More proof that the Iraq War is a lie (as if we needed any)

What does it say about the condition of this country that a bombshell like the one that Ron Suskind recently dropped about the Bush administration's case for war is not front page bold-type news?

What does it say about the condition of this country that for many Americans, this news is just confirmation of what they have believed all along?

And what does it say about the condition of this country that there are Americans who, in spite of this evidence, will still say the war was justified and that Junior is an honorable man?

Ron Suskind is a well-respected reporter and a Pulitzer Prize winner. In his new book, The Way of the World, he reports that not only did Junior and company know before the invasion that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction, but that they manufactured evidence to deliberately deceive the public into believing the opposite.

Let me repeat: Suskind reports that the Bush administration manufactured the case for war.

It breaks down like this: Saddam Hussein's chief of intelligence, Tahir Jalil Habbush, was actually an informer for British and American intelligence services. In January, 2003, two months before the invasion, Habbush transmitted information asserting that Iraq had no WMD and that Saddam's evasiveness was an attempt to deceive his mortal enemies, the Iranians. The Bush administration, eager for war, disregarded the information. When the invasion began, Habbush was secretly resettled to Jordan and paid $5 million to keep his mouth shut. Note that, as far as the American public knew, Habbush was one of the military's most wanted men, having been assigned the Jack of Diamonds in Junior's famous deck of cards.

(If I were Mr. Habbush, I might be a little nervous. Junior and Big Dick have a lot riding on him keeping mum.)

Sleeping well, Tahir?

Suskind further reports that the White House gave then-CIA chief George Tenet a special assignment: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that 911 attacker Mohammed al Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and that Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a "small team from the al Qaeda organization." (Yeah, al Qaeda...how convenient!)

And, do you remember the Downing Street Memo? It was a transcription of a meeting attended by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that stated that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Suskind's reporting would seem to confirm the worst implications of that document.

The reactions from all the usual suspects are predictable enough: the White House has called the reporting "absurd" and begun attacking Suskind's credibility. George Tenet says he can't remember anything. And Nancy Pelosi, instead of calling for hearings, continues to sit on her worthless, worthless ass.

The Iraq war was a gigantic, deliberate lie. It's consquences have been murderous and catastrophic. It was manufactured by Junior and Cheney. Is anybody going to do anything about it?

Al-Maliki calls Junior's bluff

"I'm all in..."

Back in April, 2007, Junior was babbling away with Charlie Rose about, among other things, the Iraq war and occupation. At one point in the interview, Junior implied that US forces were in Iraq with the consent of the Iraqi government and that, if that consent were withdrawn, Junior himself would begin the pullout of American military personnel. Here's the exchange:

ROSE: But if he said get out now, we don’t want you anymore–
BUSH: I don’t see how we could stay. It is his country.
ROSE: But if he said that, it would lead to the catastrophe that you have suggested.
BUSH: That’s why he’s not going to say it.
ROSE: You don’t think he’ll say it?
BUSH: I don’t. No, I don’t.

Perhaps this was an effort to lend credence to the al-Maliki regime, which was installed after several previous failed attempts at establishing a puppet regime. I remember laughing off these remarks as malarkey at the time. Yeah, sure, Junior...you'll just pack up and go, won't you?

Well, apparently al-Maliki watches the Charlie Rose show. On July 7th, two days ago, while visiting the United Arab Emirates, he spoke to a group of Arab ambassadors, saying

"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty."

And also,

"One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time."

These remarks come as the Iraqi government is engaged in "security negotiations" with the United States, which one can only assume hinge around the continuing presence of a US occupation force.

The White House seemed to be caught flat-footed by the remarks. It took a full news-cycle to formulate a response. The delay is surprising, given that when they finally responded, said response was entirely predictable: they rejected the idea of a timetable for withdrawal. Said State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos:

"The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based."

In other words: Not until we're damned well good and ready. The White House rejection of al-Maliki's remarks lend the lie to Junior's year-old verbal spew, but at this point no one expects any truth from the Bush administration.

The real news here is that Al-Maliki is revealing himself to be a cagey player. He doesn't seem willing to play the part that Junior and company have cast for him. And who can blame him? Anybody that would take that job had better have superb survival instincts, not just politically, but physically. His life is on the line.

