McClellan sat down with Keith Olbermann last night and told him what all of us conspiracy theorist, freedom hating, unpatriotic bloggers knew - Bush planned on going to war with Iraq after 9/11 and nothing was stopping that, even if they had to "repackage" intelligence to sell the war.
going to war
The war on terror is actually fueling al Qaeda. That is the determination of a new study:
A report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.
"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers, the report's author and professor of global peace studies at Bradford University in northern England.
"Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimized but this will require a change in policy at every level."
He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.
The report also suggests an immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq and opening diplomacy with Syria and Iran. The key part comes at the end of this article:
"Going to war with Iran," he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."
We seem to have a serious problem when it comes to history in our country. Hard to believe things that happened in the 90's have been quickly forgotten. For my loyal readers, this will sound familiar, but it deserves repeating. We created Osama bin Laden!
And give a Power Point presentation of all these secret nuclear facilities in Iran?
In an echo of the intelligence wars that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a high-stakes struggle is brewing within the Bush administration and in Congress over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program and involvement in terrorism.
U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials say Bush political appointees and hard-liners on Capitol Hill have tried recently to portray Iran's nuclear program as more advanced than it is and to exaggerate Tehran's role in Hezbollah's attack on Israel in mid-July.
The struggle's outcome could have profound implications for U.S. policy.
President Bush, who addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, has said he prefers diplomacy to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but he hasn't ruled out using military force.
If you just switch the N in Iran with a Q, you got 2003 all over again. In fact there is very little change. In 2003, Bush kept saying the same thing about "wanting diplomacy to work", right up till the first bomb dropped in Baghdad. Since then we have all learned that no matter what, Bush was going to war with Iraq.
Here's the question. If this Iran threat is so urgent, then why isn't the rest of the world helping to lead this fight? Why is it the U.S. has to once again be in charge. I believe the answer is very simple - because the U.S. is the only country run by such war mongers.
I have really been waiting for this to happen:
The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of revealing Plame's CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration's motives in Iraq.
Several news organizations wrote about Plame after syndicated columnist Robert Novak named her in a column on July 14, 2003. Novak's column appeared eight days after Wilson alleged in an opinion piece in The New York Times that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq to justify going to war.
The CIA had sent Wilson to Niger in early 2002 to determine whether there was any truth to reports that Saddam Hussein's government had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon. Wilson discounted the reports, but the allegation nevertheless wound up in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.
The lawsuit accuses Cheney, Libby, Rove and 10 unnamed administration officials or political operatives
I wish the Wilson's all the luck in the world. They more than deserve justice on this. For more info, check out Firedoglake.
Writing on behalf of his One America political action committee, former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards sent an email Saturday seeking signatories in an effort to expand the powers of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate President Bush's role in the strategic leaking of information related to Iraq.
In the form letter on Edwards' site, he writes, "I urge you to extend Mr. Fitzgerald's charter to include the behavior of the President in this disgraceful affair."
The letter to supporters, while unlikely to influence the investigation, signals that Edwards continues to remain active on the political scene, and could indicate an effort to advance a 2008 presidential run.
Via Raw Story.
If Edwards is doing this to position himself for a run in 2008 or not is not at issue here. Edwards has come up with a very good plan - let the man who is already knee deep in investigating the Iraqi intelligence failure investigate it even further. We know for a fact Bush manipulated and/or ignored intelligence that would have kept us from going to war. It is time he be investigated and put on trial for it. You can sign Edwards letter here. I have also added it to the Get Active section on the left.
Bush is out in full force doing his cowboy talk against other countries:
"If the Iranians are trying to influence the outcome of the political process, or the outcome of the security situation there, we're letting them know our displeasure," Bush said. "Our call is for those in the neighborhood to allow Iraq to develop a democracy, and that includes our call to Iran as well as to Syria."
So in the last week we have had harsh words with Syrian, Iran, China and North Korea. If Bush is looking to start world war 3, he is on the right course. Scary part is we are not able to handle world war 3 and doing this talk in our weakened state is putting more Americans at risk.
If we ignore all of Bush's problems here at home. Forget about Katrina, wiretapping, the CIA leak, the Dubai ports deal, cooked intelligence, everything and just focused on his foreign policy and diplomacy then we should still have enough to impeach him. He is constantly putting America in harms way by his "tough talk" and lack of diplomacy.
Something Bush should consider is the fact that maybe Iraq is wanting the help of Iran and Syria. Polls over there show an overwhelming number of Iraqi's and their parliament want us out now. Also a majority of Iraqi's support attacks on our troops. This is alarming news and should be looked at carefully. That can lead one to believe more so that Iraq is looking to an ally in their neighbors to the west and east.
