My years as an Iraq war reporter

 

From The Times

May 6, 2009

Deborah Haynes gets a friendly soaking from a US pilot after landing in the Green Zone in Baghdad

Image :1 of 5

 

Deborah Haynes

The bundle of $3,000 felt uncomfortable stuffed into my knickers, but I had been advised to stash it there in case my taxi was hijacked during the road trip to Baghdad from Amman. Thankfully, the 11 hours passed uneventfully, apart from a moment of fear as we drove close to Fallujah. It was 2004, and already the city was feared by foreigners. My driver, a Palestinian man, told me to lie down so as not to be seen. Heart-pounding, I pushed the passenger seat right back and lay still until the all-clear. A few weeks later insurgents ambushed, beat and burnt to death four private security guards in Fallujah. Their bodies were strung from a bridge.

It was my first time in the Middle East. I had pleaded with my employer at the time, the French news agency AFP, to let me report on the war, despite having no experience of covering conflict and little knowledge of the region. I didn’t even know what the weather was going to be like. Seeing on the internet that it was snowing in Jordan, I’d packed a ski jacket and snow boots, but Iraq was enjoying a warm spell and I was too embarrassed to admit my error. After a week of suffering, the early stages of trench foot set in. Thankfully, an Iraqi colleague took pity and bought me a pair of flip-flops.

Another wardrobe blunder was the sleeveless tops that I brought along, failing to consider the conservative dress code. This was hammered home when I overheard an American official tell someone: “That blonde reporter will get herself shot if she carries on like that.” He had seen me jump out of my car and sprint across a bridge to the Health Ministry for a press conference, wearing slightly transparent white trousers and a less than baggy T-shirt.

Reporting in Baghdad was the ultimate challenge. The car bombs, airstrikes, ambushes and mortar fire meant no shortage of action; while the attempt to create a new government offered an insight into the complicated tribal and religious fabric of Iraqi society. There was also a crazy sense of chaos. No one obeyed the law because there was no one to enforce it. Well, the US soldiers did, but the thing to remember about them was to steer clear, particularly in the early days when nervous young troops had a reputation for shooting first and asking questions later.

As friendly as they were to me — I remember one US explosives expert handing me a skipping-rope handle-shaped detonator and inviting me to set off a roadside bomb by giving it a “man tug” — there was no forgetting the danger that they represented to civilians. I met one Iraqi boy after he had been shot in the head when his uncle failed to heed a stop warning at a checkpoint. He was treated at a US hospital and survived, but he will always have a problem with his eyes and legs because of the injury.

Our office in early 2004 was in a small hotel in central Baghdad. I remember e-mailing friends at home about the hotel defence: a spiky wire across the ground that was manned by a couple of sleepy-looking guards. “It wouldn’t stop a suicide rollerblader,” I joked. Protection was minimal because there had been few attacks against Westerners, but that changed within my first few weeks. One night, a rocket skimmed over our roof and slammed into the one opposite. The noise was terrifying. I hit the floor along with my colleagues.

Thankfully, no one was hurt. Without thinking, I raced outside to see if any more missiles were falling and scrambled upstairs to the roof. Suddenly a second rocket exploded near by, making me dive under a sheet of corrugated iron. That night, seven hotels containing foreigners were hit, including one by a car bomb.

Friends and family thought that I was mad wanting to work in Baghdad but my mum and dad supported me, even if it meant sleepless nights for them. I failed to get in touch as often as I should have but, that said, making phone calls was problematic. Initially, communication was via walkie-talkie — handy for filing news to the Baghdad bureau but useless for personal calls. Besides, using one of these brick-like contraptions was always a bit of a spectacle because you had to yell through the speaker. Satellite phones had the range but because of the expense were restricted to work calls. Fortunately mobile phones caught on that summer, though the network remained infuriatingly patchy.

Most of the comforts that we take for granted in Britain either don’t exist or don’t work well in Iraq. Electricity in our hotel was cut so frequently that conversations would continue without pause when the room was plunged into darkness. Our supply was relatively reliable; many Iraqi families exist on only a few hours of electricity a day.

After spending seven weeks in Baghdad, I returned to my beat covering world trade and United Nations agencies in Geneva, but I did another two stints that year, before returning at the end of 2005 and the start of 2006, by which time the violence had spiralled out of control.

One of my scariest moments was covering the aftermath of a suicide car bomb against a General Electric convoy in June 2004 that left 13 people dead, including three GE workers. One of three sports utility vehicles was destroyed along with those on board. Passengers in the other two cars escaped but abandoned their transport. An angry crowd of Iraqi men had gathered by the time I arrived. I spotted what looked like the charred torsos of two victims through the shattered windscreen of the bombed SUV. They were the first dead bodies that I had seen in Iraq, but the situation was too chaotic to register any emotion. As I stood amid the wreckage, the mob began to shout anti-American slogans and wave sticks. Iraqi police and US soldiers were also there. The police shot into the air, but the gunfire only aggravated the men further.

Suddenly the rioters surged towards me. My instinct was to run but my Iraqi interpreter told me to remain calm and walk clear. Looking back, I saw the crowd climb on to one of the vehicles, smash the windows and set it ablaze. We sheltered in a nearby police box until things calmed down and my interpreter was able to talk to the mob. It was safer for him to go without me, a hated Westerner.

By the end of that year, it became imperative to adopt a disguise to hide my blonde hair and blue eyes. I always felt like one of the idiotic Thomson and Thompson detectives in Tintin when I donned a long, black robe and headscarf, as if I was stereotyping the Iraqi population. Despite these misgivings, the garb enabled me to venture outside, though trips became limited because of the kidnap threat.

One of the bleakest days was when news broke that Margaret Hassan, the Anglo-Irish aid worker, had been shot dead several weeks after being kidnapped by Sunni extremists. That these people could kill a 59-year-old woman who had lived in Iraq for three decades and had dedicated her life to the country was a wake-up call. I was too scared to leave my hotel for a fortnight. Even when an Iraqi official sent two cars packed with armed guards to take me out for lunch, I got as far as the hotel car park before losing my nerve and retreating back indoors.

Insurgency warfare is a strange creature. Attacks are shocking only until something worse happens. This generates a kind of acceptance of the violence. For example, a bomb that killed 15 people in 2004 would dominate the news. Three years later it would barely be given a mention. News wires used to mark “urgent” the death of a US soldier. By 2006, three needed to die to get such attention.

I hated this sense of war fatigue not because the lack of interest meant fewer stories in the paper for me but because bombs still shattered Iraqi lives and the outside world no longer reacted. The longer that I spent in Iraq, the more painful it became to see the devastation wrought.