Petraeus shocks exactly no one: Calls for a pause in Iraq draw-down

"When ya get up there to testify, Dave, here's what you tell 'em..."

Anyone who didn't see this coming wasn't pay much attention.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee today, General David Petraeus called for a 45-day “period of consolidation and evaluation” after the extra combat forces that Bush ordered to Iraq last year have completed their pullout in July. Read about it here. And here's the kicker, quoting from the Associated Press article:

Bush is expected to accept Petraeus' recommendation.

Of course, back in winter of 2006-2007, many people suspected that the term "surge" was just a marketing gimmick that meant "escalation." Now, just as with every other suspicion that critics have had regarding the motives and agenda of the Bush administration, the suspicions about the surge are being confirmed. Hiding behind the supposed expertise of General Petraeus, Bush intends to see this through to the bloody end.

Joining him in this endeavor is presumptive GOP Presidential nominee, John McCain, who has never been bashful about his praise for Petraeus, whom he has called "one of [America's] greatest generals." And why not? It's always safe to praise a general in the field, and McCain's presidential ambitions hinge on the perception of success that only Petraeus can deliver.

But, putting aside McCain's lickspittle commentary, Petraeus doesn't really seem all that admirable. Let's not forget that Petraeus became the Commanding General, Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I) in January 2007, just as Bush was pushing his "surge" idea. It doesn't take much imagination to suspect that Petraeus was selected to replace General George Casey precisely because he agreed to support the idea of the "surge." And remember back in September 2007, when Petraeus delivered his report to Congress, we learned that the report was actually written by the White House, and contradicted a report by the US GAO that indicated that the surge was a failure. Petraeus seems to be little more than another soldier who abdicates his own responsibilities in favor of the easy out: "Just following orders."

Bush and the neo-conservatives are maintaining a low profile throughout the testimony. But secretly, one must imagine they are rubbing their hands with glee. The "surge" has become what they had hoped: an increased and open-ended commitment to their disastrous policy.

The three major presidential contenders are all seated on the Armed Services Committee and will, therefore, have their chance to grandstand, but there will be little effort to change the course in Iraq for the remainder of Bush's term.

Has the surge been a success? Well, not if you use the criteria that were initially set for it. And the recent flare-up in violence, which should indicate how little the surge has really accomplished, is now being used as a reason to maintain troop levels, to defer a troop draw-down.

This long nightmare, initiated by small-minded, but ambitious people, rages on. The tally of the dead, of the maimed, of the ruined continues to grow.

What's going on in Basra?

What's happening in Basra?

Something big is happening, right now, in Iraq. More specifically, in Basra, Iraq's third largest city. Basra is the country's vital port of some 2.6 million souls, sitting beside the Shatt al-Arab waterway (the conflux of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers) and less than 30 miles from the border with Iran. The city is largely populated by Shiite Muslims and is a strongpoint for Shiite militias that are more-or-less aligned with outspoken and anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

Approximately two days ago, al-Sadr allegedly called for civil disobedience as a response to some kind of crackdown imposed on Shiite militias by the (Bush-installed) al-Maliki government. There has been fighting, not only in Basra, but in Baghdad, as well. Even Bush's private enterprise paradise, the Green Zone, has come under attack.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has issued very stern ("menacing" might be a better word) warnings to the Shiite militias and, ominously, has gone so far as to travel to Basra to direct the fighting himself!

What appeared to be American or British jets also soared through the skies, witnesses said, providing air support. The operation, which senior Iraqi officials had been signaling for weeks, is considered so important by the Iraqi government that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who went to Basra on Monday, intended to personally direct the fighting, several Iraqi officials said...--New York Times

This is an alarming development. To me, it suggests that al-Maliki wants to be on the scene to better control the information that leaks out about what is really happening.

US military authorities are apparently playing down the role of coalition forces in the fighting. This is another indication that something particularly horrible is in the offing and the Coalition forces are preemptively trying to disassociate from it.

God help the people in Basra that get in the way of whatever is happening down there! It's ugly and going to get uglier.

Is this Junior's bid to rid himself of Moktada al-Sadr? Given what I believe about Junior, he must truly be offended by a man like al-Sadr. The Shiite cleric is an upstart, from Junior's perspective; a rabble-rouser and a loud-mouth, and his support may be genuine, not manufactured, like Junior's. When al-Sadr came on the scene, after Saddam Hussein crashed and burned, al-Sadr stood dead-center in the way of Junior's Iraq plan.

