Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Fool Us Twice? From Iraq to Iran

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted February 14, 2007.


Hyped claims of nuclear weapons with no evidence to back it up ... Why does that sound familiar?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Marjorie Cohn

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

It's déja vu. This time the Bush gang wants war with Iran. Following a carefully orchestrated strategy, they have ratcheted up the "threat" from Iran, designed to mislead us into a new war four years after they misled us into Iraq.

Like its insistence that Iraq had WMD, the Bush administration has been hyping claims that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), however, has found no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says there is plenty of time for negotiation with Iran.

Bush has sent two battle carrier groups, replete with nukes, to the Persian Gulf, and a third is reportedly preparing to follow. In support of Bush's case that Iran poses a danger to the U.S., three unnamed American officials ceremoniously trotted out metal parts found in Iraq and claimed Iran supplied them to kill our soldiers in Iraq.

This "evidence" -- or "packaging," as the Associated Press calls it -- doesn't pass the straight face test with most reputable observers. "The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops," according to Monday's Washington Post.

Saturday's New York Times cited information gleaned from "interrogation reports" from Iranians and Iraqis captured in the recent U.S. raid on the Iranian embassy in northern Iraq. They allegedly indicated money and weapons components are brought into Iraq over the Iranian border at night. If those people indeed provided such information, query what kind of pressure, i.e. torture, might have been applied to encourage their cooperation. Recall the centerpiece of Colin Powell's 2003 lies to the Security Council about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda came from false information tortured out of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.

Any Iranian weapons in Iraq may belong to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a Shiite resistance group the U.S. used to support. There could be old Iranian munitions lying around which are left over from the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s. A former high-level U.S. military officer told me it was not uncommon to find large caches of weapons around Iraq. He cited the 2004 discovery of 37,000 American Colt 45 handguns in a warehouse near the Iranian border on the Iraq side, likely procured "when Saddam was our friend." The United States armed both sides in the Iran-Iraq conflict.

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, released last week, concluded that Iranian or Syrian involvement is "not likely to be a major driver of violence" in Iraq.

Paul Krugman wrote that even if Iran were providing aid to some factions in Iraq, "you can say the same about Saudi Arabia, which is believed to be a major source of financial support for Sunni insurgents -- and Sunnis, not Iranian-backed Shiites, are still responsible for most American combat deaths." Indeed, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. But as Krugman mentions, the Bush administration's "close personal and financial ties to the Saudis" have caused it to downplay "Saudi connections to America's enemies."

American troops are still fighting in Afghanistan. Yet the Bush administration hasn't complained about the Taliban attacks on Afghanistan that originate in Pakistan, a country with documented nuclear weapons. Of course the Bush administration is cozy with the Pakistani regime.

The government of Israel, which also has nukes, is fueling the call for an invasion of Iran. On February 7, the Los Angeles Times cited Israeli politicians and generals warning of a "second Holocaust" if no one fails to prevent Tehran from acquiring nukes.

Israel would like to start a war with Iran and supports this desire by citing a quote from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped off the map. But this is an erroneous translation of what he said. According to University of Michigan professor Juan Cole and Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, who said the "regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Cole said this "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all." Journalist Diana Johnstone points out the quote is not aimed at the Israeli people, but at the Zionist "regime" occupying Jerusalem. "Coming from a Muslim religious leader," Johnstone wrote, "this opinion is doubtless based on objection to Jewish monopoly of a city considered holy by all three of the Abramic monotheisms." Iran has not threatened to invade Israel.

Indeed, only 36 percent of the Jews in Israel told pollsters last month they thought a nuclear attack by Iran posed the "biggest threat" to Israel. Americans concur. Seventy-five percent want negotiations in lieu of war with Iran.

Yet Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, all beholden to the Israel lobby, have bought into Bush's dangerous rhetoric about Iran.

It would be sheer lunacy to make war on Iran. Three former high-ranking U.S. military officers and a coalition of 13 British think-tanks and faith groups have warned that an attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences.

Bush probably won't ask Congress to bless his Iran war. He will provoke a confrontation and then claim we have to fight back. Last year, the New York Times documented a January 2003 meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair, where Bush "talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation [with Iraq], including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire."

A nuclear attack on Iran would violate U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Any attack would violate the U.N. Charter. All treaties we ratify become part of U.S. law under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Twelve European, international, and U.S. legal and human rights groups issued an open letter warning of the illegality of any offensive military action by the U.S. against Iran.

