America Down The Toilet

This, My Fellow Americans, is what happens when we allow and unelected buffoon of a Con-man to sit in the White House with his gang of thuggish ideologues when he has not been elected.

Of course, even before that, how many of us were paying any attention to Washington at all? Not all that many, unless the news was sexy enough...like the ones about stained dresses and Gooper hypocrites and their mistresses.

We have the god-awful government we deserve, until we are willing to sacrifice for real, for our freedom, our constitution and our souls.

September 13, 2007

The dictate of history: All the Iraq-war predictions are worthless, save one

How very familiar these seesaw samplings are, and from just one story from just yesterday's news alone:

"The battle of words over Iraq intensified today ... as Democrats renewed their criticism"; but, said the White House, "It’s pretty clear that it’s not a war without end.... Victory is defined as helping the Iraqis develop the capability of defending themselves and governing themselves."

"[Their] plan is more of the same," the Senate majority leader said, and "this is unacceptable"; but, said a White House spokesman, Democrats are merely "try[ing] to create a political framework for ignoring the success that has taken place." Another Democratic senator also "said today that the size of the troop drawdown was unacceptable"; but, "Bush is expected to tell the nation that he embraces the recommendations of ... the American military commander in Iraq," which means more of the same; and on, and on.

We've been reading, hearing, watching the same news for months. The Dems criticize; the admin responds; the Dems sharpen their criticism; the admin strengthens its response; the Dems escalate their criticism; the admin escalates its offensive defense; and on, and on.

Meanwhile, every bloody day, another four or five American soldiers lose their lives, another bombing of sectarian revenge occurs, another billion or so gets washed down the drain.

If the subject matter weren't so tragic, the rhetorical ping-pong game here -- in feckless reaction to the savage game played there -- would be comical. Never have so many said so much to so little intentional effect.

The White House strategy, of course, is to rely on this rhythmic sameness -- to ride out the Democrats' ineffectiveness to the very end, then make its problems somebody else's problems. The Democratic strategy is what you might call counter-similarity -- to rely on the White House's intransigence as a campaign prop, and then, having seized the White House themselves, as well as gained stronger positions in the Senate and House, do ... something. The "something" is for another day; for now, repetitious politics reigns supreme.

In short, both contestants are relying on sameness. Both are assuming the reliability of unchanging events and familiar scenarios for at least the next year. Their futures depend on it.

But, if I may venture a prediction: Both will find themselves in radically altered territory a year from now. The sameness they're relying on won't hold. The course of history doesn't work that way -- the only thing predictable about it is its unpredictability.

Most often -- and especially in politics and war -- the comfort of game plans smacks square into the brutality of unintended consequences within the same news cycle, let alone a week or a month down the road. Hence the reliability of a year-long plan is shaky, at best, while to rely on such reliability is downright foolish.

Simply and exceedingly vaguely put, "something" will happen. And that something will alter the face of this war and its politics dramatically. I'm not the amazing Kreskin, so I can't know what the something will be. Perhaps an extended and far more severe regional conflict; perhaps Anbar Sunnis turning on their unnatural allies, sucking in more of the latter; perhaps a Shiite-militia coup. Who knows. The menu of potentials is diverse and explosive.

But I do know this: The one thing -- the only thing -- we can count on is that we won't be looking at the same war a year down the road, as both Democrats and Republicans are settling in for. All the current political and military calculations will be garbage by then. It'll be a whole new ballgame -- a damn-near unrecognizable ballgame -- and today's bleak sameness will seem like wistful nostalgia.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

McConnell: I Lied To The Senate About FISA

Jeebus, do these people even know what the truth is anymore? Yikes!

DNI McConnell: I Lied To The Senate

Earlier this week, in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell claimed the new expansive FISA legislation passed by Congress prior to the August recess — the so-called Protect America Act — had helped to thwart a an alleged terror plot in Germany.

A government official later told the New York Times that McConnell was wrong, and that the intelligence had been collected under the old FISA law which required warrants. A chorus of House Democrats immediately raised concerns about McConnell’s claims.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) demanded McConnell back up his sworn statement. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) said the Protect America Act “played no role in uncovering the recent German terrorist plot.” House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes urge McConnell “to issue a public statement immediately” correcting his remarks.

In a statement released today, McConnell unapologetically acknowledged he lied to the Senate:

During the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on September 10, 2007, I discussed the critical importance to our national security of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the recent amendments to FISA made by the Protect America Act. The Protect America Act was urgently needed by our intelligence professionals to close critical gaps in our capabilities and permit them to more readily follow terrorist threats, such as the plot uncovered in Germany. However, information contributing to the recent arrests was not collected under authorities provided by the Protect America Act.

Read the statement here. McConnell would be well-advised to officially correct his testimony.

