Friday, December 15, 2006

More Evidence of a Cooked-Up Case for War

For some journalists, it's not old news that the United States and England cooked the case for war in Iraq. The Independent of England has an important story out on this front. Here's the lede:

The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr. Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr. Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr. Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

The paper also published Ross' entire prepared testimony. It is indeed rather devastating. This story is a reminder (hint, hint, congressional Democrats) that even though the Senate intelligence committee and a White House commission (a.k.a. the Silberman-Robb commission) examined U.S. intelligence failures regarding the Iraq's supposed WMDs and the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, there is plenty more to probe—particularly how the Bush administration represented (that is, misrepresented) the intelligence and how administration officials made the decision to lead the United States into the debacle in Iraq. Of course, as the co-author of a book on this subject, I have a particular interest. But there's been no greater strategic U.S. blunder in years. The public deserves a full accounting--one even fuller than Hubris.

Here are excerpts of Ross's testimony:

I am in the Senior Management Structure of the FCO, currently seconded to the UN in Kosovo. I was First Secretary in the UK Mission to the United Nations in New York from December 1997 until June 2002. I was responsible for Iraq policy in the mission, including policy on sanctions, weapons inspections and liaison with UNSCOM and later UNMOVIC.

During that time, I helped negotiate several UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq, including resolution 1284 which, inter alia, established UNMOVIC (an acronym I coined late one New York night during the year-long negotiation). I took part in policy debates within HMG and in particular with the US government. I attended many policy discussions on Iraq with the US State Department in Washington, New York and London....

I read the available UK and US intelligence on Iraq every working day for the four and a half years of my posting. This daily briefing would often comprise a thick folder of material, both humint and sigint. I also talked often and at length about Iraq's WMD to the international experts who comprised the inspectors of UNSCOM/UNMOVIC, whose views I would report to London. In addition, I was on many occasions asked to offer views in contribution to Cabinet Office assessments, including the famous WMD dossier (whose preparation began some time before my departure in June 2002).

During my posting, at no time did HMG assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests. On the contrary, it was the commonly-held view among the officials dealing with Iraq that any threat had been effectively contained. I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed). (At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the US raised the subject, that "regime change" was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos.)

Any assessment of threat has to include both capabilities and intent. Iraq's capabilities in WMD were moot: many of the UN's weapons inspectors (who, contrary to popular depiction, were impressive and professional) would tell me that they believed Iraq had no significant materiel. With the exception of some unaccounted-for Scud missiles, there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW, BW or nuclear material. Aerial or satellite surveillance was unable to get under the roofs of Iraqi facilities. We therefore had to rely on inherently unreliable human sources (who, for obvious reasons, were prone to exaggerate).

Without substantial evidence of current holdings of WMD, the key concern we pursued was that Iraq had not provided any convincing or coherent account of its past holdings. When I was briefed in London at the end of 1997 in preparation for my posting, I was told that we did not believe that Iraq had any significant WMD. The key argument therefore to maintain sanctions was that Iraq had failed to provide convincing evidence of destruction of its past stocks.

Iraq's ability to launch a WMD or any form of attack was very limited. There were approx 12 or so unaccounted-for Scud missiles; Iraq's airforce was depleted to the point of total ineffectiveness; its army was but a pale shadow of its earlier might; there was no evidence of any connection between Iraq and any terrorist organisation that might have planned an attack using Iraqi WMD (I do not recall any occasion when the question of a terrorist connection was even raised in UK/US discussions or UK internal debates).

There was moreover no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or US. I had many conversations with diplomats representing Iraq's neighbours. With the exception of the Israelis, none expressed any concern that they might be attacked. Instead, their concern was that sanctions, which they and we viewed as an effective means to contain Iraq, were being delegitimised by evidence of their damaging humanitarian effect.

I quizzed my colleagues in the FCO and MOD working on Iraq on several occasions about the threat assessment in the run-up to the war. None told me that any new evidence had emerged to change our assessment; what had changed was the government's determination to present available evidence in a different light. I discussed this at some length with David Kelly in late 2002, who agreed that the Number 10 WMD dossier was overstated....