Congress has tied itself in knots over a non-binding resolution on Iraq. If our elected representatives responded to their constituencies instead of the Bush gang's fear mongering, they would stand up to him and pass a modern day Boland Amendment forbidding military action against Iran.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iran, war, wmd

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published in June.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Just push the button!
Posted by: Temporary on Feb 14, 2007 12:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: Just push the button! Posted by: willymack
» RE: Just push the button! Posted by: hotlipsin61
War with Iran would be the 3rd neoCON job
Posted by: LeftWright on Feb 14, 2007 12:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
#2 was the illegal invasion of Iraq based on non-existent WMD's.

#1 was the illegal invasion of Afghanistan based on the lie of 9/11.

It's way past time to stop this madness, folks.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» bobvz@cox.net Posted by: Robert Veasey
Count Down To Political Oblivian
Posted by: Tom Degan on Feb 14, 2007 3:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's obvious that the First Fool and the lap dogs that surround him are hell-bent on invading Iran. Should that happen, the House and Senate have no choice but to impeach the hideous bastard.

It's amazing, is it not? After all of the lies and distortions they put forward as "fact" in order to get the incredibly gullible American public to sign on to the stupidest foreign policy blunder in American history, they now expect these same people to swallow their line with respect to Iran. Here's the sixty-four dollar question: will the people swallow the bait a second time? I'm hopeful that they will not. Poll after poll clearly shows that a majority thinks that a third hot war - in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan - is not a particularly nifty idea. Maybe there is hope for them after all.

If, after all this time, you still believe that sending this idiot to the oval office - to the White House - was a good idea, all I can say is "Have another sip". Most Republicans, I believe, would now agree with this.

Your thoughts, Conservasaurus?

Cheers!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Count Down To Political Oblivian Posted by: Conservasaurus
"Supplying weapons to kill our troops"?
Posted by: colinmeister on Feb 14, 2007 4:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny, I didn't notice any eagerness to invade Russia or China when they were arming the Viet Cong...

Maybe the best way to encourage the spread of nuclear weapons is to go around like some crazy gunslinger brandishing nuclear weapons? That's what the Bushies seem to be doing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You hit the nail on the head! Posted by: WhatNow?
it's also obvious that...
Posted by: ellie on Feb 14, 2007 4:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the handlers of the first moron will begin a war with Iran and the hell with congress or the supremes.... it's the oil for god's sake!!!! chimp boy is executive order / signing statement happy and I fear that no matter what the people do to try to stop it, there will be military action.... what's next, suspend the entire constitution, prez for life, pre-emptive war forever????

this is a nightmare for everyone outside the power elite.... see ya'll in the camps soon if we don't figure out a way to stop him.... changing congress in this past election so far has done nothing but make him more dangerous by isolating him with his handlers, he ignores the demands of the american people... remember what happens with a cornered rat????

ideas????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» March on Washington Posted by: LeftWright
Spin and more spin!!
Posted by: waves999 on Feb 14, 2007 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spin... spin... spin... and more SPIN!!!! Bull Shit I say!!! America with an evil and rapacious kleptocracy in charge... with its gullible people kept in ever lasting ignorance by a complicit mass media... with a bought-off, weak-kneed Congress (even with the Dems in charge)... is by far the most dangerous ROGUE NATION on this planet!! The whole world would be a much more secure and “democratic” place if you lot would stay inside your own fucking borders!!!

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you have to concentrate on," George W Bush, 2001

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have no Congress, we have no rights
Posted by: z on Feb 14, 2007 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You don't understand. We have no rights now. We have only what King George the Decider says we have. Look at the preposterous gazillions they are proposing we spend on the military and you should realize why we are where we are and what we are........ a militaristic monster nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re:Fool us twice.
Posted by: kanawah on Feb 14, 2007 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the MISadministration takes ANY action against Iran, both Bush and Cheney should have impeachment started against them within minutes.

The assault upon Iraq was a fraud. The same would be true of Iran.

After throwing them out, hand them over to the international court to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

earth to Bush...sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Feb 14, 2007 5:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can't fool all the people all the time. Not the first time and damn sure not the second time

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: earth to Bush...sickofsleaze Posted by: VannaLaRoche
Are we sure this wasn't the plan all along?
Posted by: boatboy_srq on Feb 14, 2007 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take a good hard look at the mess in Iraq.

We've ousted a Sunni government and essentially installed a pro-Iran Shiite one. Admittedly, the Sunni government was corrupt, manipulative, and appalling to its people and to its neighbors, but it WAS opposed to Iranian Shiite goals.

The new government's leading parties survived in large part because of support from Iraq's neighbor to the East. Iran gave the leaders sanctuary, funded and equipped their followers, and generally kept consensus with the entirety of the groups. Now, suddenly, these same opposition groups hold sway in Baghdad.