Speak to any ordinary Iraqi and he or she will have a story of suffering that would be impossible for most British people to conceive. One woman described how her husband was shot dead by militiamen in front of her. Months later, the widow’s father was kidnapped and drilled to death. The woman still managed a smile as she spoke of her hope for the future.

People ask me whether I think it was all worthwhile — a difficult question as I never visited Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power. But I can’t help feeling, whether or not Iraq becomes a stable country, that nothing will compensate for the hundreds of thousands of lives lost or damaged.

Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad was not all about death and fear. It was possible to relax by the two circular pools at our hotel but even then, mysteriously, helicopters would always seem to circle overhead whenever a female reporter went for a dip, while staff from the hotel would also find a stubborn stain on the tiles by the water’s edge that would require attention for the duration of the swim.

There was a fairly lively social scene, even in the darkest days, with different bureaus throwing parties within their blast-walled compounds or holding impromptu gatherings that ended with bursts of late-night dancing to Madonna classics. I broke two mobile phones diving fully clothed into a swimming pool at our hotel during one particularly lively bash.

The fortified Green Zone conceals a titillating nightlife that is ready to be sampled, provided you know the right people to get your name on the guest list — namely someone from one of the many foreign missions. Some of the most surreal experiences are the parties at the Italian Embassy. Imagine freshly-cooked pizza, toxic cocktails and dancing on a balcony that overlooks a courtyard where diplomats, aid workers and journalists groove to thumping Euro-pop. In the summer, the Italian guards would strip down to the waist and spray revellers with cold water.

There were lonely and frustrating times as well. Even buying groceries was tricky. I used to get one of my drivers to pick up fruit and cans of tuna and sweetcorn for me from the local supermarket because going myself involved taking both drivers and a guard. I also missed my friends, though I struck up friendships with fellow journalists, hanging out watching DVDs or gossiping. A young Iraqi woman who once worked as an interpreter for the US military, but quit because of personal problems, would also regularly pop round for a coffee and a chat about her troubled love life.

I became an Iraq correspondent for The Times in May 2007. At the time, death squads ruled parts of Baghdad and hundreds of civilians were killed each week. Ten days after my arrival, five British men were kidnapped from a Finance Ministry compound by scores of gunmen dressed in police uniform. Two years later they are still being held, pawns in a much larger political game.

Running the Times bureau — also inside a rundown Baghdad hotel — was a novel experience. Within six months, my interpreter fled to Syria, claiming that he had been the target of a kidnap plot, and one of my security guards quit after being caught up in a roadside bomb or car crash — he never quite got his story straight. A second guard has since been arrested. He is still in jail, though, as far as I can make out, has not yet been charged. Thankfully, two drivers, a pair of brothers who have worked for the paper since the invasion, remain on the team. They treated me like a sister, always making sure that I felt safe and cheering me up if I looked glum. My last interpreter was also a lovely character who provided an invaluable viewpoint on Iraq, correcting me whenever I made a cultural mistake, such as trying to shake an Iraqi man’s hand — many prefer not to shake hands with women.

It was hard to say goodbye after five years, but I know (or I hope) that I’ll be back. Until then I must watch from a distance as the country tries to recover, though I worry what will happen as American forces pull out. There has been a gradual improvement in security over the past year, but bombs continue to claim lives and it remains unwise to shed guards and disguises. That said, in my final days in Baghdad in April I sometimes cruised around with just a driver and stayed calm if I’d forgoten to pack a headscarf.

Back in East London, it is taking time to adjust to “normal life”. On the plus side, I can clean my teeth without fear that brown-coloured liquid will spurt out of the tap. And, of course, I no longer have to keep cash in my underwear.

(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.

Do They Have Television In Alaska?

Does she honestly believe that or is she just speaking to her base; the ones who don't believe in science, that the earth is round or that the moon isn't made of green-cheese.

At troop deployment ceremony, Palin links 9/11 to Iraq. Video

Earlier today, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin linked the Iraq war to the attacks of September 11, 2001, “telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would ‘defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.’” “America can never go back to that false sense of security that came before September 11, 2001,” said Palin at the deployment ceremony.

As the Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut points out, “The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself.”

(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.

Independents Unbound and Scott McLellan

WASHINGTON — The White House called former press secretary Scott McClellan "disgruntled" after he wrote a blistering review of the administration and concluded that his longtime boss misled the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq in a book due out Monday.

That's what they said about Paul O'Neil and just about anyone who has written or said anything negative about this appalling administration and who has been on the inside, Everyone else they just ignored, like the millions of demonstrators, most of them peaceful, world wide, who begged, pleaded and demanded that this war not happen. But as we all know, George Bush and Dick Cheney, for different and some of the same reasons, were going into Iraq if it hair-lipped hell and half of Georgia. Where, Scott, are the apologies to us; those who opposed this war in the streets and on blogs, letters to editors (which were rarely published) and letters to our congress critters. Why can't the Right ever just simply apologize to their fellow Americans who were right about this administration and this hellish war? That would go a long way toward unifying this country again. My strong hunch is that the Rights' last wish is unity. That which is referred to as the Left in this country is, more often than not, moderates who simply see things as they are and they don't like it one bit and so they move to the left. Seems the only thing to do when the Right has slipped into a very dangerous theocratic fascism that will destroy this nation just as surely as Hitler and his band of happy corporatists brought on the destruction of Germany.

"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided — that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder," McClellan wrote in "What Happened," due out Monday. "No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact."

Scott, we are already feeling it's impact and it is only going to get worse because no matter whom we elect in November, the Bush administration has made sure that the final collapse will be on someone else's watch. But history will know who caused this catastrophe for our nation and for the Iraqi people, as well as others around the globe who will suffer as a result of being to closely tied to us and our economy (read sociopathic corporations which form this horrendous empire).

"What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary," he wrote in the preface.

So, it was a war of aggression, Just as we all said it was, the mother of all war crimes, from which other war crimes are born, like the son's of the real Whore of Babylon, the multinational corporations, which are raping and pillaging a land for no good reason, killing and torturing innocent people who have never been any threat to us. Of course, this is only the most obvious incidence of that. It has been going on for years. Just ask the people of Bhopal, India.

Scott, why haven't your blown your own brains out by now, like many of our soldiers who cannot sleep and have nightmares of wrong doing and risking their lives for George W Bush and his corporate pals? I can't help but wonder.

White House aides seemed stunned by the scathing tone of the book, and Bush press secretary Dana Perino issued a statement that was highly critical of their former colleague.

Oh who cares what that addled bitch has to say? She is simply a better liar than Scott.

"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," she said. "For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad - this is not the Scott we knew."

Perino said the reports on the book had been described to Bush, and that she did not expect him to comment. "He has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers," she said.

Yeah I bet he won't care to comment. I doubt anyone but the usual 30 percent of delusional "bags of hammers" in America would listen anyway.