I proposed on several occasions the establishment of a multinational body (a UN body, if we could get the Security Council to agree it) to police sanctions busting. I proposed coordinated action with Iraq's neighbours to pressure them to help, including by controlling imports into Iraq. I held talks with a US Treasury expert on financial sanctions, an official who had helped trace and seize Milosevic's illegal financial assets. He assured me that, given the green light, he could quickly set up a team to target Saddam's illegal accounts.

These proposals went nowhere. Inertia in the FCO and the inattention of key ministers combined to the effect that the UK never made any coordinated and sustained attempt to address sanctions busting....Coordinated, determined and sustained action to prevent illegal exports and target Saddam's illegal monies would have consumed a tiny proportion of the effort and resources of the war (and fewer lives), but could have provided a real alternative. It was never attempted.

Imagine if US officials were as candid. The Democrats about to take over the House and Senate intelligence and foreign relations committees ought to compel such candor.

Posted by David Corn at December 15, 2006 08:57 AM


Saladin said...

And knowing all of this you still think impeachment is a political loser? Amazing. Even if it were, so what? They are guilty of murder to the n'th degree, the dems KNOW this war was started with lies and forgery and they know the next one will be the same. If they don't bring these monsters to justice they will be just as guilty as bushco, there is no middle ground or wiggle room on this. It was NOT a strategic blunder, it was long planned and well thought out, remember the PNAC? The clean break document? The Israel first neocons and their complete dedication to the Zionist cause? If not you might want to go back and read all that stuff again! The whole plan is laid out in black and white. Iraq and Afghanistan are the first countries to get "thrown against the wall."

capt said...

Forget about impeachment Blair and Bush should be in the dock and answer to the charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace.

They fabricated an illegal and unwise invasion and occupation of a country that posed little or no threat at all.

Now we all know that the death toll will likely hit a million before this crime is stopped. How many is enough? Maybe the murderers have to be foreign to be held to account?


Saladin said...

AMEN Capt!

Saladin said...

Capt, I wonder what happened to my spider? Do I have to redo my google account? It seems to have been erased. Or can I put the spider back on my blogger account? I'm SO confused!!

capt said...

Just click on your name and edit profile?

Ivory Bill Woodpecker said...

Uh-oh. Ivory-billed woodpeckers eat insects, y'know. I may have mistaken Sal's spider for an insect. :)

Saladin said...

Ivory Bill, if you ate THAT spider you got a meal! I took the picture of her in an apricot leaf in my front yard, she was SO cool and almost two inches long!
Thanks Capt, I will give it a try.

Hajji said...

I wuz gonner ask 'et spider what the hell's a "tuffet" anyways! I'll NEVER know!

Seriously, David, if your gonna keep pointing out the crimes of our national "leaders", but insist hoding them accountable be "taken off the table" then what's the point?

You drive up the fury that screams for impeachment, for accountability in one post and deny the existence of that fury in the next?

Your bi-polar punditry is quite maddening, y'know?


David B. Benson said...

Suppose a President commits murder, indicted, tryed and convicted. However, he is STILL the President. What then?

Hajji said...

I'd like to encourage everyone to check out the website Iraq Coaliton Casualties

It seems to do a good job of naming some of the victims of the actions of Bush/Blair's war on living, breathing things in the the middle east.

It lack the ability to name the casualties of Iraqi citizens, but provides links to other sites that also attempt to count those our governments consitantly denies.


Hajji said...


With any luck, if it were Bush, e'd have committed the murder in Texas.

So somebody could mimick his "Boo Hoo, hoo, please don't kill me!" schtick, preferably to his simianesque face just before they pull the switch.


David B. Benson said...

Juan Cole on "Bush as Napoleon" today...

O'Reilly said...

The democrats are afraid of impeachment because they think it will be used against them... impeachment politics as it were. If there were no political cost or risk, it would surely proceed as agenda item number #1 or at least item #2; Iraq policy being most urgent.

The democrats think that doing the people's work such as minimum wage et blaa will earn the hearts and minds of the electorate and demonstrate a responsible do-something congress lead by a democratic majority. Thet’s the low-lying fruit approach. As long as the legislations in consequential, then absolutely go for it.