The rising tide of Iranian influence in Iraq could have been predicted easily by anyone looking carefully at the likely leaders who would (and did) rise up to replace Saddam Hussein and the Baath party. Given that, allowing these groups to gain authority in Iraq virtually guaranteed more influence from Iran. The US did a lot more than merely allow them to gain power: we practically shooed them into office.

The argument could be made that the neocons ousted Saddam Hussein and created an essentially Shiite state in the wreckage, expecting Iran to have some part to play and laying the groundwork for confrontation with Iran later on. If this is at all true, what we have is not the "liberation" of Iraq, but the creation of a petri dish for a far larger conflict and a staging ground from which to wage it.

If we follow this reasoning, and we oppose this type of programme, then not only are we compelled to oppose conflict with Iran but more than ever required to call for withdrawal from Iraq. Our presence there, in this sense, does nothing but provide fodder for the outcry to go after the sources of materiel used by the locals to attack us, which is exactly what the strategy being followed calls for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Funny, Pakistan and North Korea contain MASSIVE NUCLEAR WMDs but
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 14, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» rwa - Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: LeftWright Posted by: rwa
» RE: LeftWright Posted by: Conservasaurus
Al Qaida Calls Muslims To Unite (Under Pakistani Intelligence) Part I
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 14, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CNN reports today on a new videotape alleged to be from Al Qaida's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The report says the authenticity of the tape is unconfirmed, but even so its message is a remarkable one. He calls upon all Muslims to "unite under Taliban leader Mullah Omar, stop trying to form secular governments and instead follow strict Islamic Sharia law", according to CNN. (Oh, he also says Dubya is "addicted to drinking, lying and gambling".)

It's enough to make neocon blogger Captain Ed wonder (again) whether Osama bin Laden is dead.

It has been more than a year since the last tape from bin Laden, one of his longest silences since 9/11. One might have expected an Osama tape crowing about Bush's midterm setback, or about the surge strategy in Baghdad, or perhaps the failure of the previous Baghdad security strategy.

Zawahiri has been more active, sending out a message every few weeks, trying to rally what's left of his organization. Usually they include statements of loyalty to Osama and urging the faithful to rally to bin Laden, not Mullah Omar. His focus on driving followers to Omar's banner in this latest message might indicate that bin Laden has reached room temperature, or less likely, been captured.


It's a frequent dream and hope of the uber-right - that Osama will cease to embarass Bush's refusal to go after him by simply and conveniently dropping dead. Osama may not be dead, but he has been forgotten by the American president who promised to bring him to justice and US forces admit his trail is cold.

Which makes me wonder if Osama isn't being quietly held incommunicado somewhere by Pakistan's intellignce agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.

Because al-Zawahiri's call is tantamount to saying Moslems should unite under the banner of the ISI, for the Taliban. Mullah Omar and Al Qaeda are entirely the ISI's creatures and operate from ISI-provided safety in Pakistan. That has long been the claim of the governments of both Afghanistan and India and it was recently given even more weight when the Afghani government revealed that it had captured an ISI agent:

Mr Karimi [Afghan presidential spokesman - C] named the man arrested as Sayed Akbar, who he said worked for Pakistan's controversial Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. "Some evidence and documents have been seized with him proving his destructive activities in Afghanistan," Mr Karimi told a news conference in the capital, Kabul.

Sayed Akbar comes from the Chitral region of northern Pakistan bordering the Afghan province of Nuristan, the spokesman said. The BBC's Payenda Sargand in Kabul says, according to the Afghan authorities, Mr Akbar was in charge of relations between the ISI and al-Qaeda leaders.

Officials say he has confessed to his "illegal activities" in Afghanistan. These are said to include escorting Osama Bin Laden last year from Nuristan to Chitral.
Many intelligence analysts outside the Bush administration accept the ties too. Last November, the prestigeous Jane's Intelligence Digest had this to say:

Shifting its policy of half-heartedly cracking down on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, implemented in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, Islamabad appears to have made a sombre decision to create the necessary conditions for regaining its strategic depth in Afghanistan by resuming its political and military support for the Taliban.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Al Qaida Calls Muslims To Unite (Under Pakistani Intelligence) Part II
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 14, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting images of Iran the media rarely shows
Posted by: pingoo on Feb 14, 2007 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
quantumfoam
Posted by: quantumfoam on Feb 14, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we are loosing the iraq war..what resources do we have to fight Iran?