The volume makes McClellan, a Texan picked by the president and paid by the people to help sell the war to the world, the first longtime Bush aide to put such harsh criticism between hard covers. It is an extraordinarily critical book that questions Bush's intellectual curiosity, his candor in leading the nation to war, his pattern of self-deception and the quality of his advisers.

His adviser were mostly NeoCon egg heads who, like Bush himself, had never been in a field of battle as a soldier, actually went out of their way to avoid serving their country, even during peace time. Hell, none of them even served in the Peace corps. All of that drudgery is beneath them. yet, they have the unmitigated gall to call Obama an elitist? Black is White, War is Peace, up is down, and Eurasia has always been at war with Oceana. Orwell is spinning in his grave.

"As a Texas loyalist who followed Bush to Washington with great hope and personal affection and as a proud member of his administration, I was all too ready to give him and his highly experienced foreign policy advisers the benefit of the doubt on Iraq," McClellan wrote.

Bad move, Scottie. This should be a lesson to you and everyone else about loyalty, Loyalty is not listed among the virtues for a very good reason. Loyalty, in and of itself, is not a virtue. The Nazis were loyal too, Scott. Having faith, real faith in your own mind, heart and instincts, working in balance, and the courage to step up or down, whatever the situation calls for, is a virtue. Scott, you, like Coln Powell should have stepped down and told the American people the truth then. It doesn't do much good now. But thanks for saying what most of us already knew.

"Unfortunately, subsequent events have showed that our willingness to trust the judgment of Bush and his team was misplaced."

Misplaced isn't the word for it. This administration has committed war crimes and should be in the dock at the Hague and I'm afraid, Scott, confessions in book form, from which you will probably make a mint, won't help you if that day ever comes.

McClellan worked for Bush from 1999, when he signed on as a deputy in the governor's press office, until 2006, when he was forced out as White House press secretary.

"President Bush has always been an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader. He is not one to delve into all the possible policy options — including sitting around engaging in extended debate about them — before making a choice," McClellan wrote. "Rather, he chooses based on his gut and his most deeply held convictions. Such was the case with Iraq."

Which makes him an idiot, just as we have all suspected, People like him, while seeming decisive, are not. Long intellectual, insightful discussions bore him or throw him off balance because he already knows what he wants to do and he's going to do it, because the god-damned Supremes put the idiot in power. Had there been no George Bush in the White House, there probably would have been no 9/11 and if there had been, I doubt very seriously that Al Gore would have started WWIII over it.

In an interview Tuesday, McClellan said he retains great admiration and respect for Bush.

Then you, Sir, are as big an idiot than he is. Why don't you tell that to the grieving families and friends of our fallen.

"My job was to advocate and defend his policies and speak on his behalf," he said. "This is an opportunity for me now to share my own views and perspective on things. There were things we did right and things we did wrong. Unfortunately, much of what went wrong overshadowed the good things we did."

Just following orders, eh? That didn't fly to well at Nuremberg, as I recall.

He said the Bush administration fell into the "permanent campaign" mode that can cripple a White House and has tainted much of Washington.

Of course it did, because from the get-go, it was all about power and creating a one party rule for generations to come. Just ask Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Junior made a very good cheerleader and that was, essentially, his job....well, that and firing any general that disagreed with him.

In the book — subtitled "Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception" — McClellan said that Bush's top advisers, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "played right into his thinking, doing little to question it or cause him to pause long enough to fully consider the consequences before moving forward," according to McClellan.

"Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded," he wrote.

Or intercepted by Cheney

Bush's real motivation for war

In Iraq, McClellan added, Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness," something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.

So, that is why we now have the deaths of millions and their blood on our hands? The man is a twisted sociopath, one of the most narcissistic people I have ever encountered. He should be tried for murder, right along with Cheney, Rice, and all the rest that aided and abetted this insane individual.

The president's real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote.

Of course we wouldn't. Because, it is not our place to transform anything or anyone. We can assist a peoples' own efforts to over throw a cruel dictator and to join with other countries in stopping genocide, But the very thought that this war was about re-creating the middle-east is nothing more than a NeoCon wet-dream and it is sickening. Furthermore, the NeoCons should be treated as just what they are: Real modern day Nazis who feel that it is quite OK to murder millions of innocent people because they have a theory of how wonderful things will be, once the enemy, which seems to be the entire Muslim world, gives up the fight and does what they are told.

Well, problem is, you murderous egg-heads, you don't know your enemy. They won't give up, You can nuke them, and they still won't give up. These people have seen evil empires before. They have seen shock and awe before. All you have done is manage to cause more and more people to hate Americans. You should all be rounded up and put on trial, just like the Nazis, because that is who you really are.

"Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path — not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," he wrote of the effort to convince the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an effort he said used "innuendo and implication" and "intentional ignoring of intelligence to the contrary."

Oh screw all that. They flat out lied to the American people and to Congress, over and over again. Deception and fear-mongering like I have never seen before was on the news every damned day. Calling anti-war people traitors and questioning everyones' patriotism, while all the while, shredding the Constitution and habeas corpus. If I had my way, you would all be hanged on the National Mall, an example to any other presidential candidate and any future administration: The American people will not put up with international criminals in power in this nation, nor enemies of our constitution.

"President Bush managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option," McClellan concluded, noting, "The lack of candor underlying the campaign for war would severely undermine the president's entire second term in office."

Well, of course he did, because he was planning to invade Iraq long before he was even selected. Get real Scott! Do you really believe that he told his public spokesperson the truth about everything? What president does that?

Bush's national security advisers failed to "help him fully understand the tinderbox he was opening," McClellan recalled.

He would have fired them if they did. Just look at all the fired generals, you know the ones he always claims he listens to? General who know w heel of a lot more about war than the slackers in the White House.

"I know the president pretty well. I believe that, if he had been given a crystal ball in which he could have foreseen the costs of war — more than 4,000 American troops killed, 30,000 injured and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead — he would never have made the decision to invade, despite what he might say or feel he has to say publicly today," McClellan wrote.

He would have busted it into a gazillion pieces and gone to war anyway, because he wanted to be a war president. He told any one who would listen that that is what he wanted.

'Plenty smart enough'

In a summation, McClellan said the decision to invade Iraq "goes to an important question that critics have raised about the president: Is Bush intellectually incurious or, as some assert, actually stupid?"

"Bush is plenty smart enough to be president," he concluded. "But as I've noted his leadership style is based more on instinct than deep intellectual debate."

Then, he isn't smart enough. We should not think with our gut. That is not the purpose of the gut, Scott.

McClellan also expresses amazement that Bush seemed flummoxed by a query by NBC's Tim Russert in February 2004 as to whether the invasion of Iraq was "a war of choice or a war of necessity."