Note that in the statement, McConnell does not apologize, but rather uses it as another opportunity to call for Congress to authorize the “unnecessary and dangerous” expansion of the administration’s spying power.

UPDATE: Here’s exactly what McConnell said in his Senate testimony:

MCCONNELL: [The new FISA law] was passed, as you well know, and we’re very pleased with that. And we’re better prepared now to continue our mission; specifically Germany, significant contributions. It allowed us to see and understand all the connections with –

LIEBERMAN: The newly adopted law facilitated that during August?

MCCONNELL: Yes, sir, it did. [Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 9/10/07]

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Alert:! Media Scandal! ABC!

Bushite Disinformation Team At Work. Oh, this is gonna be a riot.This is disinformation obviously directed at the American people

UPDATED: The disgraced ABC consultant and the push for war in Iran

There's a huge new media scandal breaking this morning, and the headline so far -- that a much-used consultant to ABC News published a phony interview with Barak Obama -- may well be the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The news about now ex-ABC consultant Alexis Debat (left) is just dribbling out, but I'm surprised people haven't been connecting the dots. This post will seek to connect a couple of them.

Simply put, Debat -- a former French defense official who now works at the (no, you can't make these things up) Nixon Center -- has also been a leading source in pounding the drumbeat for war in Iran, and directly linked to some bizarre stories -- reported on ABC's widely watched news shows, and nowhere else -- that either ratcheted up fears of terrorism or that could have stoked new tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Ironically, while Debat's alleged specialty is foreign affairs, it was a foray into American presidential politics that brought this budding scandal out into the open. This from today's article by Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post:

A former consultant to ABC's investigative unit admitted yesterday that he put his name on a purported interview with Barack Obama that he never conducted.

Alexis Debat, a former French defense official who now works at the Nixon Center, published the interview in the French magazine Politique Internationale. He said he had hired a freelance journalist to conduct the interview, in which the Democratic presidential candidate supposedly said that Iraq was "already a defeat for America" that has "wasted thousands of lives." Debat said he had been unable to locate the intermediary, and the Obama campaign says no such interview took place.

"I was scammed," Debat said. "I was very, very stupid. I made a huge mistake in signing that article and not checking his credentials."

But that's not the only red flag about Debat's credibility. It turns out that ABC News fired Debat as a consultant in June when it discovered that he had lied about earning a Ph.D. from the prestigious Sorbonne. According to the Post, ABC News also checked our Debat's work for the network and didn't find anything wrong. Today they say they'e checking again, and they should. Most recently, since ending his role with ABC, Debat helped raise a big international stir by pounding the drums for a U.S. attack on Iran.

The report came in the Rupert Murdoch-owned Times of London, right after rumors swept through Washington that aides to Vice President Dick Cheney were planning to use friendly news outlets -- including several others owned by Murdoch -- to whip up popular opinion for attacking Iran.

This story appeared in Murdoch's Times on Sept. 2, 2007:

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

Needless to say, the new information about Debat calls this story into question -- big-time, as Cheney himself might say. But what is really going on? Is Debat pulling sensational stories from thin air, as was the case with Obama, to make a name for himself? Or in his role at the Nixon Center -- which still has close ties to Henry Kissinger and others in the conservatve foreign policy establishment like former Secretary of State James Baker, who spoke there recently-- is he serving a higher agenda of spin?

If you look at the stories on which ABC News has acknowledged Debat's work, many of the reports came from left field. Do you remember this report from June, on which ABC has apparently acknowldged Debat was a consultant?

Large teams of newly trained suicide bombers are being sent to the United States and Europe, according to evidence contained on a new videotape obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.

A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions.

How did ABC get this alarmist video -- at a time when government officials in Washington seemed to be amping up fears over new terrorist attacks at home, going into the congressional debate over reauthorizing the government's eavesdropping program and maintaining troop levels in Iraq? Did Debat play any role?

Ross acknowledged yesterday that Debat was a source on this controversial report regarding U.S. efforts in Iran, back in April:

A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.

The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.

It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.

Debat has also reportly helped ABC analyze terrorism inside Saudi Arabia, and provided his "expert" commentary and information on stories ranging from the 2005 London bombings to the trial of his fellow Frenchman, al-Qaeda member Zacarias Moussauoi. His work should cause a re-examination of all of ABC News' investigative reporting on both terrorism and Iran over the last couple of years, because -- wittingly or unwittingly -- no other network has better served the Bush agenda in the Middle East.

For example, no story raised tension on the Iranian front more than this one -- which was instantly discredited by several knowledgeable experts:

Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.

The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.

The sources say the unexpected expansion is taking place at Iran's nuclear enrichment plant outside the city of Natanz, in a hardened facility 70 feet underground.

Was Debat -- who was aggressively working with Ross on other Iran stories at the time -- one of the sources on this, as well? If so, it would fit with Debat's modus operandi on the Times of London article.