Maybe the Democrats calculus is right. Maybe the trick is to highlight the minimum wage issues while investigating the hell out of BushCo government, such as in Waxman's government affairs Committee and Leahy's Judicial Committee and Barnie Frank's finance committee etc. That’s their job after all, isn’t it? As the investigations proceed and evidence of criminal behavior reach the level of probable cause, the Justice Department can be called in. If the president and vice president were implicated, then it’s up to the house to proceed with impeachment. Taking impeachment off the table as a priority is not the same as taking impeachment off the table. The former leaves impeachment on the table. I surely hope that is what the Democrats are talking about because the alternative means the Democrats are more interested in politics than justice and democracy.

The last two midterms and the 2004 presidential election were about national security. The American public has come 180 degrees since 2002. In 2002, they believed national security meant disarming Hussein. (Now where could they have gotten an idea like that?) Now they understand that national security means getting our armed forces out of the crossfire of the Iraq civil war and just as important counter the growing anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab caused by our unjustifiable presence in Mess-O-Potamia.

How do you solve this problem without the aid of neighboring countries and international support? Frighteningly, Bush stubbornly looks for ways to “win.”

capt said...


Thanks for the site. I think everybody should make that site their homepage so they can stay in touch with the results of the Bush/Blair lies.

It puts me in no mood to give either of those warmongering murderers any slack, nothing off the table - they should be drawn and quartered for what they have done but we are more civilized (not that I FEEL more civilized)


capt said...


Weellook at what a losing proposition impeachment was for the GOP?

They took (I think literally stole) the top slot and continued their majorities. . . so what can the Democratic party look forward to?

Taking the top slot and continuing in the majority.

What kind of knucklehead thinks THAT is a losing proposition?



Saladin said...


Thomas Paine's Corner

...A related paradox having to do with time tells us everything we need to know about the Iraq Study Group’s 79 “recommendations.” One of those recommendations is, basically, to cut the number of U.S. troops in half, and train the Iraqis to take up the slack. This is how we’re supposed to get to a point where the Iraqis will be able to sustain a democratic society which will join us in our Global War on Terror.

But Zeno tells us it’ll never work. If you keep moving halfway to your goal, you never get there.

It’s like one of those other “recommendations.” Start up the Peace Process again, the one between Israel and Palestine.

Hello? Haven’t we been down this road a hundred times already? There was Oslo, Camp David, even a Bush 43 “roadmap.” Lots of feints and jabs and jaunts and taunts in the past 60 years, but what “Peace Process”? Did Tolstoy write a book called “War and Peace Process”?

There is either peace or no peace—i.e., war or cold war or preparations for war. We have lived with war, cold war or preparations for war for about 100 years now and the Iraq Study Group will not get us out of this imbroglio.

Managers love crises—makes them feel important. This Group of Ten is providing us a quarterly report about managing the crisis in our foreign relations. They emphasize “moving forward” because they dare not look back at how we got into this mess. Call it the No Blame Game. But if we don’t understand how we got here—the lies and complicity of Republicrats—how can we “move forward” without committing the same crimes? The Iraq Study Group’s report is a recipe for recidivism...
What a wonderful essay this is, appeals to the Civil Libertarian cynic in me!

capt said...


Not YOU knucklehead - Mr. Corn KNUCKLEHEAD.

You know.


capt said...

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

87% - Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.

4.5% - No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."

6.4% - No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.

1.9% - I don't know.

387668 responses


*****end of clip*****

400k responses is a hefty sample. Any honest pollster (forget Dick Morris) will tell you that with such a large sample there is no reason to weigh the responses. That is only necessary with small sample polls.


capt said...

No Bounce: Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech; Question on Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of Divisiveness in Congress—Want Bi-Partisan Solutions—New Zogby Poll

Released: June 30, 2005

President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.


*****end of clip*****

I would say it is safe to assume impeachment is actually more popular than Barack Obama. Not sure what constitutes a groundswell but . . .


David B. Benson said...

Groundswell --- Strongly worded communications to Representatives and Senators, irrespective of party. The beginning of recall actions for those resfusing to respect the wishes of their constituents.

March on Washington? (The other one, don't come here...)

capt said...

Impeach Bush!

Let's Make It a Million!

808,700 : the number of people who have already voted in the referendum to Impeach Bush! (figure updated daily)


*****end of clip*****

Almost a million people have taken the time to sign this petition?


capt said...

Join Cindy Sheehan in Washington DC January 3- Demand Impeachment!