"It strikes me today as an indication of his lack of inquisitiveness and his detrimental resistance to reflection," McClellan wrote, "something his advisers needed to compensate for better than they did."

How in the hell can anyone compensate for a stubborn mule who believes he is God's chosen president, with help, I'm very sure, from the TheoCons, and therefore can make no mistakes. No one can compensate for someone who is truly delusional. Besides, they did not want to compensate for it, as his delusion played right into the NeoCon vision as plainly laid out in the Project for the New American Century. Like Mien Kemp, any one who had read the PNAC document, knew exactly what was coming the minute Cheney was chosen as Vice President. I knew when Bush was selected that we would be in Iraq within two years. Afghanistan slowed Bush down a bit, but it would have been hard to ignore Osama all together. That would have seemed too strange even for the most retarded among us, especially the vengeance seekers.

McClellan tracks Bush's penchant for self-deception back to an overheard incident on the campaign trail in 1999 when the then-governor was dogged by reports of possible cocaine use in his younger days.

The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.

"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"

"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?" McClellan wrote. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

That's not all that odd for a full blown alcoholic at a young age, when still partying hardy. He may well have blacked-out regularly. There is no memory trace made-while a person is in a blackout from bathing their CNS in a sedative anesthetic on a regular basis and in large quantities. Of all the insanity that has gone on in the Bush administration, this is run-of-the-mill stuff for an alcoholic. It would have been a good thing to know that he said that before he was president, but now the damage is done.

It is however another plank in the platform for the public demanding that anyone wanting to run for president or vice president have a thorough mental work up, and then every two years, if they should win. If campaigns are so damned rigorous that it causes people to imagine they were under sniper fire when they weren't, just think what the presidency must be like. I would like to be told whether or not he is off his rails. This administration, if not a number of them in my lifetime, convince me that we need reports on the president's and vice president's complete health. This is especially true of a president and vice president who are in office when something terrible does happen, like 9/11.

Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."

Not unless he has to. He would prefer to leave the lying to others. Plausible deniability and all that, don't you know.

"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," McClellan wrote. "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."

Uh huh. That's the reason for everything all of you did because the main goal of this administration, other than the NeoCon thing, was holding power in the Republican party forever.

In the years that followed, McClellan "would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment." McClellan likened it to a witness who resorts to "I do not recall."

The greatest deceiver of all is the deceiver who first completely deceives himself. Scott, you are a Bible-toting republican. Do you remember who the great deceiver is?

"Bush, similarly, has a way of falling back on the hazy memory to protect himself from potential political embarrassment," McClellan wrote, adding, "In other words, being evasive is not the same as lying in Bush's mind."

Of course not, because he is a liar. People who aren't born-liars, like most really good politicians and corporate officers are, know that a lie of omission is as bad as a lie of commission, as long as it is intentional and meant to deceive for personal purposes of self-gain or protection and we know by now that Bush lies are intentional because, you see, they are always done to further his goals or to protect his political power.

And McClellan linked the tactic to the decision to invade Iraq, a decision based on flawed intelligence.

A decision, based on ignored intelligence - not so much flawed as ignored, Scott. Here's the question for you, Scott. How come we all knew, and in "we," I include Obama? We all know that the chances of Saddam having a nuclear weapon within the next 20 years was almost nil and that's the one that always scares Americans witless and your bosses knew that Scott. Americans have a huge fear of karma, especially the nuclear kind, as well we all might. When our very own government uses that against us, then our very own government can be called terrorists. Then they also played the vengeance card, Scott. Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and was tennis partners with Osama at the Baghdad country club or whatever. It was ludicrous, absolutely, ludicrous, and anyone who had the good sense to educate themselves about Islam and its history, after 9/11, would have known it, but you guys count on us being anti-intellectual, dumb-bells, totally incapable of picking up a few books and reading them or even, God forbid, asking Muslims to educate us about what they knew about their own religion and its laws or being capable of understanding anything longer than a sound bite. Didn't God say, "vengeance is mine," Scott? Oops. So, much for the moral high ground, let alone the Christian one.

"It would not be the last time Bush mishandled potential controversy," he said of the cocaine rumors. "But the cases to come would involve the public trust, and the failure to deal with them early, directly and head-on would lead to far greater suspicion and far more destructive partisan warfare," he wrote.

Partisan warfare? If you ask me, there was far less partisan warfare than I would have liked to see, but then I don't trust either of the political parties any further than I could throw Dennis Hastert, and the whimpy way the dembulbs have behaved just proves my point. Anytime some president, I don't care with which party he or she identifies him or herself, makes a lame attempt to lie the American people into an illegal, unjust war, all hell should break lose. The opposing party should go crazy and the news media should go ballistic. (That's how you get the average American's attention.) It isn't patriotic to keep mum at a time like that, nor is it in the best interest of this country or her people.

'Too stubborn to change and grow'

The book also recounts Bush's unwillingness or inability to come up with a mistake he had made when asked by a reporter to do so.

"It became symbolic of a leader unable to acknowledge that he got it wrong, and unwilling to grow in office by learning from his mistake — too stubborn to change and grow," McClellan concluded.

God' chosen president does not make mistakes, Scottie.

The next president had better know how to admit mistakes, because there are a number he will have to admit to, on behalf of our nation. We cannot fix anything until we admit there is a problem. We cannot possibly expect to regain the trust and friendship of the world until we admit that Iraq was not only a huge blunder but was a crime as well and that we, as a people, intend to do all we can to see justice served and the people of Iraq are safe from outside interference at the point of a gun and it's borders secured by a multinational force, including their neighbors, and be able to re-build there own country with the help of the world community. They are a damaged but proud people. What's more, they are a part of the same human family that the we all belong to.They must be protected from those who would harm or steal from them, while they decide what kind of government and life they want for themselves and their progeny. If that is some form of democratic socialism, so be it. The Scandinavians seem to do that well. They are a lot better off than we are.

Capitalism (or the worship of capital) is not the only economic system that goes well with democracy. As a matter of fact, we are seeing that it does not go so well, when it becomes corporatism or fascism, which are the same thing and where capitalism goes off the rails with greed gluttony and lust for power fascism is the result, just as when socialism goes too far, it can become a totalitarian communism that is just as bad for the people. Odd, isn't it, that it is almost always the same "cardinal sins" that push any economic system over the edge; greed is always number one and lust (for power), a close second.

A page later, he recounts what he perceived as a moment of doubt by a president who never expresses any. It occurred in a dimly lit room at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a room where an injured Texas veteran was being watched over by his wife and 7-year-old son as Bush arrived.

The vet's head was bandaged and "he was clearly not aware of his surroundings, the brain injury was severe," McClellan recalled. Bush hugged the wife, told the boy his dad was brave and kissed the injured vet's head while whispering 'God bless you' into his ear.