As noted at the top, there are two radically different ways to look at this scandal. Either Debat is a lone wolf, a deluded self-aggrandizer whose main agenda is promoting himself. Or he is acting in his role at the Nixon Center as a conduit, spreading information and occasional disinformation at the behest of others.

Either way, this is unarguably yet another huge black eye for the American media. But if the latter is true, it could also raise major questions about American foreign policy, and about the future of war and peace in the Persian Gulf.

Just a footnote -- here is Debat's cached listing at the Nixon Center. The real one has vanished from cyberspace already.

UPDATE: Laura Rozen has a lot more on this.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Just Cut Of The Damned Funding

Yeah, like that's gonna happen. The Goopers will say the Dems are not supporting the troops and hundreds will be killed as a result. Other Goopers and dumbasses will actually believe that. No kidding, they will.

After all, they don't believe in evolution, but they do believe that Jesus is going to come back and clean up their mess.

The dumbing down of America has been a splendid success.


Published on Thursday, September 13, 2007 by Ted Rall.com

The War Party: Democrats Lie to Prolong Iraq; Reporters Go Along

by Ted Rall

Americans don’t know how their government works. Democrats, in control of Congress, are taking advantage of our ignorance to continue the Iraq War. Which brings up two questions: Why won’t the “antiwar” Democrats act to stop the carnage? And why aren’t reporters calling them on it?”

Democrats,” writes Charles Babington in an Associated Press item that appeared in hundreds of newspapers, “control both chambers [of Congress] but lack the numbers to override President Bush’s vetoes of bids to mandate troop withdrawals from Iraq.” It’s a half-truth at best: the Democrats’ narrow majority is less than the two-thirds majority they’d need to override a presidential veto. Here’s the full truth: it doesn’t matter.

In June Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting’s Extra! Magazine wrote: “If the Democrat-controlled Congress wanted to force the Bush administration to accept a bill with a withdrawal timeline, it didn’t have to pass the bill over Bush’s veto–it just had to make clear that no Iraq War spending bill without a timeline would be forthcoming.”

Democratic leaders know that. And here’s how I know they know: days after taking control of Congress, on January 30, they invited five constitutional law experts to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask them how they could end the war. Four out of five of the experts swore that the Democrats could stop the Iraq War just…like…that.

“Today we’ve heard convincing testimony and analysis that Congress has the power to stop the war if it wants to,” said Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI). Yet eight months later, there’s still no end in sight.

The Dems won the 2006 elections with promises to end the war. Weeks after taking over Congress, however, Republicans spooked them with one of the most ludicrous talking points of all time. Cutting off the money, they said, would abandon U.S. soldiers at the front, their ammo dwindling as Al Qaeda insurgents swarmed over them. (Actually–the fact that I have to write this speaks to the American right’s intellectual dishonesty–the troops would go to the airport. They would board airplanes. They would fly home.)

Democrats worry that they’ll be portrayed as weak on defense if they act unilaterally to pull out of Iraq. Irony of ironies, they’re wussing out to avoid looking wimpy. Forcing Republicans to vote with them to end the war, they calculate, would give them political cover. Extra! continued: “Democrats may not have wanted to pay the supposed political costs of [cutting off funding], but news coverage should have made clear that this was a choice, not something forced on them by the lack of a veto-proof majority.”

Rather than set the record straight, the media continues to spread the Democrats-can’t-stop-the-Republican-war meme this week:

Michael Duffy, Time magazine: “If Democrats had more votes–particularly in the House–they might be able to force Bush to change course. But Bush will fight any resolution fencing him in with a veto that, as things stand now, the Democrats cannot override. But the President’s critics will continue to try, hoping to attract moderate Republicans who are fearful of losing their seats next year.” Occasionally Time invites me to its Christmas party. If I score an invite this year, my present for their fact-checkers will be a copy of the Constitution.

Marcella Bombardieri, The Boston Globe: “In the Senate, Democrats have only a 51 to 49 majority, far from the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and the 67 needed to override a presidential veto. All efforts to force a troop withdrawal have failed, and the party will have to count on substantial Republican defections to make any further progress this fall.” I’ll be checking the Globe for a retraction.

Brian Knowlton, The New York Times: Knowlton dutifully quoted Democratic Senator Joe Biden’s claim that there were “political limits on his party, even with the Congressional majority it has held since the November midterm elections. ‘This is the president’s war,’ [Biden] said. ‘Unless we get 67 votes to override his veto, there’s nothing we can do to stop this war…’” Not only did the Times fail to call Biden on his brazen lie, it gave him the last word.