We could have a Woodstock 2007: Impeach for World Peace Concert in DC- with a whole range of peace artists from rap to country to rock. Can anyone out there contact: Eddie Vedder, Willie Nelson, Chuck D, Dixie Chicks, Green Day, Billy Bragg, Immortal Technique, John Mellencamp, Merle Haggard, Ani Difranco, Paris, Jynkz, et al…. It is time for an open-ended march on DC, if not now, when?

There must be hundreds, if not thousands of anti-bush bloggers… why can’t we all work together? Anti-war patriots need to stop following cointelpro ‘leaders’ and start organizing our own actions.

I’m just one person, would you please consider emailing a few anti-bush sites and asking them if they’ll post a banner too? Got better graphic arts skills than me, by all means make another and offer it up (- ;

What would MLK do if he were alive today? What about John Lennon? Funny how they were shot, and now we have a bunch of posers in their place, leading another Saturday march to nowhere.


capt said...

No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency.
Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919), 'The Strenuous Life,' 1900

There is no den in the wide world to hide a rogue. Commit a crime and the earth is made of glass. Commit a crime, and it seems as if a coat of snow fell on the ground, such as reveals in the woods the track of every partridge, and fox, and squirrel.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)

Think not forever of yourselves, O Chiefs, nor of your own generation. Think of continuing generations of our families, think of our grandchildren and of those yet unborn, whose faces are coming from beneath the ground.
Peacemaker, founder of the Iroquois Confederacy, (ca. 1000 AD)

Never look down to test the ground before taking your next step; only he who keeps his eye fixed on the far horizon will find the right road.
Dag Hammarskjold (1905 - 1961)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet renounce controversy are people who want crops without ploughing the ground.
Frederick Douglass 1817-1895

capt said...

Mainstream Media Try to Hide the Impeachment Question

The impeachment question was part of a Zogby International poll conducted early last week, and released on Thursday.

It found that Bush’s job approval ratings had slipped a point from the previous week, to 43 percent.

But the jaw-dropper was that 42 percent said they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found that the president misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

Zogby noted: "While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

"Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor.... offers the results broken down by party. Among Democrats, 59 percent answered the impeachment question affirmatively -- as well as 25 percent of Republicans.

Shailagh Murray of The Washington Post made the poll results the third item in the paper’s Sunday politics column: "Even the pollster couldn’t believe his eyes. ’It was much higher than I expected,’ John Zogby said of the 42 percent....

"By comparison, in October 1998, as the House moved to impeach President Bill Clinton over the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, a Zogby poll found that 39 percent of voters supported the House action, while 56 percent opposed it....

"Zogby said the hypothetical question ’reveals just how badly divided this country is over the war,’ but also that people may be more comfortable with the idea of throwing a president out of office....


*****end of clip*****

Worth considering impeachment, certainly no reasonable thinker would remove impeachment from "the table" as Pelosi has done already.

BTW - Mr. Corn, on your suggestion I have been asking the folks (neighbors, cashiers, gas station attendants, etc) so far only one thought it was a good idea to take impeachment off the table and by a large margin most want Bush out of office. I did not inquire about Obama but most here have no clue who he is.

Of course I do not reside inside the beltway.



Hajji said...

THIS GUY might have a few connections...could help draw a crowd.

Maybe, just maybe if EVERYONE had a chance for personal tragedy in war, war could be averted.

Of course there ARE people who'd sacrifice their own mothers, sons and daughters for the profit or power they gain by war!

...I think we've got a few of them running the country now.


anonymous wak said...

if a tree falls in the forest and everyone has their fingers in their ears saying, "la la la i can't hear you!", does it make a sound?

Hajji said...

I'm sorry, did YOU hear something? I didn't...

But...For what it's worth...

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Hajji said...

#1 US "Diplomat" Rice rejects overture to Iran, Syria

‘Compensation’ in any deal might be too high, she says.

"If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they will do it anyway," Rice said in a wide-ranging interview with Washington Post reporters and editors. She said she did not want to trade away Lebanese sovereignty to Syria or allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon as a price for peace in Iraq.