"Then he turned and walked toward the door," McClellan wrote. "Looking straight ahead, he moved his right hand to wipe away a tear. In that moment, I could see the doubt in his eyes and the vivid realization of the irrevocable consequences of his decision."

Scott, if you were much of a history student, you would know that Hitler, the greatest evil in modern times, one would think, although I can name quite a few more, could not bear to look at the soldiers coming home from the eastern front, the opening of which was a stupid move on his part. Maybe looking at them made him question his own wisdom, as it certainly should have and perhaps it also made him sad. (Of course, Hitler, was a delusional psychopath, made that way by years of self-hatred, a terribly dysfunctional family, fighting in WWI and, finally, the people who surrounded him as he rose to political power, who fueled Hitler's delusions until he thought that he was sent by God to spread the "glories of Nazism" and get rid of what was then called the "Jewish problem."

But, he added, such moments are more than counterbalanced by deceased warriors' families who urge him to make sure the deaths were not in vain.

Since when does more blood honor those already fallen in a senseless war such as this. The best way to honor our fallen is to try our own war criminals or, even better, send them to the Hague and then make it really plain, once and for all, that there will always be a band of citizens watching this government and that a similar fate will befall other leaders who lie to their people about something as serious as war crimes. When America is restored as a nation, a true democratic republic and not a corporate empire, and the people who created this mess are held up before the world and punished according to the roles they played, these soldiers will not have died in vain.

Rice, Cheney not spared from criticism

McClellan's criticism of Rice — who he pegs as "hard to get to know" — is blistering.

"I was struck by how deft she is at protecting her reputation," he wrote. "No matter what went wrong, she was somehow able to keep her hands clean, even when the problems related to matters under her direct purview, including the WMD rationale for the war in Iraq, the decision to invade Iraq ... and post-war planning and implementation of the strategy in Iraq."

With the outstanding exception of Richard Clarke who nailed her big time in his testimony before the 9/11 commission.

McClellan predicts a harsh historical review of Rice.

We are not fooled by her one iota, so don't worry Scott. When war crimes trials are held, she will be right up there with the big boys. If war r=crimes are not held, she will be on someone's hit list.

"But whatever her policy management shortcomings, Rice knew public relations well. She knew how to adapt to potential trouble, dismiss brooding problems and come out looking like a star," he wrote. "Few performed better under the spotlight, glossing over mistakes with her effortless eloquence and understated flair."

In other words, she is intelligent evil, the worst kind.

McClellan brands Vice President Cheney as "the magic man" mysteriously directing outcomes in "every policy area he cared about, from the invasion of Iraq to expansion of presidential power to the treatment of detainees and the use of surveillance against terror suspects."

"Cheney always seemed to get his way," McClellan wrote.

Cheney is a pit viper, slithering around the back halls of power, accountable to no one, unavailable to the press, except for Faux News, almost as evil as he is.

The book is so critical that it becomes difficult to imagine a future scene that Bush predicted on the day that McClellan's forced resignation was announced.

"One of these days," Bush, with McClellan at his side, told reporters that day, "he and I are going to be rocking on chairs in Texas, talking about the good old days and his time as the press secretary. And I can assure you, I will feel the same way then that I feel now, that I can say to Scott, 'Job well done.'"

Maybe McClellan no longer cares to hang out with this bunch. I know I wouldn't be wanting to, especially after they leave the White House.

(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.

Iraq War and American Economic Collapse

Dave Lindorff: The U.S. Economy and the Costs of War

Monday, April 21, 2008 2:29 AM

Is the Iraq War to blame for America's long-term economic decline and for the current economic crisis?

Martin Neil Baily, a chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton, and now director of the business initiative at the Brookings Institution, in an opinion piece that ran Sunday in The New York Times, says no. Claiming to be opposed to the Iraq War, he nonetheless suggests the nearly $500 billion spent on Iraq to date -- all of it borrowed money -- cannot be blamed for the credit crisis, or for high oil prices.

But Baily is looking at things way too narrowly. First of all, as Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel economist and chief economist at the World Bank, has noted that the real cost of the Iraq War is probably now closer to $3 trillion, in terms of future costs of veterans benefits, replacement of equipment, and payment on the debt that has been piling up because of the government's unwillingness to make the public pay for the war in real time. That whopping bill is in the minds of the international investors who have been deserting the dollar in droves, causing it to approach Third World status as a currency.

(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.

Don't Look Back!!!!!

Naughty children to hardened criminals wish people wouldn't look back and examine recent history.

The Road to 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'

By Jason Leopold
March 20, 2008

Editor’s Note: As the war in Iraq enters its sixth year, a common refrain from politicians who supported the invasion is “don’t dwell on the past, think about the future.” It is an argument that distracts Americans from the important lessons that this history can teach.

In this guest article, investigative reporter Jason Leopold recalls that history of how America was misled into the Iraq War:

The Iraq War, which was predicated on the existence of weapons of mass destruction and fear of another 9/11, has resulted in the deaths of nearly 4,000 U.S. troops and has cost taxpayers roughly half-a-trillion dollars. (Estimates of Iraqi dead range into the hundreds of thousands.)

Yet, the invasion of Iraq was conceived prior to 9/11, according to Paul O'Neill, President Bush's first Treasury Secretary. In the book, The Price of Loyalty, journalist Ron Suskind interviewed O'Neill who said that the Iraq War was planned just days after the president was sworn into office.

It was being planned shortly 1992, as soon as the people who wanted it got over their shock that the American people would elect the "adulterous Bubba from Arkansas," rather than Poppy Bush.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told Suskind, adding that going after Saddam Hussein was a priority 10 days after the Bush's inauguration and eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," Suskind said. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As Treasury Secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

O'Neill was fired from his post for disagreeing with Bush's economic policies. In typical White House fashion, senior administration officials have labeled O'Neill a "disgruntled employee," whose latest remarks are "laughable" and have no basis in reality.

But a little known article in the Jan. 11, 2001, edition of the New York Times entitled "Iraq Is Focal Point as Bush Meets with Joint Chiefs" confirms that the incoming Bush administration was working on a plan to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, even before Bush’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2001.

"George W. Bush, the nation's commander in chief to be, went to the Pentagon today for a top-secret session with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review hot spots around the world where he might have to send American forces into harm's way," the Times story says.

Bush was joined at the Pentagon meeting by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

The Times reported that "half of the 75-minute meeting focused on a discussion about Iraq and the Persian Gulf, two participants said. Iraq was the first topic briefed because 'it's the most visible and most risky area Mr. Bush will confront after he takes office, one senior officer said.'"

"Iraqi policy is very much on his mind," one senior Pentagon official told the Times. "Saddam was clearly a discussion point."

