't make the impossible possible. The insurgents will wait us out whether we announce a drawdown or not.
"It's far more likely," says Krugman, "that if the Iraqi government knew that our support had an expiration date, it would both look to its own defenses and, more important, try harder to find a political solution to the insurgency."
Darn tootin'. Where's the urgency for the Iraqi government to get its act together when the competing factions know they can jockey for power indefinitely under a protective US military umbrella?
What's more, "The foreign terrorists now infesting Iraq are there on the sufferance of a homegrown insurgency that finds them useful for the moment but that, brutal as it is, isn't interested in an apocalyptic confrontation with the Western world. Once we're no longer targets, the foreign terrorists won't be welcome."
You tell 'em, Paul.
"America doesn't have to let itself be taken hostage (by Bush's martial dreams). The country missed the chance to say no before this war started, but it can still say no to Mr. Bush's open-ended commitment, and demand a timetable for getting out."
Amen, Brother Krugman.
Our leaders lied to us to start this war. They're still lying to us, and they'll continue to lie to us as long as we allow them to.
---
Speaking of lies--
"Everyone I talk to who goes to Iraq and comes back, say they are just amazed at the difference between their impressions from what they've heard in the media and see on television, and what they actually saw first hand in Iraq."
--Donald Rumsfeld
Brother. Nobody gets to talk to Donald Rumsfeld unless they tell him what he wants to hear.
I can't emphasize this enough--the war in Iraq will not be "lost" because of the media and protest. Remember that the people who keep telling you dissent is "unpatriotic" are the very same people who lied to you to get your support for the war.
Does anyone seriously consider supporting a bunch of liars to be "patriotic?"
Have a good weekend, everybody, and exercise your independence.
Jeff
piece in today's New York Times.
"It's time to start winding down the war" in Iraq, he says. And he's right.
"It's time to face up to three realities. First, the war is helping, not hurting, the terrorists. Second, the kind of clear victory the hawks promised is no longer possible, if it ever was. Third, a time limit on our commitment will do more good than harm."
Yep, yep, and yep. Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorist training and recruiting until we made it one. We won't turn Iraq into a pliant trading partner. And an unlimited commitment won't make the impossible possible. The insurgents will wait us out whether we announce a drawdown or not.
"It's far more likely," says Krugman, "that if the Iraqi government knew that our support had an expiration date, it would both look to its own defenses and, more important, try harder to find a political solution to the insurgency."
Darn tootin'. Where's the urgency for the Iraqi government to get its act together when the competing factions know they can jockey for power indefinitely under a protective US military umbrella?
What's more, "The foreign terrorists now infesting Iraq are there on the sufferance of a homegrown insurgency that finds them useful for the moment but that, brutal as it is, isn't interested in an apocalyptic confrontation with the Western world. Once we're no longer targets, the foreign terrorists won't be welcome."
You tell 'em, Paul.
"America doesn't have to let itself be taken hostage (by Bush's martial dreams). The country missed the chance to say no before this war started, but it can still say no to Mr. Bush's open-ended commitment, and demand a timetable for getting out."
Amen, Brother Krugman.
Our leaders lied to us to start this war. They're still lying to us, and they'll continue to lie to us as long as we allow them to.
---
Speaking of lies--
"Everyone I talk to who goes to Iraq and comes back, say they are just amazed at the difference between their impressions from what they've heard in the media and see on television, and what they actually saw first hand in Iraq."
--Donald Rumsfeld
Brother. Nobody gets to talk to Donald Rumsfeld unless they tell him what he wants to hear.
I can't emphasize this enough--the war in Iraq will not be "lost" because of the media and protest. Remember that the people who keep telling you dissent is "unpatriotic" are the very same people who lied to you to get your support for the war.
Does anyone seriously consider supporting a bunch of liars to be "patriotic?"
Have a good weekend, everybody, and exercise your independence.
Jeff
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Hatters or Hares?
Good old Bob Herbert. His column in today's New York Times nails it on the head:
"The incompetence at the highest levels of government in Washington has undermined the U.S. troops who have fought honorably and bravely in Iraq, which is why the troops are now stuck in a murderous quagmire. If a Democratic administration had conducted a war this incompetently, the Republicans in Congress would be dusting off their impeachment manuals."