You’d think the Democrats would want to end the Iraq War before their likely retaking of the White House, but that’s because you’re a human being, not a politician. Politicians are happy to dispatch hundreds of young American men and women to certain death (along with thousands of Iraqis), if the bloodshed squeezes out an extra half percentage point at the polls. Reid and Pelosi prefer to run against a disastrous ongoing Republican war than point to a fragile Democratic-brokered peace.

Why are so many respected journalists parroting the Democratic party line? I suspect that corporate media culture, rather than Judith Miller-style malfeasance, is largely to blame. Ink-stained newsrooms have been replaced by bullpen offices indistinguishable from those of banks or insurance companies. Reporters used to come from the working classes. They distrusted politicians and businessmen, and politicians and businessmen loathed them. Today’s journalists are products of cookie-cutter journalism schools. Because graduate schools rarely offer scholarships, few come from the lower or middle classes. They look like businessmen. When they meet a politician, they see a possible friend. They wear suits and ties. And when a U.S. senator like Joe Biden feeds them a line of crap, they gobble it up.

Ted Rall is the author of the new book “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?,” an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America’s next big foreign policy challenge.

© 2007 Ted Rall

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

The Forgotten Dumbass War

The topic below was originally posted on the blogs, the Intrepid Liberal Journal, as well as The Peace Tree, The Independent Bloggers Alliance and Worldwide Sawdust.

The "war on drugs" doesn't consume as much oxygen in the public square as it used to. In September 1989, President George Herbert Walker Bush, spoke from the Oval Office, held up a plastic bag filled with white contents and announced,

"This is crack cocaine seized a few days ago in a park across the street from the White House . . . It could easily have been heroin or PCP."

For Bush this speech was public relations homage to an issue that dominated the media and politics during the 1980s. It also impacted Bush's 1988 presidential election campaign. The near hysteria about the "crack" epidemic in particular resulted in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. This act established The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). According to their website,

"The principal purpose of ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation's drug control program. The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences. To achieve these goals, the Director of ONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy. The Strategy directs the Nation's anti-drug efforts and establishes a program, a budget, and guidelines for cooperation among Federal, State, and local entities."

The General Accounting Office reported that as of 2000, ONDCP's annual budget was almost $20 billion. Depending on whether one factors local incarcerations and law enforcement costs we continue to spend billions annually. So as tax payers, how are we to assess the ONDCP's performance? Are they having any success at achieving their goals? Do they have the right goals? Is ONDCP accomplishing anything useful or simply justifying its own existence and sustaining the prison industrial complex?

Understandably, we have other things on our minds these days. The "war on terror" has dwarfed the "war on drugs" in recent years and unlike 1988, receiving little attention from presidential candidates this time around. However, given the health repercussions of drugs on society as well as the impact on our justice system, foreign policy, and economy, a thorough analysis of the ONDCP's efforts are in order.

One interesting cost-benefit analysis of the drug war was posted online by Brian C. Bennett, who in 2005 concluded that,

"trying to stop people from using drugs is still costing us more than three times as much as the drug abuse itself."

Two Appalachian State University professors provide another sobering analysis: Matthew B. Robinson, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Renee G. Scherlen, Associate Professor of Political Science. Their book, Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims Made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (State University of New York Press) primarily focuses on data published by the ONDCP from 2000-2006. They also provide an instructive historical overview about America's war on drugs dating back to 1875 and illustrate the common themes of racism, media hyperbole and bureaucratic self-interest that have helped define this country's drug policies.

Robinson, an author of six books, including most recently, Death Nation: The Experts Explain Capital Punishment, agreed to a podcast interview with me about his book and the war on drugs.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Get Real, America!

It's not just progressives who are furious, not liberals. Moderates on both sides of the rank and file Democrats and Republicans are ready to buy pitchforks and torches if needed.

Every damn day it gets worse. The lies, the damnable lies and the liars from whose mouth's they spew; the bloodshed, the tears, the coming economic collapse all combine to make people really angry to half-crazed.

Everyone talks about the civil war in Iraq. When will the MSM admit that we are on the brink of one right here, at home.

Get Real, Progressives! The Only Answer is Impeachment!

By Bill Hare
09/12/2007 07:38:01 PM EST

Not long ago progressives launched a fervent effort to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.

That effort was bolstered by communications from leading Democratic Party figures urging those concerned by Gonzales's politicization and unswerving loyalty to the Cheney-Bush neoconservative junta to petition the White House with e-mails and letters demanding justice.

I was contacted via e-mail by a highly prominent Democratic Party senator enlisting my effort by adding my name and e-mail protest toward this pursuit.

While I had earlier joined in such petition efforts to snowball the prevailing powers, I finally declined for what I believe to be the logical reason that enough misdirected effort had already been dispatched in that direction.

Tyranny begins from the top down, which means Cheney and Bush. Before the cry was to remove Attorney General John Ashcroft, and thereafter the natural target was Alberto Gonzales.