WMDs Cited for "Bureaucratic Reasons"

On Sept.13, 2001 – two days after the terror attacks – during a meeting at Camp David with President Bush, Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials, Wolfowitz said he discussed with President Bush the prospects of launching an attack against Iraq, for no apparent reason other than a “gut feeling” Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, and there was a debate “about what place if any Iraq should have in a counter terrorist strategy.”

“On the surface of the debate it at least appeared to be about not whether but when,” Wolfowitz said during a May 9, 2003, interview with Vanity Fair. “There seemed to be a kind of agreement that yes it should be, but the disagreement was whether it should be in the immediate response or whether you should concentrate simply on Afghanistan first. ...

"The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons."

When the United Nations chose Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, in January 2002 to lead a team of U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction Wolfowitz contacted the CIA to produce a report on why Blix, as chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency during the 1980s and 1990s, failed to detect Iraqi nuclear activity, according to an April 15, 2002, report in the Washington Post.

The CIA report said Blix "had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants fully within the parameters he could operate as chief of the Vienna-based agency between 1981 and 1997," according to the Post.

Wolfowitz "hit the ceiling" because the report failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program," according to the Post, quoting a former State Department official familiar with the report.

"The request for a CIA investigation underscored the degree of concern by Wolfowitz and his civilian colleagues in the Pentagon that new inspections – or protracted negotiations over them – could torpedo their plans for military action to remove Hussein from power," the Post reported.

Blix accused the Bush administration of launching a smear campaign against him because he did not find evidence of WMD in Iraq. He said he refused to pump up his reports to the U.N. about Iraq's WMD programs.

In an interview with the London Guardian newspaper, Blix said "U.S. officials pressured him to use more damning language when reporting on Iraq's alleged weapons programs."

"By and large my relations with the U.S. were good,'' Blix told the Guardian. "But toward the end the (Bush) administration leaned on us.'"

White House Iraq Group

The Bush administration needed a vehicle to market a war with Iraq. So, in August 2002, Bush's former Chief of Staff Andrew Card formed the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) to publicize the so-called threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

The WHIG was not only responsible for selling the Iraq War, but it took great pains to discredit anyone who openly disagreed with the official Iraq War story.

The group's members included Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, Bush's former adviser Karen Hughes, then Senior Adviser to the Vice President Mary Matalin, former Deputy Director of Communications James Wilkinson, Assistant to the President and Legislative Liaison Nicholas Calio, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to the vice president and co-author of the administration's pre-emptive strike policy.

Rove chaired the group's meetings. Moreover, Rove's "strategic communications" task force, operating inside the group, was instrumental in writing and coordinating speeches by senior Bush administration officials, highlighting in September 2002 that Iraq was a nuclear threat, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal in October 2005.

Another member of WHIG, John Hannah, along with former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Wolfowitz, were interviewed by FBI officials in 2004, according to a report in the Washington Post, to determine if they were involved in leaking U.S. security secrets to Israel, former head of the Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabi, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

A senior official who participated in the WHIG called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities," according to an Aug. 10, 2003, Washington Post investigative report on the group's inner workings.

During its very first meetings, Card's Iraq group ordered a series of white papers showing Iraq's alleged arms violations. The first paper, "A Grave and Gathering Danger: Saddam Hussein's Quest for Nuclear Weapons," was never published. However, the paper was drafted with the assistance of experts from the National Security Council and Cheney's office.

"In its later stages, the draft white paper coincided with production of a National Intelligence Estimate and its unclassified summary. But the WHIG, according to three officials who followed the white paper's progress, wanted gripping images and stories not available in the hedged and austere language of intelligence," according to the Washington Post.

Judith Miller and the Mushroom Cloud

The group relied heavily on New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who, after meeting with several of the organization's members in August 2002, wrote an explosive story that many critics of the war believe laid the groundwork for military action against Iraq.

On Sept. 8, 2002, Miller wrote a front-page story for the Times, quoting anonymous officials who said aluminum tubes found in Iraq were to be used as centrifuges. Her report said the "diameter, thickness and other technical specifications" of the tubes - precisely the grounds for skepticism among nuclear enrichment experts - showed that they were "intended as components of centrifuges."

She closed her piece by quoting then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who said the United States would not sit by and wait to find a smoking gun to prove its case, possibly in the form of a "a mushroom cloud."

After Miller's piece was published, administration officials pressed their case on Sunday talk shows, using Miller's piece as evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear bomb, even though those officials had helped supply Miller with the story.

Rice's comments on CNN's "Late Edition" reaffirmed Miller's story. Rice said Saddam Hussein was "actively pursuing a nuclear weapon" and that the tubes - described repeatedly in U.S. intelligence reports as "dual-use" items - were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs ... centrifuge programs."

Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," also mentioned the aluminum tubes story in the Times and said "increasingly, we believe the United States will become the target" of an Iraqi atomic bomb. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, on CBS's "Face the Nation," asked viewers to "imagine a September 11th with weapons of mass destruction."

The Cincinnati Speech

In October 2002, President Bush gave a speech in Cincinnati and spoke about the imminent threat Iraq posed to the U.S. because of Iraq's alleged ties with al-Qaeda and its endless supply of chemical and biological weapons

"Surveillance photos reveal that the (Iraqi) regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons," Bush said. "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

“We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.

“And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it."

Also in October 2002, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld ordered the military's regional commanders to rewrite all their war plans to capitalize on precision weapons, better intelligence, and speedier deployment in the event the United States decided to invade Iraq.

The goal, Rumsfeld said, was to use fewer ground troops, a move that caused dismay among some in the military who said concern for the troops requires overwhelming numerical superiority to assure victory.

Rumsfeld refused to listen to his military commanders, saying that his plan would allow "the military to begin combat operations on less notice and with far fewer troops than thought possible - or thought wise - before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks," the New York Times reported on Oct. 13, 2002.

"Looking at what was overwhelming force a decade or two decades ago, today you can have overwhelming force, conceivably, with lesser numbers because the lethality is equal to or greater than before," Rumsfeld told the Times.

Rumsfeld said too many of the military plans on the shelves of the regional war-fighting commanders were freighted with outdated assumptions and military requirements, which have changed with the advent of new weapons and doctrines.

It has been a mistake, he said, to measure the quantity of forces required for a mission and "fail to look at lethality, where you end up with precision-guided munitions, which can give you 10 times the lethality that a dumb weapon might, as an example," according to the Times report.

Through a combination of pre-deployments, faster cargo ships and a larger fleet of transport aircraft, the military would be able to deliver "fewer troops but in a faster time that would allow you to have concentrated power that would have the same effect as waiting longer with what a bigger force might have," Rumsfeld said.