Rice's remarks indicated that, despite a maelstrom of criticism of Bush's policies by outside experts and Democrats, the administration's extensive review of policy in Iraq and the region will not yield major changes in its approach. Rice said that Bush could be "quite expansive" in terms of a policy review and that the new plan would be a "departure." But the president will not radically change any of his long-term goals or commitment to Iraq, she said.

Indeed, Rice argued that the Middle East is being rearranged in ways that provide the United States with new opportunities, what she repeatedly called a "new strategic context."

Uhm...I feelin' those words commin' up to the surface agian..


But, of course when the Overlords of Oil in Saudi threaten to jump in with both (gucci) sandals on the side of the beleagered minority in your little "civil" war call, Darth Cheney wets his depends, resets his pacer to "hummingbird" and SST-slithers up to the throne to get hisself a good spankin'...

Little wonder that I've traded in my favorite merlot tumbler for a nice, heavy highball glass!

Whitehorse, Lagavullin blended scotch...

Harpy Hoolidaze!


Hajji said...

Wisconsin hunter bags deer with 7 legs

"And by the way, I did eat it," Lisko said. "It was tasty."


Nuthin' like a tumble under an F-350 Duelly to tenderize a mutant button buck!

"Mmmmm....Martha? Does this taste a little bit like....WHAT THE HELL ARE WE EATING THIS FOR? We coulda made MAD BANK just showin' the thing off to North Dakotans!"


Hajji said...

...and with that...I can see where this is heading....

Good Night!


O'Reilly said...

Six brutal truths about Iraq
COMMENTARY | December 11, 2006

General William Odom, one of the earliest advocates of an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, attacks some of the mythologies that are interfering with an honest debate about how to proceed in the Middle East and says the media have failed to recognize dramatic changes in the region.

By William E. Odom

Mythologies about the war in Iraq are endangering our republic, our rights, and our responsibilities before the world. The longer we fail to dispel them, the higher price we will pay. The following six truths, while perhaps not self-evident to the American public, are nevertheless conspicuously obvious to much the rest of the world.

Truth No. 1: No "deal" of any kind can be made among the warring parties in Iraq that will bring stability and order, even temporarily.

Truth No. 2: There was no way to have "done it right" in Iraq so that U.S. war aims could have been achieved.

Truth No. 3: The theory that "we broke it and therefore we own it," with all the moral baggage it implies, is simply untrue because it is not within U.S. power to "fix it."

Truth No. 4: The demand that the administration engage Iran and Syria directly, asking them to help stabilize Iraq, is patently naïve or cynically irresponsible until American forces begin withdrawing – and rapidly – so that there is no ambiguity about their complete and total departure.

Truth No. 5: The United States cannot prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Truth No. 6: It is simply not possible to prevent more tragic Iraqi deaths in Iraq.

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.


O'Reilly said...

By Charles Babington, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A06
Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

60 Minutes
“It [Impeachment] is a waste of time… This election is about them. Making them lame ducks is good enough for me.” video

You're Wrong, Nancy Pelosi; Impeachment is Your Constitutional Responsibility
By Bill Hare, 12/03/2006 08:04:35 PM

Pelosi should be reminded that officeholders take an oath to preserve and defend the U.S. Constitution. In so doing, it is the responsibility of a Member of Congress to oversee that the document crafted by our Founding Fathers is not shredded in the interest of political expediency.

With so much scandal having pervaded the Washington scene recently, it is up to Members of Congress to launch investigations and follow the ensuing trails wherever they lead.

Given what we already know, any kind of conscientious efforts by the likes of Congressmen Henry Waxman of California and John Conyers of Michigan, two notable congressional investigators, will likely result in evidence pointing toward the commission of acts falling within the purview of impeachable offenses.

Nancy Pelosi needs to be brought in touch with current realities. Angry voters made the difference in the Democratic victory of November 7. These individuals are seeking justice. That means following the trail of corruption wherever it leads, including the White House.

This is not a game of political "gotcha," as Pelosi seems to be indicating in her remarks on 60 Minutes. This is not political gamesmanship. This is what voters who made the difference, those who voted for Democrats, do not want. This is not what officeholders are expected to do in conformity with their oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution.

Lastly, the comment that Bush and Cheney being lame ducks is "good enough" totally misses the point. Two years is plenty of time to trash the Constitution some more. If evidence clearly indicates previous trashing to the level of impeachable offenses, is a license to be granted due to lame duck status?