the fools in dc must see this..so if we manage to go to war with iran...how do we " win"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: quantumfoam Posted by: boing007
Al Sadr fled to Iran?
Posted by: Benjaminsjw on Feb 14, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmmm... What a coincidence...
Dutch TV-news (as well as the BBC, for that matter) announced that the American military claims that Moqtada al Sadr has fled to Iran.
Now Bush can conveniently claim that Iran is "harboring terrorists", and start bombing the place to smithereens...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Al Sadr fled to Iran? Posted by: richholland
» RE: Al Sadr fled to Iran? NOT Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» Sad but True Posted by: rwa
the Great Emperor of the White Race.
Posted by: richholland on Feb 14, 2007 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody seems to understand that a wellknown Vegetarian (Adolf Hitler) convinced many innocent German people of the dangerous Polnish people willing to attack the Germans in 1938.
Now we understand the truth, but what is the truth in America?????
How many people die due to traffic???? 42000
War in Irak 2385
How many due to Terrorists??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Course of Congressional inaction may lead to (more) mass slaughter
Posted by: ekipnrut on Feb 14, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Per Scott Ritter:
=================
But one thing is perfectly clear: Only Congress holds the power of the purse. While a President may commit American forces to combat without the consent of Congress (for periods of up to 180 days), he cannot spend money that has not been appropriated. There is, in the passing of any budget, inherent authority given to the President when it comes to national defense. However, Congress can, if it wants to, put specific restrictions on the President's ability to use the people's money. A recent example occurred in 1982, when Congress passed the Boland Amendment to restrict funding for executive-sponsored actions, covert and overt, in Nicaragua. (link to entire article):
SR

===================
Ritter is on the radio as I write this, February 14 2007, stress-
ing how crucial it is that Congress act proactively..that means right GD NOW....to deny BOTH funding and imprimatur ("OK")
for any sttack whatsoever on Iran.
Congress must be compelled by the electorate to NOW absolutely block by iron clad action... NOT mere rhetoric....
any contemplated attack on Iran.
BTW..All you Hillary or Obama minions..go put (wrap) on your
WWI era gas masks and leggings...trundle over to their camps and see if you can get any support.....knowing what
both of 'em know now (that means today) :o)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America is not immune to a military coup d’etat
Posted by: gerdhansel on Feb 14, 2007 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America is not immune to a military coup d’etat. Or do you really believe the masters of the Pentagon will sit idly by and watch their precious volunteer Army be destroyed by our misadventures in Iraq?

How do the generals and admirals feel about the privatized armies of Kellogg, Brown and Root? Are these mercenaries getting more than their rightful share of the public treasury? Soldiers they trained are selling their skills to the highest corporate bidder. What would MacArthur say about such an abomination? Duty, honor and country my ass!

Will we one day witness the Military District of Washington seizing the White House and installing a “unity” government, live on CNN? Will Abrams tanks and Bradleys camp out in DuPont circle and Foggy Bottom?

We’re becoming a banana republic like Chile or Argentina, run by ever-greedier oligarchs. The middle class is fast disappearing. What if the children of the poor are growing tired of spilling their blood to make Exxon and Halliburton filthy rich? Will these citizen-soldiers rise up against their corporate masters? That’s how banana republic soldiers like Juan Peron came to power.

Remember Burt Lancaster and “Seven Days in May?” Betcha we’ve got a few true-believer officers just like this character who secretly plot scenarios for restoring “honor and justice” to American government at the point of a bayonet.

Why are so many soldiers being sent to the sand box right when this administration is in the most political trouble? Perhaps Cheney and company are afraid that their own “troops” will turn on them and throw them in chains where they belong.

Of course all these paranoid musings beg an obvious question – will the legions crossing the Rubicon (or the Potomac from nearby Fort Bragg) be led by a Julius Caesar or a Francisco Franco?

Think this nightmare scenario can’t happen right here in the USA? Well, nobody ever expected the Spanish Inquisition. Never forget the soldiers’ proverb, “The Army takes care of its own.”

If the Democrats don’t grow a spine and fix this problem soon, I greatly fear our generals and admirals will “take care of their own” and impose their own solution.

Perhaps all the King’s horses and all the King’s men can do a better job with broken Humpty Dumpty than King George the Shrub. But I doubt it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wolfowitz Emerges as Key Figure in Intel Manipulation by Jason Leopold
Posted by: rwa on Feb 14, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul Wolfowitz has been identified in recently released grand jury transcripts as being involved in a White House smear campaign against Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador who accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War.

The previously undisclosed development comes on the heels of a scathing report released last week by the DOD's Office of the Inspector General that said Wolfowitz played a key role in the cooking of intelligence related to Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda and its supposed cache of chemical and biological weapons. That effort helped the White House lay the groundwork for a US-led invasion.