The ramifications for American domestic politics are huge. Although it hasn't been reported much in the US media, al-Sadr's cease-fire, declared last summer, was vitally important to the perception of success that is attributed to Junior's "surge." If the violence heats up, especially now, on the eve of a report to be delivered by General Petraeus and US Ambassador Crocker, and with the American public pining for a troop draw-down, opposition to the war, while already widespread, could become vehement and non-negotiable. If that happens, hapless John McCain will be left raging to himself in the political desolation created for him by the same man that slurred his wife and child, Junior Bush.

Keep your eyes on this, folks. And be prepared to see some things that will mar your perception of the world, of humanity. Undoubtedly, whatever trickles through the corporate-owned media will be filtered and scrubbed and watered-down. But they won't be able to hide the truth, in the end.

When Junior started this cursed war, he caused this reality to come into being. He may not have intended it to unfold like this, but he was too much of an ignorant pig to care much either way. The roller coaster is blazing down the track, y'all. Hang on! Hang on! Hang on!

Iraq is still burning: US dead exceed 4000

Composite of photos of Iraqi war dead

The criminal tragedy of Iraq rages on, with the number of US service persons killed in the conflict surpassing the 4000 mark this past Easter weekend. For some reason, the 4000 number is deemed significant enough to warrant media attention, although the number of Iraqi civilian casualties (somewhere between 80,000 and 1.2 million, depending on which study you believe) and the number of wounded Americans (approximately 29, 500) go largely unmentioned.

Junior Bush, now the lamest of lame ducks, has abdicated his responsibility to try and mend the situation, offering nothing new politically or tactically to change the dynamic. Instead, he doggedly insists on maintaining the US military presence through the end of his term, leaving the mess for whoever comes next.

White House mouthpiece Dana Perino marked the occasion of the casualty milestone with this reassurance: "The president feels each and every one of the deaths very strongly and he grieves for their families. He obviously is grieved by the moment but he mourns the loss of every single life." Oh, yeah, Dana, obviously. But, he's also envious, right? Because confronting danger is romantic, remember?

Well, after all, this is a man that has never, never lived up to any of his responsibilities. We'd be fools to expect anything more from him now.

More troubling is the stance taken by madman John McCain. He's on record as saying that he would not be against another 100 years of American military presence in Iraq. He insists that the surge is working, despite the failure of the Iraqi and coalition authorities to establish any kind of political structure, despite the hemorrhaging of US prestige throughout the world.

It is difficult to understand McCain's way of thinking, when you consider that polls show that nearly two-thirds of all Americans think that Junior is mishandling the war, and nearly as many think it was a mistake to ever have invaded.

There's little point in trying to understand McCain's line of thought as regards the war and his presidential ambitions. It's irrelevant. McCain, with his every angry pronouncement and growled oath, indicates that he will continue on as Junior has done.

It all comes back to the neo-conservative movement and their Project for a New American Century. By their way of thinking, the 4000 dead Americans, and the countless dead Iraqis are a necessary expenditure. If the war effort were to collapse in failure, as I believe it inevitably will, the neo-conservative movement, the dream of corporate dominance and unfettered oligarchy would die an ignominious death. It is more important to them to expend human lives to keep that dream alive, at least until they can find someone else to blame for their failure. After all, in that neo-conservative dream, humans are just resources anyway.

Drifting toward disaster

Saigon, April 30, 1975

We can all see it coming.

The disastrous adventure in Iraq is moving inexorably toward its desultory, entropic non-ending. No one can predict with any degree of certainty how it will shake out, but the nature of the conflict precludes any possibility of a festive V-E Day, or even an exhausted and somber Armistice Day. My own guess is that the end will come slowly, with a gradual reduction of US forces culminating in a Saigon-like fiasco.

Iraq will eventually come under the influence of some political entity, in all probability, a radical movement a las Khmer Rouge, or Bolsheviks, that will spark the imagination of a tormented and abused people, and rise quickly, like a brush fire, to seize control. Tigris and Euphrates will run red for a time. The United States will be humiliated and weakened.