In my next article I will analyze the points raised by Elizabeth Holtzman in her Washington Spectator article and dovetail them alongside those raised earlier in that sphere in this column.


uncledad said...


That picture is so wrong on so many levels. But on the other hand it is completely truthful. Dumb and (I made you dumber). Remember how smart Tony Blair was when the C-student in chief was first selected for power. Even after 9-11 he seemed a voice of reason. (He never called the war on terror a crusade!) Fast forward 3 years of manipulation by bu$hco. Blair has absolutely zero creditability left. None. I think at this point Blair must feel like an American citizen. Sold out, not much he can say, except I'm sorry. We keep waiting on the world to change.

Saladin said...

uncledad, I think blair gambled on a losing team. He knew what was going on, he knew 9/11 was a setup and he knew the risks. Power is it's own persuader. The DSM is proof positive that he was in the loop, it is so obvious in hindsight. The question is, how to keep it under wraps when it is unraveling. The people are wising up slowly but surely. How can they shut down 500,000 million people? It should be getting very interesting, that is if my hope isn't misplaced. And I really do have some hope believe it or not.

capt said...

Blair is moving into his position at the Carlyle Group.

It kind of all makes sense.


capt said...

Um, his position power bottom



capt said...

New Thread!

kathleen said...

Follow the wrong wing radicals. Frederick Kagan (one of Bill Kristols partners in crimes against humanity) has been all over the news pushing his plan for more war!

'We're Going to Win'
The president finally has a plan for victory.
by Fred Barnes
12/25/2006, Volume 012, Issue 15

It turns out you only have to attend a White House Christmas party to find out where President Bush is headed on Iraq. One guest who shook hands with Bush in the receiving line told him, "Don't let the bastards get you down." Bush, slightly startled but cheerful, replied, "Don't worry. I'm not." The guest followed up: "I think we can win in Iraq." The president's reply was emphatic: "We're going to win." Another guest informed Bush he'd given some advice to the Iraq Study Group, and said its report should be ignored. The president chuckled and said he'd made his position clear when he appeared with British prime minister Tony Blair. The report had never mentioned the possibility of American victory. Bush's goal in Iraq, he said at the photo-op with Blair, is "victory."

Now Bush is ready to gamble his presidency on a last-ditch effort to defeat the Sunni insurgency and establish a sustainable democracy in Iraq. He is prepared to defy the weary wisdom of Washington that it's too late, that the war in Iraq is lost, and that Bush's lone option is to retreat from Iraq as gracefully and with as little loss of face as possible. Bush only needed what his press secretary, Tony Snow, called a "plan for winning." Now he has one.

It's not to be found among the 79 recommendations of Jim Baker's Iraq Study Group. The ISG report was tossed aside by the White House. Nor was the scheme leaked by the Pentagon last

week ever close to being adopted. That plan would pull thousands of American troops out of a combat role and turn them into trainers of the Iraqi army. The result would be increased sectarian violence and an Iraqi army not yet equipped to quash the swelling insurgency-leading to a gap of time in which there would likely be a further--probably fatal--collapse of civic order in Baghdad, and then elsewhere in Iraq.

Last Monday Bush was, at last, briefed on an actual plan for victory in Iraq, one that is likely to be implemented. Retired General Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army, gave him a thumbnail sketch of it during a meeting of five outside experts at the White House. The president's reaction, according to a senior adviser, was "very positive." Authored by Keane and military expert Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, the plan (which can be read at is well thought-out and detailed, but fundamentally quite simple. It is based on the idea--all but indisputable at this point--that no political solution is possible in Iraq until security is established, starting in Baghdad. The reverse--a bid to forge reconciliation between majority Shia and minority Sunni--is a nonstarter in a political environment drenched in the blood of sectarian killings.

At Weekly Standard

Anonymous said...

Ι don't even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was great. I do not know who you are but certainly you are going to a famous blogger if you are not already ;) Cheers!

Also visit my web-site reputation management

Anonymous said...

Нello i аm κavin, its my fiгst timе tо commеnting аnyρlасe, when і read thіs paгagrаph і thought i сoulԁ alѕo creatе commеnt
ԁue to thіs bгilliаnt pοst.

Herе is my wеblog: service for link building