So now Gonzales is gone and in a lead story in the New York Times today, September 12, it was revealed that a name high on the list of successors to the recently departed Gonzales is former Solicitor General Theodore Olson.

Olson's credentials are interesting and pass the most stringent neoconservative litmus test. Olson was part of the "Get Bill Clinton" lawyer brigade and his deceased wife Barbara wrote a book denouncing Hillary Clinton.

When it was time to marshal forces to challenge American democracy by preventing a recount of votes in Florida in the 2000 presidential election despite the state's constitution's own clear language of enforcing "voter intent" in the wake of machine imperfections, Olson was there to lead the challenge.

That challenge was opposition to counting the votes of Sunshine State citizens who happened to live in poorer districts and were compelled to endure voting at polling stations with old and poorly functioning voting machines.

When the Florida challenge made its way ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court, Olson and his cronies had ready allies in Chief Justice Antonin Scalia and his alter ego, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. All were fellow members of the Federalist Society, a fraternity of lawyers fighting valiantly to push a neoconservative agenda.

Olson and Scalia had another connection as well, one that used to prompt judges to recuse themselves, but then again, these are different times. Olson represented the same law firm where Scalia's son was employed.

Scalia saw no problem. After all, this was the same Chief Justice who later would go duck hunting with Dick Cheney when an important case involving the Bush Administration was waiting to be resolved.

Federalist Society brothers Scalia and Thomas rode to the rescue on that occasion to save America from installing in office the candidate who secured the most popular votes and, without judicial interference, would have become President, then Vice President Al Gore.

Scalia and Thomas made a judicially hypocritically U-turn to prevent Florida from enforcing its own election laws by conducting a recount. They had previously enunciated staunch states rights views on issues pertaining to federal involvement. Brother Olson and his team secured a 5-4 victory thanks to Scalia and Thomas.

So Theodore Olson is ideally qualified to serve as Attorney General under a neoconservative regime in which the law is whatever Cheney and Bush proclaim it to be at any given moment.

Can anyone realistically expect Bush to yield to Democratic Party recommendations and select anyone other than a roaring partisan of the Olson stripe? Does anyone believe that a modern day Daniel Webster or Clarence Darrow will emerge and be championed by Bush and Cheney?

In the New York Times September 12 story Senator Charles Schumer revealed disappointment over the prospect of an Olson selection, saying, "My hope is that the White House would seek some kind of candidate who would be broadly acceptable."

Think of what Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York said! Can he be serious? Do Cheney and Bush seek "broadly acceptable" candidates for any position?

Senator Schumer, this is the preventive detention gang. They spy at the realm's will, grab people off of the streets anywhere in the world, and torture at the regime's pleasure.

This regime has achieved White House status based on two provably stolen elections. This regime launched a war based on provable lies that thus far has killed, according to current estimates, between 600,000 to 1 million human beings.

Get real, Senator Schumer! Get real, progressives! Stop launching petition drives to rid America of the latest neoconservative spear carrier.

Get real! Work toward the impeachment of Cheney and Bush!

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Ron Paul?

Ah, sweet youth. I remember when we thought we could change the world and jumped head-long into the New Frontier. Three assassinations later, all hell broke loose in the streets of America. Kids were jailed, beaten senseless and even murdered on college campuses by police and national guardsmen.

I'm afraid it is going to take more than a few elections of somebody from either major political party. We are an Empire now. That has to be stopped.

The cozy relationships between the military-industrial-security complex, financial institutions, etc. and the government spells death for any hope we might have of having a democracy. We certainly don't have one now. That whole mess must finally collapse and you can bet that the politicians of neither party have any interest in bringing about the collapse.

It's up to the people and it will require nothing less than a full-blown revolution, albeit without violence. It can be done. Not without great sacrifice by the people, but it can be done.

Vote with your money. Don't wait on Congress to cut off funding. Cut off your own funding of the most hideous beast ever to raise it's ugly head: The Military-industrial-complex, now the Military-Industrial-Security Complex.

Stop paying the protection racket. Stop paying for war crimes.

These are drastic times and call for drastic measures.

American Dissatisfaction and the Peaceful Grassroots Revolution, Part 2

By Just060807
09/07/2007 02:31:55 PM EST

In my previous diary, I intimated that we Americans should channel our dissatisfaction with our corrupt politicians into grassroots organizations and movements, and suggested the possibility that if we can "Save Darfur", we should be able to save our own country. Now in order to prevent disappointment, we should avoid getting our hopes up too high for the immediate recovery of democracy in the US.

Washington, DC has been the prime target of corporate fire for many years, so we should not expect to rebuild it in a day--or in a couple of years. What we need to do is start with small, simple choices and build up momentum gradually.