George W. Bush is trapped in a perdition of his own making. At one time, he was Ares, the god of war, striding confidently across the globe, immune to doubt. But it was all an illusion, wasn't it? Military and political realities offer no way out. His pipe-dream of a corporate-dominated Iraq run by a strongman of his choosing has vanished like a mirage in the Iraqi desert.

It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, February 7, 2003

Any chance of military success would require a huge reinvestment of US forces and treasure. But for that to happen, Bush must convince the public that the war is vital to the American "way of life," that it merits sacrifice and privation, perhaps even a draft. Alas, Bush already burned that card, back in the beginning when, in selling the war, his henchmen assured us that it would all be over soon, that real sacrifice would not be needed. For Bush to now attempt to rally Americans to his cause, after four years of war and with his credibility destroyed, would be too audacious even for him.

The oil revenue of [Iraq] could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. -- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, March 27, 2003

The political situation in Iraq is even more bleak. Bush's first choice for a despot to replace Saddam was Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted embezzler who proved invaluable to Bush by providing preposterous lies to peddle to a frightened American public in the lead up to the war. But Chalabi turned out to be too untrustworthy and an agent for Iran. Chalabi was on the outs about the same time that David Kay determined that the Weapons of Mass Destruction meme, the ostensible casus belli, was a lie.

Gimme a break!

Next came the free and democratic "elections." Remember when all the Republicans in congress were waving around their purple fingers in a show of "solidarity" with the Iraqi people? Let's examine how that turned out.

Nouri al-Maliki, a Shi'a leader, ended up at the top of a raucous, uncoordinated parliament that, lo and behold, only reflected the sharp religious and ethnic divisions of the country. The reality is that the Iraqi parliament seems to be a largely dysfunctional body, incapable of governing. Maliki seems to be cozying up to the Iranians in spite of Bush administration remonstrances, and who could blame him? It is hard to imagine that this is what the Bush administration had in mind when they arranged the elections.

Events have bereft Bush of all but two options: begin the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, or stay the course and pray for a miracle. Well, after all, it was prayer that supposedly led him to this place, so I guess it works out alright as far as he is concerned. Of late, he has eschewed public events, relying on his proxies to justify his obstinacy, shielding himself from the harsh, judgemental world. One can only imagine that, in those few moments during the day when he is alone, he spends much time thinking of his Crawford ranch and the lonesome prairie, where he can be alone with his dogs and his chainsaw, clearing brush. His own little piece of heaven, far away from shouting reporters, and whispering advisers, and anguished, tearful Gold Star mothers. Someday, Junior. Someday.

Meanwhile, for the rest of us, who cannot look forward to a comfortable retirement isolated from the troubles of the the world, shielded by wealth and influence, those of us who cannot avoid the consequences of our mistakes and the mistakes of those who acted in our name...for us, the war drags on.

Armistice Day, Waterloo, Belgium 1999

Petraeus report be damned!

The debate we anticipated this month over the future of the Iraq War is over. Bush won.

Never mind that the debate never actually took place. The Bush administration successfully kicked the can down the road, buying more time to sell its lies to a compliant media. All the bluster that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi emitted earlier this summer was just that: empty bluster aimed at buying them political cover while they prepared to roll over for Bush yet again.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see how it all unfolded. Democrats puffed out their chests in May with a grandiose display of pseudo-courage, passing a bill that required Junior to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq as early as July. And, while they succeeded in portraying the Republicans as war-mongers (an achievement on par with evoking disgust for a child molester), they made no progress in ending the war, being thwarted by a veto and the deathly fear Democrats have of being portrayed as being "weak on terror" (whatever the hell that means). The outrage of the American public was assuaged with promises of a new debate after General Petraeus submitted a situational report in September. (The absurdity of a military officer setting US foreign policy, rather than a thoroughly discredited administration, went unmentioned.)

After the pitiful display in Congress, the Bush administration went to work, sending out their obfuscating message through their contacts in the media. Throughout the summer, we were bombarded by "serious" pundits assuring us that the "surge" had had an impact; that the level of violence in Iraq had fallen; that "progress" was undeniable.

Inconvenient facts were ignored or brushed aside. The fact that the Iraqi Parliament adjourned for the month of August without attaining the political benchmarks set for it by the Bush administration was mentioned briefly and then quickly dropped. When the GAO published a report stating that the "surge" had failed, that office's credibility was called into question. In short, it was the same old song-and-dance that the Bush administration had used to start the war: smear and obfuscate.