It is also scary when you think about the state of our military. Our troop levels are way down and what we do have is tied up in Iraq. Going to war with Iran is most likely enough to cause the United States to reinstate the draft.
Well it appears that Iran is looking to develop a nuclear bomb.
IAEA confirms Iran prepares for nuclear
31 Jan 2006 18:55:07 GMT
VIENNA, Jan 31 (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog confirmed on Tuesday
that Iran had begun preparing for nuclear enrichment, which can make fuel
for bombs, and continued to hinder a probe of unanswered questions about
Iran's atomic aims.
In a confidential report to the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA)
board of governors, the agency said Iran had not yet begun enrichment itself
but had started renovation work at its Natanz enrichment site.
Iran also prevented U.N. inspectors from questioning a key scientist
linked to the procurement of equipment that could have been used to make
weapons and did not let the IAEA copy documents related to the production of
nuclear weapons, the report said.
What is disturbing about this is the fact that Iraq has taken such a toll on
our forces and is possibly leaving us in a weaken state should we have to go
into military action against Iran. This was one of the problems brought up when
the argument was taking place over going to war with Iraq.
If you ever had any doubt that one reason for going to war in Iraq was to
help boot Halliburton then this story from the
Post Chronicle might change your mind:
Pentagon Spied on Houston
by Houston Global Awareness Jan 24, 2006
A Houston-based anti-Halliburton group was spied on by a top-secret
Pentagon counter-intelligence agency in 2004, according to a report in
Newsweek magazine.(1) The peaceful protest, organized by Houston Global
Awareness on June 29, 2004, was attended by approximately ten local peace
The protest involved handing out peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to
employees of giant military contractor Halliburton to draw attention to
allegations that the company over-charged for military food contracts in
A report in Newsweek this week reveals that the Pentagon's Counter
Intelligence Field Activity (CIFA) filed a report on the Houston protest,
which took place outside Halliburton's headquarters in Houston, Texas.
So terror comes in the shape of PB&J now? Don't get me wrong, we need a
strong intelligence field at this point in our history. That means our
intelligence should be focused on terrorism and finding Osama. This is getting
ridiculous when we hear about the Pentagon pissing away this valuable resource
to spy on American citizens who want peace. Of course we have to protect
Cheney's cash cow.
Chris Matthews has been on the war path this week. He has likened Bin Laden
to Michael Moore and to make matters even worse him, along with colleague Joe
Scarborough sat there last night and defended this analogy. If you haven't kept
up on what he said then I urge you to visit
Progress for videos and transcripts.
Considering he now feels people who oppose the war are the same as Bin Laden,
I figured it would be time to dig into some polling data and see how many
Americans might fall into his new category. The following numbers paint an ugly
picture for Matthews:
I finally had enough of a break to sit down and read the entire transcript of
Rep. John Murtha's press conference today and I am highly impressed (full
have constantly been inundated with the the continuous line of "Democrats have
no plan". Well after reading this, Republicans must be working hard to update
their strategy because it is now evident that Democrats do have a plan. I will
get into that plan in a bit, but first I would like to share the powerful
opening to Murtha's statement.
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy
wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United
States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time
for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our
country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident
that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United
States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. "General
Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, "the perception of occupation in
Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." General Abizaid said
on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces
in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy."
Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, has "a
problem" in the investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity if
his testimony conflicts with information given to the grand jury by New York
Times reporter Judith Miller, her lawyer said yesterday.
Robert S. Bennett, speaking on the ABC program "This Week" on the day the
Times disclosed new information about three conversations Miller had with
Libby about the CIA employment of a White House critic's wife, said that
"much would depend upon what Mr. Libby said to the grand jury.
"If he said that he had not talked to Judy about these things or didn't
talk about the wife, then he's got a problem," Bennett said, referring to
CIA operative Valerie Plame, the woman at the center of the leak
investigation. Miller told prosecutors that "to the best of her recollection
she did not know of" Plame's employment at the CIA "before she spoke to Mr.
Libby," he said.
A tiring argument we hear on a daily basis from conservatives is that the
liberal left believes that Saddam should have been left in power to rape and
kill. The truth is that is a totally false assertion, and, in my opinion,
getting rather old.