One of those simple choices is to refuse to vote for a fence-walking, baby-kissing, multimillionaire Republican or Democratic puppets, and instead vote for a lesser-known candidate who represents us much more accurately. Stop pandering to the TV elites and make a statement. For heaven's sake, please don't sit home on Election Day 2008 whining that the US is going to hell in a handbasket. Do a little research now, make your decision, then get out there and vote for the candidate you like best. Even if your candidate has no real chance of winning the election, you will feel so much better for having voted your conscience and your convictions. Take it from me, I did it in '04.

If only enough of us could begin summoning the courage to do this over the next couple of decades, presidential elections would grow very interesting. Imagine watching the news on election night 2008 and seeing the two top puppets each garner only 45 percent of the popular vote. Then imagine watching the report in 2012 and seeing the top two puppets attain only 40 percent each. It's up to us who we vote for, not the corporate-owned media. Let's begin the positive trend to independent voting now. At the very least, this will shake up the system and get the puppets nervous.

In recent months, numerous Americans have become fascinated with Texas representative Ron Paul--and rightly so. Here is a candidate free of ties to the powerful special interest groups; he is pro-life, opposes same-sex "marriage" and the Iraq war, intends to abolish the income tax, plans to fix the immigration problem, and would cut the stranglehold of big business over the federal government. To top it all off, Ron Paul exhibits the integrity that Americans thought Bush had in 2000.

Personally I disagree with Paul's idea that all foreign aid is unconstitutional. However, I would much rather see him president than Romney, Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Hillary, Obama, or Biden.

Let's not kid ourselves that Paul will win the Republican or Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2008. I do believe he could be nominated by a third party. But is Paul the only real option for America?

**To be continued in my next Diary.**

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

More On Olson: Yuck! This sure as hell isn't a good thing

Ted Olson leading candidate to be nominated AG -ugghh

By joan reports
09/12/2007 09:09:18 PM EST

Reports this morning are Olson is rising today to the top as a candidate to be named the replacement of Gonzales as AG. But Olson's just 1 more in a line of partisan warriors - not what the country desperately needs now for tarnished DoJ with its compromised attorney offices.

The role of service by Olson in his deception to Congress and to the public, like that of Laurence Silberman, was to hide the carefully buried truths of the Iran-Contra fiasco.

Both men's names were touted as leading choices for Bush's next nominee to the post. Silberman staged an intercession aimed to stymie Jimmy Carter's negotiations to get our hostages freed from captivity in Tehran in the fall of 1980 -- so that his man Reagan could gain from the impasse and get elected. The resulting arms-for-hostages award for the release of the men after Reagan was elected was defended strenuously with "mistruth"by Olson.

Fast forward to the 90s. The writing by attorney Theodore Olson of anonymous articles for the Spectator magazine for the Arkansas Project, aiming to smear and destroy the Clinton presidency, is an exquisitely close reminder of the anonymous writings of recent DoJ lawyer Hans von Spakovsky in a legal journal to secretly tout voter ID laws, to advance a law that reliably shaves the vote of poor, elderly, minority (that is, Democratic-leaning) citizens.

That, and falling in love with another woman 1 year after your wife was killed on 9-11, does not qualify you for the post. (Sorry for the low blow, but this man was all about low blows.)

Oh, and there was his role stopping the recount of votes in 2000. In the case Bush v. Gore argued in front of the US Supreme Court, Olson persuaded 5 of the justices that the equal right to have your vote re-counted should trump the equal right to have your vote counted (first time). There is overwhelming evidence that people's admission to the polling place and processing of votes across different county and technologies was vastly unequal in 2000. Still true in 2002, 2004, ..., 2008.

A legacy for justice. Or perhaps injustice.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Petraeus is Paying The Sunni Sheiks to Side With U.S.

So, the question arises, Why the hell weren't we paying Iraqis (Sunni, Shia, whomever, to side with us all along, by hiring them to re-build their own country instead of Halliburton and other pet corporations of the administration and to secure their own country, instead of American mercenaries like Blackwater.

Then again, maybe we have been paying them to turn on each other. Maybe that is where much of the lost money, weapons and military equipment went.

Thing is, these warlords will take as much money as we will give them and all the weaponry they can find, but the minute the money is cut off, they will switch sides. This is one of the tactics by which we will be finally defeated. Bush is just trying to buy time. This strategy is going nowhere and they all know it.

No one should be so delusional as to think that any Iraqi is the natural ally of the U.S., now.

They all have the same enemies and none of those names are Arabic. They are Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld and others known as well to them as to us.

We are the problem. How can we,therefore, be the solution.

The snippet below is from a London Times article awhile back.

"American forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow....

"In a letter to US troops, the general wrote that 'local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists and establishing provisional units of neighbourhood security volunteers.'

"The Sunday Times has witnessed at first hand the enormous sums of cash changing hands. One sheikh in a town south of Baghdad was given $38,000 (£19,000) and promised a further $189,000 over three months to drive Al-Qaeda fighters from a nearby camp...."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

What Now, Congress?