The capstone to this appallingly marvelous manipulation of the media came yesterday with testimony before the House of Representatives by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker who each droned on interminably about the hopeful Iraqi future that would be destroyed if Congress were to impose a timetable for withdrawal. The pervading feeling I experienced throughout the testimony (in spite of its being interrupted by outraged citizens protesting) was one of hopeless resignation. It would be folly to hope that the Democrats would stand up to this mind-numbing assault.

So, where are we? Well, while there may be a token reduction in the number of troops stationed in Iraq, the war is going to continue, since Bush and the Democratic leadership all have an interest in making sure that it does (please refer to my previous post for their respective motives). The agony of the Iraqi people will stretch on for the foreseeable future. American service persons will be killed. American treasure will be squandered or redistributed to the Cheney-Bush clan. The military and political situation in Iraq will continue to deteriorate. The looming menace of extremist Iran will continue to grow as American weakness becomes more apparent.

The vaunted Petraeus report with all its meaningless charts and graphs turned out to be a nothing, a place holder, a punctuation mark for a long, bewildering lie.

Oh, people! People...

The Petraeus Report: a convenient excuse for more political cowardice

As August comes to a close, summer wanes, and Congress prepares to return to Washington to debate further congressional funding and support for the Iraq war, all eyes are on General David Petraeus. It is he that has been given the task of providing an assessment report on the political and military situation in Iraq and all sides in the debate have called a rhetorical cease fire until after he says his piece.

At the risk of sounding cynical (but really, how does one avoid cynicism in this age of Karl Rove?), I suspect that this report will be just another example of the Bush administration finding a way to convince Congress and the media into going along with its folly.

It was recently leaked to the media that Petraeus' report is, in fact, being written by the White House. That, by itself, discredits the validity of the report. But, the administration wanted to go farther and excuse Petraeus from public testimony before Congress.

Well, thankfully, the Bush people had to back off on that little bit of petulance. Now it just remains to be seen if Petraeus will be a man of principle, honor, and integrity by telling the truth despite what Bush may want, or if he will forfeit his credibility, in the manner of hapless Colin Powell, and be a "good soldier" by saying what Bush and company have told him to say. (Just following orders? Where have we heard that before?)

Further, when Petraeus is up before the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, can the American people count on the Democrats to get the truth out of him? Senator Carl Levin (MI), the committee chairman, recently returned from a trip to Iraq, has already made public noises about Bush's "surge" appearing to have had a positive effect. Even Washington state's own Brian Baird, hardly a neo-conservative, has said that the new strategy may be working. All of this before Petraeus has said a word.

As for our fearless, intrepid media, certain analysts have also returned from Iraq saying things are much better than they were a year ago, at least in terms of the level of violence. (Note, however, that the number of casualties suffered by the United States since June, are higher than any other June-August period since the occupation began.)

Well....maybe we should look at motives.

• Bush administration - The motive here is obvious: to avoid admitting the complete and utter ineptitude and criminal negligence of this administration, the war must be extended, thereby suspending judgement on its success. This is a stall tactic, but it is all they've got. They are reduced to hoping for some unimagined miracle that will pull their rancid fat from the fires of historical judgment.
  
• Congressional Democrats - Democrats love this war. By their way of thinking, it is guaranteeing them increased majorities in both houses of Congress and a better-than-even chance at capturing the White House. They're licking their chops in anticipation of all those fat contributions that will be coming their way come 2009. Look for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to "reluctantly" concede that they cannot stop the war, shrug their narrow shoulders, and go along with the next Bush folly, all the while laughing up their sleeves.
  
• The media - Anything for attention in this Rupert Murdoch profit-driven business. Some journalists will be motivated by personal greed (remember Armstrong Williams and the "No child left behind" fiasco), others will be angling for White House "access," but be assured that, with a few exceptions, there will be a lot of somber head-nodding pundits who concur with the manufactured consensus that the "surge" has been a qualified success.

The American people have turned against this war. Everyone in the administration, congress, and the media knows it. The game for them now is how to extend it for as long as possible so they can extract every last drop of power, wealth, and influence it can yield.