"Bring 'em on," President Bush said in July of 2003 as the insurgency in Iraq picked up steam. Two years later, as the insurgency continued as strong as ever, Vice President Cheney declared that it was in its "last throes." Donald Rumsfeld insists we are making progress though he admits there are no "metrics" by which we can measure that progress.
There has been no change in strategy over those two years, and there appears to be no plan to change it now.
This sure sounds like insanity to me: denial of reality, blind adherence to a failed program, refusal to admit mistakes, and a belief that if you tell the same lies often enough, they will become truths.
And oh, let's not forget--the commander in chief says God is telling him what to do. Which possibility is more frightening--that he honestly believes it, or that he's just saying it?
The Generals--specifically Myers, Abizaid, and Casey--should in theory know the fatal consequences of ignoring reality and sticking to failed strategies in war, but they appear to be duty bound to the political agendas of the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party.
My decades as a naval officer taught me that when things don't make sense, one of two things are going on:
--The people in charge are desperate and don't know what else to do.
--The people in charge have an agenda they're hiding from you.
I'm firmly convinced that in our Iraq situation, the latter is the case.
If you think you'll ever see American troops withdraw from Iraq, think again. The invasion of Iraq was conceived in the nineties by William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton and others for the specific purpose of grabbing the most geo-strategically important real estate in the Middle East. They never planned to give it back.
But I could be wrong. The people running this country and this war could all just be madder than March hares.
Scary, huh kids?
"The incompetence at the highest levels of government in Washington has undermined the U.S. troops who have fought honorably and bravely in Iraq, which is why the troops are now stuck in a murderous quagmire. If a Democratic administration had conducted a war this incompetently, the Republicans in Congress would be dusting off their impeachment manuals."
"Bring 'em on," President Bush said in July of 2003 as the insurgency in Iraq picked up steam. Two years later, as the insurgency continued as strong as ever, Vice President Cheney declared that it was in its "last throes." Donald Rumsfeld insists we are making progress though he admits there are no "metrics" by which we can measure that progress.
There has been no change in strategy over those two years, and there appears to be no plan to change it now.
This sure sounds like insanity to me: denial of reality, blind adherence to a failed program, refusal to admit mistakes, and a belief that if you tell the same lies often enough, they will become truths.
And oh, let's not forget--the commander in chief says God is telling him what to do. Which possibility is more frightening--that he honestly believes it, or that he's just saying it?
The Generals--specifically Myers, Abizaid, and Casey--should in theory know the fatal consequences of ignoring reality and sticking to failed strategies in war, but they appear to be duty bound to the political agendas of the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party.
My decades as a naval officer taught me that when things don't make sense, one of two things are going on:
--The people in charge are desperate and don't know what else to do.
--The people in charge have an agenda they're hiding from you.
I'm firmly convinced that in our Iraq situation, the latter is the case.
If you think you'll ever see American troops withdraw from Iraq, think again. The invasion of Iraq was conceived in the nineties by William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton and others for the specific purpose of grabbing the most geo-strategically important real estate in the Middle East. They never planned to give it back.
But I could be wrong. The people running this country and this war could all just be madder than March hares.
Scary, huh kids?
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Love: American Style
Something something 9-11, mumble mumble 9-11, hamana hamana 9-11, gurgle gurgle 9-11, yada yada yada yada 9-11.
Who needs an exit strategy if you never plan to leave? The neoconservatives cooked the Iraq invasion up in the 90s for the express purpose of grabbing control of Iraqi oil and erecting a permanent military base of operations in the geographic heart of the Middle East. No sense building a military base of operations if you're not going to keep your military in it, is there?
Just who are these neoconservative people and how did they drive an entire country into a misguided war? As Jim Lobe wrote for AlterNet in 2003, "The neoconservatives do not represent a political movement, [but are] a small, tighly-knit clan whose incestuous familial and personal connections, both within and outside the Bush administration, have allowed them grab control of the future of American foreign policy."