Critics in the military said there were several reasons to deploy a force of overwhelming numbers before starting any offensive with Iraq. Large numbers illustrate U.S. resolve and can intimidate Iraqi forces into laying down their arms or even turning against Hussein's government.

The new approach for how the U.S. might go to war, Rumsfeld said in a speech in 2002, reflects an assessment of the need after 9/11 to refresh war plans continuously and to respond faster to threats from terrorists and nations possessing biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

Silencing Experts

One of the most vocal opponent of the administration's prewar Iraq intelligence was David Albright, a former United Nations weapons inspector and the president and founder of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a Washington, D.C.-based group that gathers information for the public and the White House on nuclear weapons programs.

In a March 10, 2003, report posted on the ISIS website, Albright accused the CIA of twisting the intelligence related to the aluminum tubes.

"The CIA has concluded that these tubes were specifically manufactured for use in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium," Albright said. "Many in the expert community both inside and outside government, however, do not agree with this conclusion.

“The vast majority of gas centrifuge experts in this country and abroad who are knowledgeable about this case reject the CIA's case and do not believe that the tubes are specifically designed for gas centrifuges. In addition, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have consistently expressed skepticism that the tubes are for centrifuges."

"After months of investigation, the administration has failed to prove its claim that the tubes are intended for use in an Iraqi gas centrifuge program," Albright added. "Despite being presented with evidence countering this claim, the administration persists in making misleading comments about the significance of the tubes."

Albright said he took his concerns about the intelligence information to White House officials, but was rebuffed and told to keep quiet.

"I first learned of this case a year and a half ago when I was asked for information about past Iraqi procurements. My reaction at the time was that the disagreement reflected the typical in-fighting between U.S. experts that often afflicts the intelligence community. I was frankly surprised when the administration latched onto one side of this debate in September 2002. I was told that this dispute had not been mediated by a competent, impartial technical committee, as it should have been, according to accepted practice," Albright said.

"I became dismayed when a knowledgeable government scientist told me that the administration could say anything it wanted about the tubes while government scientists who disagreed were expected to remain quiet," he said.

Albright said the Department of Energy, which analyzed the intelligence information on the aluminum tubes and rejected the CIA's intelligence analysis, is the only government agency in the U.S. that can provide expert opinions on gas centrifuges (what the CIA alleged the tubes were being used for) and nuclear weapons programs.

"For over a year and a half, an analyst at the CIA has been pushing the aluminum tube story, despite consistent disagreement by a wide range of experts in the United States and abroad," Albright said. "His opinion, however, obtained traction in the summer of 2002 with senior members of the Bush Administration, including the President. The administration was forced to admit publicly that dissenters exist, particularly at the Department of Energy and its national laboratories."

But Albright said the White House launched an attack against experts who spoke critically of the intelligence.

"Administration officials try to minimize the number and significance of the dissenters or unfairly attack them," Albright said. "For example, when Secretary Powell mentioned the dissent in his Security Council speech, he said: ‘Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.’ Not surprisingly, an effort by those at the Energy Department to change Powell's comments before his appearance was rebuffed by the administration."

The 16 Words Were False

Eleven days before President Bush's Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address in which he stated that the United States learned from British intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Africa, the State Department told the CIA that key intelligence behind the uranium claims may have been forgeries.

The revelation of the warning was contained in a closely guarded State Department memo, which didn’t surface until April 2006. On Jan. 12, 2003, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) "expressed concerns to the CIA that the documents pertaining to the Iraq-Niger deal were forgeries," the memo dated July 7, 2003, says.

Moreover, the memo said that the State Department's doubts about the veracity of the uranium claims may have been expressed to the intelligence community even earlier.

Those concerns, according to the memo, are the reasons that former Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to cite the uranium claims when he appeared before the United Nations in Feb. 5, 2003, a week after Bush's State of the Union address.

"After considerable back and forth between the CIA, the (State) Department, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association), and the British, Secretary Powell's briefing to the U.N. Security Council did not mention attempted Iraqi procurement of uranium due to CIA concerns raised during the coordination regarding the veracity of the information on the alleged Iraq-Niger agreement," the memo further states.

Iraq's interest in the yellowcake uranium caught the attention of Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Association. ElBaradei had read a copy of the National Intelligence Estimate and had personally contacted the State Department and the National Security Council in hopes of obtaining evidence so his agency could look into it.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who made the rounds on the cable news shows in March 2003, tried to discredit ElBaradei's conclusion that the documents were forged.

"I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," Cheney said. "[The IAEA] has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past."

As it turns out, ElBaradei was correct, the declassified State Department showed.

The declassified State Department memo was obtained by The New York Sun under a Freedom of Information Act request the newspaper filed in July 2005. The Sun's story, however, did not say anything about the State Department's warnings more than a week before Bush's State of the Union address about the bogus Niger documents.

The memo was drafted by Carl Ford Jr., the former head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, in response to questions posed in June 2003 by "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, about a February 2002 fact-finding trip to Niger that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson undertook to investigate the uranium claims on behalf of the CIA.

The Ambassador Emerges

A day after Bush's Jan.28, 2003, State of the Union address, Wilson said he reminded a friend at the State Department that he (Wilson) had traveled to Niger in February 2002 to investigate whether Iraq attempted to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger, according to Wilson’s July 6, 2003, op-ed published in the New York Times.

In his book, The Politics of Truth, Wilson's said his State Department friend replied that "perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case."

But Wilson was certain that the administration was trying to sell a war that was based on phony intelligence. In March 2003, Wilson began to publicly question the administration's use of the Niger claims without disclosing his role in traveling to Niger in February 2002 to investigate it. Wilson's criticism of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence caught the attention of Cheney, Libby and Hadley.

In an interview that took place two-and-a-half weeks before the start of the Iraq War, Wilson said the administration was more interested in redrawing the map of the Middle East to pursue its own foreign policy objectives than in dealing with the so-called terrorist threat.

"The underlying objective, as I see it - the more I look at this - is less and less disarmament, and it really has little to do with terrorism, because everybody knows that a war to invade and conquer and occupy Iraq is going to spawn a new generation of terrorists," Wilson said in a March 2, 2003, interview with CNN.

"So you look at what's underpinning this, and you go back and you take a look at who's been influencing the process. And it's been those who really believe that our objective must be far grander, and that is to redraw the political map of the Middle East," Wilson added.

During the same CNN segment in which Wilson was interviewed, former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright made similar comments about the rationale for the Iraq War and added that he believed U.N. weapons inspectors should be given more time to search the country for weapons of mass destruction

A week later, Wilson was interviewed on CNN again. This was the first time Wilson ridiculed the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.