The fact is that we question the timing of the war more than the reasoning
for it. We all admit that Saddam Huessein was a horrible dictator that raped,
killed and tortured his people. We also admit the fact that he has previously
attacked surrounding nations without provocation. As matter of fact, it was
while Bill Clinton was President of the United States that Congress passed
resolution 4655 which was called the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. This was
passed by both floors and signed into law on October 31, 1998 by President
Clinton. The resolution passed the House by a vote of 360-38 and passed Senate
by unanimous consent. The fact lies in that both parties regarded Saddam as an
evil dictator that needed removed from power. This thereby negates the argument
from certain conservatives that the liberal right thought Saddam should remain
So why all the debate over the war in Iraq, both past and present? If we all
agree Saddam should be removed as IraqÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s tyrant leader how come Democrats and
now some Republicans want the troops out? The truth is our questioning has
always been behind the reasoning of going to war with Iraq at a time when we
were already engaged in another war on terrorism
Could the end of the romance be near? Are we looking at two broken hearts when we look into the eyes of our President and British Prime Minister Tony Blair? The two close friends that once stood side by side as they took on an endeavor to free the world of a tyrant don't seem as close anymore.
Yes it is a very sad ending to a once happy relationship. Tony Blair, Bush's key ally in the war in Iraq just don't seem as happy with his friend anymore. In a joint news conference this week, the two leaders seemed a little more than discontent with one another. But why? Why are these two men who fought tooth and nail to rid the world of Saddam now on what some would call the end of the honeymoon?
Well I think the answer lies in what are two of Tony Blair's biggest platforms - global warming and Africa. These are two issues that our President has been, well less than supportive on. While President Bush agreed to forgive Africa's debt this week, that is far less then pledging financial aide to the poverty stricken continent. Couple that with the less than aggressive push for the 15 billion dollar aids relief package our President vowed in his 2003 state of the union and address and it proves George is not as forthcoming on helping Africa as Tony is .
We also saw a report released this week that a White House official edited reports on the petroleum industries effects towards global warming, in an effort to downplay it. Of course the White House has spun this and said it is common practice for people to review these reports and make notes, but Tony Blair is an avid activist in the fight on global warming and this could not sit well with him. Seems our President is still holding true to his other love, the oil industry, while ignoring that passions of his partner and friend.
Have Americans gotten tired of the lies involving Iraq?
In a poll released yesterday by the Washington Post and ABC news, support for
the war in Iraq
is at an all time low and so are the PresidentÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s approval ratings.
BushÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s approval rating has dropped to 52%, and the
Republican parties has dropped to an astonishing 41%. This should send an
alarming message to the Republican leaders that their party is finally being seen
for what they are ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ a bunch of showboating idealists who promote their own
The real slap to the Republican Party should be the fact the
John McCain, the Senator that the Republicans seem to oppose more and more, had
a high approval rating ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ 57% to be exact. This should show that people are
starting to get fed up with the radical right movements in Congress.
Now onto Iraq.
When asked if they thought Iraq
was worth going to war over, an alarming 58% said no. 73% of those people also
believe the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq is unacceptable, and 65%
believe the U.S. has now gotten bogged down with the war in Iraq.
So again I ask, Have Americans gotten tired of the lies involving
by this poll, I would have to say yes. One question I would have liked to seen
asked would be: Do you feel the Downing Street Memo merits enough fact for a
Congressional inquiry into the matter? True if that question would have been asked
then the pollsters would be coined as ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œLiberal MediaÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â by the hateful celebrities
such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill OÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢Reilly and Sean Hannity.
The AP has just
reported that a former Bolton Deputy released information regarding Bolton's
actions as undersecretary of state to disrupt weapons inspections in Iraq.
In 2002 John Bolton flew to Europe to confront and demand the resignation of
Jose Bustani, the head of a global arms-control agency. After that Mr. Bolton
then orchestrated the firing of Mr. Bustani, an action that a UN tribunal later
deemed as unlawful.
The former deputy says that Mr. Bolton's desire to have Bustani removed was
in part due to the fact that Mr. Bustani was working to get chemical inspectors
into Iraq. This move would have been another chance to diplomatically handle
Iraq, and further curtail the chance of going to war.
This is coming out a little over a month after the Downing Street Memo was
first published. This adds another bullet to the smoking gun of evidence that
keeps piling up showing the President had no intention of peacefully dealing
with Iraq. Instead the compound of lies that were told have now cost us 1669
American soldiers, and cost Iraq's over 20,000 civilian lives. On top of that,
Iraq is now in a far greater disarray with insurgent attacks hitting the news on
a daily basis.
We now also know that Al Queda has cells operating out of Iraq and are
actively recruiting there. This was not done during Saddam's regime, as Osama
Bin Laden looked down upon the former Iraqi leader and felt he was not leading
his people in the proper ways of the Muslim world.