Lobe's article constructs the basic neocon family tree, starting with Irving Kristol--"the Godfather of neoconservatism"--to his son Bill, editor of the Rupert Murdoch owned Weekly Standard and founder of the Project for the New American Century. Lobe describes the PNAC as the "front group which cemented the powerful alliance between right-wing Republicans like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, Christian and Catholic Right leaders like Gary Bauer and William Bennett, and the neocons behind a platform of global U.S. military dominance."
Richard Perle is one of Papa Irving's most prominent disciples. "Perle himself married into neocon royalty when he wed the daughter of his professor at the University of Chicago, the late Alfred Wohlstetter -- the man who helped both his son-in-law and his fellow student Paul Wolfowitz get their start in Washington more than 30 years ago."
The list goes on. The scholarly Kagans--Donald, Bob, and Frederick--who "have written reams of columns warning that the currently ballooning Pentagon budget is simply not enough to fund the much-desired vision of U.S. global supremacy."
Eliot Abrams, Norman Podhoretz, Jean Kirkpatrick, Richard Pipes and his son Daniel...
Take a look at the names at the PNAC web site--which include Steve Forbes, Fred Ikle, Dan Quayle, John Bolton, and Jeb Bush--do a little math, and you come up with a core group of about fifty people. Fifty or so people who dream of turning America into a theocratic oligarchy that maintains a perpetual state of war, and are getting away with it.
Who needs an exit strategy if you never plan to leave? The neoconservatives cooked the Iraq invasion up in the 90s for the express purpose of grabbing control of Iraqi oil and erecting a permanent military base of operations in the geographic heart of the Middle East. No sense building a military base of operations if you're not going to keep your military in it, is there?
Just who are these neoconservative people and how did they drive an entire country into a misguided war? As Jim Lobe wrote for AlterNet in 2003, "The neoconservatives do not represent a political movement, [but are] a small, tighly-knit clan whose incestuous familial and personal connections, both within and outside the Bush administration, have allowed them grab control of the future of American foreign policy."
Lobe's article constructs the basic neocon family tree, starting with Irving Kristol--"the Godfather of neoconservatism"--to his son Bill, editor of the Rupert Murdoch owned Weekly Standard and founder of the Project for the New American Century. Lobe describes the PNAC as the "front group which cemented the powerful alliance between right-wing Republicans like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, Christian and Catholic Right leaders like Gary Bauer and William Bennett, and the neocons behind a platform of global U.S. military dominance."
Richard Perle is one of Papa Irving's most prominent disciples. "Perle himself married into neocon royalty when he wed the daughter of his professor at the University of Chicago, the late Alfred Wohlstetter -- the man who helped both his son-in-law and his fellow student Paul Wolfowitz get their start in Washington more than 30 years ago."
The list goes on. The scholarly Kagans--Donald, Bob, and Frederick--who "have written reams of columns warning that the currently ballooning Pentagon budget is simply not enough to fund the much-desired vision of U.S. global supremacy."
Eliot Abrams, Norman Podhoretz, Jean Kirkpatrick, Richard Pipes and his son Daniel...
Take a look at the names at the PNAC web site--which include Steve Forbes, Fred Ikle, Dan Quayle, John Bolton, and Jeb Bush--do a little math, and you come up with a core group of about fifty people. Fifty or so people who dream of turning America into a theocratic oligarchy that maintains a perpetual state of war, and are getting away with it.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
More Lessons in Irony...
Dubya's going to give his lunatic speech on the war at Fort Bragg?
Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian...
Come on, America. Put down the Kool Aid and pick up the Starbucks.
Jeff
Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian. Rovewellian...
Come on, America. Put down the Kool Aid and pick up the Starbucks.
Jeff
Coming Soon to a Blog Near You...
You can't begin to understand to know how or why America got to the position it's presently in without a basic grounding in the neo-conservative movement. This piece from The Christian Science Monotor profiles several key members, including father/son team Irving and Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and John Bolton.
More to follow...
Peace,
Jeff
More to follow...
Peace,
Jeff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)