"Well, this particular case is outrageous. We know a lot about the uranium business in Niger, and for something like this to go unchallenged by the U.S. - the U.S. government - is just simply stupid. It would have taken a couple of phone calls. We have had an embassy there since the early 1960s. All this stuff is open. It's a restricted market of buyers and sellers," Wilson said in the March 8, 2003, CNN interview.

"For this to have gotten to the IAEA is on the face of it dumb, but more to the point, it taints the whole rest of the case that the government is trying to build against Iraq," Wilson said.

Less than two weeks later, on March 19, 2003, the U.S. attacked Iraq.

Jason Leopold is the author of News Junkie, a memoir. Visit http://www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.

(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.

Perino: A,mericans Have No Say Over War

Well, do tell, Ms. Perino.

Thanks, Helen for the question, which caused Ms Perino to let's 48% of us who voted for Kerry off the hook for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those of us who voted for Kerry are almost in the clear. Some of us are still, however, paying for it for whatever reason (no doubt, the obvious one; they believe it is unlawful to not pay taxes and it is in ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times.)

Why doesn't that make me feel better?

Our Representatives (didn't vote for mine and more than I voted for Bush, as he is a mindless Bushite follower) have say over the war. They have the power over the purse. They won't exercise that power, so the people must. This is a criminal war.

Serious business, indeed. Just ask the Germans.

At a White House press briefing today, Press Secretary Dana Perino effectively tells veteran correspondent Helen Thomas that the American people's say in the Iraq occupation ended after the 2004 election.

"The American people are being asked to die and pay for this," probes Thomas. "And you're saying they have no say in this war?"

"No," Perino responds, "I didn't say that, Helen. But, Helen, this president was elected--"

Thomas interrupts: "But it amounts to it. You're saying we have no input at all."

"You had input," Perino says. "The American people have input every four years and that's the way our system is set up."

Perino's statement comes on the heels of a direct assertion by Vice President Dick Cheney that he doesn't care about public input on Iraq.

"I think we cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations of the public opinion polls," said Cheney to ABC's Martha Raddatz on Wednesday. "There has in fact been fundamental change and transformation and improvement for the better. That's a huge accomplishment."

Video of the exchange between Thomas and Perino is available at Think Progress.

(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 Conflagration Cometh

The Calm Before the Conflagration
By Chris Hedges
Truthdig.com

Monday 25 February 2008

The United States is funding and in many cases arming the three ethnic factions in Iraq - the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunni Arabs. These factions rule over partitioned patches of Iraqi territory and brutally purge rival ethnic groups from their midst. Iraq no longer exists as a unified state. It is a series of heavily armed fiefdoms run by thugs, gangs, militias, radical Islamists and warlords who are often paid wages of $300 a month by the U.S. military. Iraq is Yugoslavia before the storm. It is a caldron of weapons, lawlessness, hate and criminality that is destined to implode. And the current U.S. policy, born of desperation and defeat, means that when Iraq goes up, the U.S. military will have to scurry like rats for cover.

The supporters of the war, from the Bush White House to Sen. John McCain, tout the surge as the magic solution. But the surge, which primarily deployed 30,000 troops in and around Baghdad, did little to thwart the sectarian violence. The decline in attacks began only when we bought off the Sunni Arabs. U.S. commanders in the bleak fall of 2006 had little choice. It was that or defeat. The steady rise in U.S. casualties, the massive car bombs that tore apart city squares in Baghdad and left hundreds dead, the brutal ethnic cleansing that was creating independent ethnic enclaves beyond our control throughout Iraq, the death squads that carried out mass executions and a central government that was as corrupt as it was impotent signaled catastrophic failure.

The United States cut a deal with its Sunni Arab enemies. It would pay the former insurgents. It would allow them to arm and form military units and give them control of their ethnic enclaves. The Sunni Arabs, in exchange, would halt attacks on U.S. troops. The Sunnis Arabs agreed.

The U.S. is currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars to pay the monthly salaries of some 600,000 armed fighters in the three rival ethnic camps in Iraq. These fighters - Shiite, Kurd and Sunni Arab - are not only antagonistic but deeply unreliable allies. The Sunni Arab militias have replaced central government officials, including police, and taken over local administration and security in the pockets of Iraq under their control. They have no loyalty outside of their own ethnic community. Once the money runs out, or once they feel strong enough to make a thrust for power, the civil war in Iraq will accelerate with deadly speed. The tactic of money-for-peace failed in Afghanistan. The U.S. doled out funds and weapons to tribal groups in Afghanistan to buy their loyalty, but when the payments and weapons shipments ceased, the tribal groups headed back into the embrace of the Taliban.

The Sunni Arab militias are known by a variety of names: the Iraqi Security Volunteers (ISVs), neighborhood watch groups, Concerned Local Citizens, Critical Infrastructure Security. The militias call themselves "sahwas" ("sahwa" being the Arabic word for awakening). There are now 80,000 militia fighters, nearly all Sunni Arabs, paid by the United States to control their squalid patches of Iraq. They are expected to reach 100,000. The Sunni Arab militias have more fighters under arms than the Shiite Mahdi Army and are about half the size of the feeble Iraqi army. The Sunni Awakening groups, which fly a yellow satin flag, are forming a political party.

The Sunni Arab militias, though they have ended attacks on U.S. forces, detest the Shiite-Kurdish government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and abhor the presence of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil. They take the money and the support with clenched teeth because with it they are able to build a renegade Sunni army, a third force inside Iraq, which they believe will make it possible to overthrow the central government. The Sunni Arabs, who make up about 40 percent of Iraq's population, held most positions of power under Saddam Hussein. They dominated Iraq's old officer corps. They made up its elite units, including the Republic Guard divisions and the Special Forces regiments. They controlled the intelligence agencies. There are several hundred thousand well-trained Sunni Arabs who lack only an organizational structure. We have now made the formation of this structure possible. These militias are the foundation for a deadlier insurgent force, one that will dwarf anything the United States faced in the past. The U.S. is arming, funding and equipping its own assassins.

There have been isolated clashes that point to a looming conflagration. A Shiite-dominated unit of the regular army in the late summer of 2007 attacked a strong Sunni Arab force west of Baghdad. U.S. troops thrust themselves between the two factions. The enraged Shiites, thwarted in their attack, kidnapped relatives of the commander of the Sunni Arab force, and American negotiators had to plead frantically for their release. There have been scattered incidents like this one throughout Iraq.

If the U.S. begins, as promised, to withdraw troops it will be harder to keep these antagonistic factions apart. The cease-fire by the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, extended a few days ago, could collapse. And if that happens a civil war, unlike anything U.S. forces have experienced in Iraq, will begin. Such a conflagration, with the potential to draw in neighboring states and lead to the dismemberment of Iraq, would be the final chapter of the worst foreign policy blunder in American history.

(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.