This article speaks of what Democrats plan to do or not do. We are more concerned with the Congress, period, since the Democrats do not have anywhere near a veto proof majority in the Senate.

Little will be slipping down the old memory hole between now and the election in 2008, and we don't really give a damn who continues to vote for this incredibly vile war nor do we care which party they are in. They will pay for their continuing support of what is essentially the mother of all war crimes.

While the Bushites may have stopped using the term, "stay the course," that is exactly what they are doing in an effort to dump Junior's failures in someone else's lap.

Democrats Weigh Moves on Troop Cut

By CQ Staff |

10:05 AM; Sep. 11, 2007

By John M. Donnelly and Josh Rogin, CQ Staff

After the top U.S. general in Iraq recommended the withdrawal of some 30,000 troops by next summer, Democratic leaders now must decide whether to press for legislation that would bring troops home sooner.

In more than six hours of testimony Monday, Gen. David H. Petraeus told a joint hearing of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees that a Marine Corps unit that typically totals about 2,200 personnel can come home this month, and an Army brigade, about 3,500 soldiers, can return home in December.

His recommendations, which President Bush has indicated he will adopt when he reports to Congress on the progress of the war by Sept. 15, appeared to complicate the Iraq calculus for Democrats, who have been planning to introduce compromise legislation as soon as next week that would require the beginning of a troop reduction by the end of the year but would include no deadline for completing the withdrawal.

Petraeus’ recommendation also takes political pressure off Republicans, who had warned that they might break away from supporting Bush’s Iraq strategy if Petraeus could not show progress in his testimony.

Petraeus said that in 2008 he plans to bring home the remainder of the roughly 30,000 U.S. forces that Bush added this year in Iraq as part of his so-called surge strategy, which would reduce U.S. forces there to the pre-surge level of about 130,000. That decrease was all but inevitable, however, because the Pentagon cannot sustain the larger force without extending tours of duty, which officials have rejected.

But Petraeus, who testified along with the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said he would disclose in March how soon U.S. troop levels could go below 130,000. A more rapid withdrawal would lead to “catastrophic consequences” in Iraq, he warned.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., responded that the Petraeus plan was too little, too late and called on the administration to pull out more troops sooner.

“The president promised the American people that this surge would be a short-term effort to provide space for political reform and national reconciliation in Iraq,” she said in a statement. “Today, despite overwhelming evidence that neither goal has been achieved, Gen. Petraeus testified that the surge would last at least until next summer. This is simply unacceptable.”

In the Senate, where Petraeus and Crocker are scheduled to appear Tuesday before the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees, Democrats also expressed skepticism about their testimony.

“Nothing today suggested that President Bush’s eight months of escalation have done anything to achieve political progress in a deadly civil war,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

But translating such protests into legislation will be no easy task, and in coming days Democrats in both chambers will have to sort out their next steps. Although the defense authorization bill (HR 1585) is scheduled to return to the Senate floor next week, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has not decided whether to consider any Iraq-related amendments to it or to take up the issue in stand-alone bills. Democrats are mulling over several such ­measures.

Senate Democrats were expected to continue to put political pressure on the administration Tuesday, pressing Petraeus and Crocker not only to bring more troops home sooner but also to change the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Changing the Mission

“The biggest [question] for me is: If they are asking for more time, it’s to do what?” said Ben Nelson, D-Neb., a Senate Armed Services Committee member who is leading moderates in an effort to write new Iraq legislation that would force a change in mission away from policing sectarian strife.

The challenge for Democrats will be to move beyond rhetoric. They had previously endorsed legislation that would set firm dates for starting a withdrawal of most troops this year and ending it in April. In recent weeks, they started drafting alternatives that would drop the end date.

Now Petraeus has pre-empted that idea by recommending that Bush begin a withdrawal this year.

As a result, Democrats in both chambers are expected to focus on how quickly troop levels can drop from the current level of 168,000 to 130,000 and then fewer. Many Democrats said Monday that although it may not be clear where they will end up legislatively, they are not going along with the schedule that Petraeus laid out.

“The battle lines are exactly the same,’’ said Louise M. Slaughter, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Rules Committee.

“If what Gen. Petraeus said is that things are getting better and let’s wait for next summer, we won’t go along with that,’’ Slaughter said as she entered Pelosi’s office for a late-afternoon leadership meeting to discuss Iraq strategy, among other topics.

Chief Deputy Majority Whip Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., said the 2007 part of Petraeus’ withdrawal plan is not sufficient.

“It’s a beginning, but it’s not nearly as big or as much as people would like to see,” he said.

Republicans, however, said the Petraeus plan represented a real change of course.

“I don’t think beginning the drawdown, particularly since some of it comes immediately, is saying, ‘Stay the course,’ ” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters in a conference call. “I think what it’s saying is that what we’re doing is successful.”

Hey, Mitch, If that is what it means why didn't Petraeus simply say that. What he said was that there would be a 30,000 troop draw down in June of next year. Due to troop rotations, that many troops would have to come home anyhow, or start losing their minds, committing suicide or war crimes. Petraeus said that he could request they be held over, so therefore it was a drawdown. Say what?

Only 5,700 personnel (not all combat troops) will be leaving this year. Wonder when they arrived in-country this time? This is all total B.S.; political cover for Goopers.

Petraeus undermined not only the Democrats’ budding legislation but also the criticism some of them had leveled against his credentials. Several Democrats had said Petraeus would be delivering a report written by Bush or that Petraeus had doctored data on security trends. MoveOn.org stirred partisan passions with a full-page New York Times ad questioning Petraeus’ veracity under the headline, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”

Petraeus began his testimony with a shot at such contentions.

“Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself,” he said as he began his remarks. “It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or Congress.”

Petraeus appeared to successfully parry Democratic assaults on the surge strategy Monday, countering their claims of failure with statistics that showed a sharp decrease in violence over the past eight months. Crocker acknowledged that there had been little political progress by the Iraqi government, but he pointed to progress at the local level, where Sunnis have joined U.S. forces in the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq and have offered to join the Iraqi army and national police. He said the central government had responded by sending more money to Sunni areas.

Democrats also found it difficult to sustain their questioning because each lawmaker was limited to five minutes in the hearing, which more than 100 members attended.

Alan K. Ota, Adam Graham-Silverman, Bart Jansen, Kathleen Hunter and Edward Epstein contributed to this story.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Senator Webb Agrees: Call Adm. Fallon To The Hill

It's beginning to seem that MoveOn.org's advertisement on TeeVee wasn't all that far off.

No wonder the far-right and neocon pundits are screaming bloody murder. That's what they always do when someone hits the nail on the head.

Just a thought...if Junior fires Fallon, impeachment hearings should begin forthwith. To hell with everything else. Bush and his whole gang of rotten thugs must go.


During the Iraq war, the Central Command (CENTCOM) head — who leads U.S. operations in the entire Middle East region — and the Multinational Force Commander (MNF) have regularly testified together about the course of the war in Iraq.

Former-MNF Commander Gen. George Casey and his CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid constantly briefed Congress about the situation in Iraq and its regional effects. In at least four public hearings after Casey took office in 2004, the pair testified together:

Senate Armed Services [6/23/05]

House Armed Services [6/23/05]

House Armed Services [9/29/05]

Senate Armed Services [9/29/05]

In January, President Bush replaced Abizaid and Casey, who were “surge” skeptics, with Adm. William Fallon and Gen. David Petraeus. This week, Petraeus — in the first public hearings since taking on his new role — delivered his Iraq assessment to great media fanfare. But where was his boss, Admiral Fallon? Inter-Press Service suggests animosity between the two might be one reason for Fallon’s absence:

Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

The Washington Post reported this weekend that there is an internal military debate, described as “Armageddon,” brewing between Petraeus and Fallon because the two men have “profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq.”

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) announced today that he will be asking Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to call Fallon to testify on “his views on the region.” Webb decried the lack of independence in Petraeus’s reporting, observing that there are “a lot of control factors going on that haven’t been visible” from the one-sided testimony of Petraeus:

WEBB: [T]here’s something of a kabuki going on right now. You know, the Petraeus report was brought in. On the one hand they’re calling it independent; on the other, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, from my understanding, gave a one-hour exclusive interview to Fox News after their first day of testimony. […]

So it was a very narrow and focused two days of hearings…we need to hear from people like Admiral Fallon and others to get a sense of how the region is in play. … He was, by many accounts, questioning keeping these troop levels this high. […]

So I’m going to be recommending to Senator Levin that we get Admiral Fallon in and get his views on the region.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Adm. Fallon: Petraeus is an ass-kissing chickenshit

Adm. Fallon is not, it seems a man to mince words.

Why doesn't Congress call him up to the Hill?


U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on to develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."

By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists.

Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region.

Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been determined to achieve results "as soon as possible". The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.

Fallon also expressed great scepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' "

One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" -- a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.

Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of U.S. occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.

During the summer, according to the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began to develop his own plans for redefine the U.S. mission in Iraq, including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the U.S. troop strength by the end of 2009.

The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend. Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential threats in the region.

Fallon's presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus's recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus's role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation's highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.

Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.

Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. "If you are Navy captain and don't have two or three enemies, you're not doing your job," says the source.

Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

A crucial element of Petraeus's path of advancement in the Army, on the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton. His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success.

The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict over Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between U.S. military leaders in recent history.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.