Taken as a whole, the involvement of Wolfowitz in an effort to undermine the credibility of an Iraq War critic, and his hands-on role in knowingly providing the White House with the sort of dubious intelligence that came under scrutiny by people like Wilson, shows how widespread the issues surrounding manipulated intelligence truly were, and how crucial it became for members of the Bush administration to discredit anyone who threatened to expose their ruse.

The transcripts were released in the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of former vice presidential staffer I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. They state that Wolfowitz was chosen by Vice President Dick Cheney in mid-July 2003 to leak a highly classified portion of the National Intelligence Estimate to the Wall Street Journal as a way to rebut Wilson's claims that the White House "twisted" intelligence related to Iraq's attempts to build an atomic bomb. The section of the NIE that Wolfowitz leaked to the Journal claimed Wilson's assertions were flat-out wrong. However, it was later revealed that the section of the NIE that Wilson called into question was based on crude forgeries.

The transcript detailing Wolfowitz's involvement in attacks against Wilson's credibility would appear to support similar charges made by career CIA analysts. The analysts told Democratic lawmakers four years ago that they were pressured by Cheney, Libby, Wolfowitz, and former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld to fix the intelligence on Iraq around the administration's policy toward the country..


According to Libby's March 2004 grand jury transcripts, he said that Vice President Cheney discussed with him getting Wolfowitz to contact the Journal to leak the NIE as a way of undermining Wilson.

"After July 14, in that week, the Vice President thought we should still try and get the NIE out. And so he asked me to talk to the Wall Street Journal. I don't have as good a relationship with the Wall Street Journal as Secretary Wolfowitz did, and so we talked to Secretary Wolfowitz about trying to get that point across to the Journal, and he undertook to do so," Libby testified.

Wolfowitz faxed the Wall Street Journal a set of "talking points" about the former ambassador that the paper's editors could use to discredit him in print, according to Libby's grand jury testimony, and then leaked to the paper a portion of the then-still-classified NIE that claimed Iraq did in fact attempt to acquire uranium from Niger. The Journal printed, verbatim, Wolfowitz's talking points in an editorial in its July 17, 2003, edition and then misled its readers about the source of the information.

According to the editorial, "Yellowcake Remix," the Journal said the data the newspaper received about Iraq's interest in uranium "does not come from the White House," despite the fact that Libby testified that he personally lobbied Wolfowitz to leak the NIE to the Journal, and that arguably Wolfowitz's position as Undersecretary of Defense made him a senior member of the Bush administration.

A spokeswoman for the Wall Street Journal said Saturday she was unfamiliar with the issue and was not interested in responding.

truthout.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hey rwa, Posted by: famouspipeliner
» Ask Prophit Posted by: rwa
» Prophit, you reading?nm Posted by: famouspipeliner
» I hate to prove you right...fuck! Posted by: famouspipeliner
» Thanks Posted by: famouspipeliner
For Iran..Multiply this by 100...1000...
Posted by: ekipnrut on Feb 14, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shelter

.....If...and I say If..General Pace and Gates are out of the loop,
it speaks volumes about how the situation is deteriorating.
At some point..the Officer Corps will be held accountable if
they follow the war criminal 'orders' of murdering psychopaths.
Pace appears not to be in lock step.....What are we to make of
this???....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lol
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Feb 14, 2007 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
quote:
"Indeed, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis."

And *indeed*, 9 are still well and alive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pyrrhos
Posted by: Pyrrhos on Feb 14, 2007 2:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The administration’s lies didn’t fool me about
it’s reasons for going to war in Iraq in 2003…

What makes them think I will fall for their
crooked spin this time.

Fool me once; shame on you.
Fool me twice; shame on me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marjorie Cohn, Self-hating Jew
Posted by: opeluboy on Feb 14, 2007 3:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just kidding.

But if Cohn, who most likely is not Irish, can admit that Israel is pushing this war (as it did our illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq), and that our elected officials are no more than mere puppets dancing to their tune, why can't we?

Because then we would be anti-Semites. Honest, reasonable, patriotic and correct, but anti-Semites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Is What We Have...
Posted by: aussidawg on Feb 14, 2007 3:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, there isn't anyone with half a mind (even if that half happens to be tied behind his back) that believes what Bu$h is asserting. What we have here is another opportunity for Bu$h to multitask, ie. attempt regime change in Iran while driving the price of oil (s'cuse me....I meant awl) sky high and increase profits for the hungry awl companies, make some more MONEY for the military-industrial folks, and lets not forget Halliburton. Of course, the Iranians and US get screwed as usual.

We need to impeach this guy NOW!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Master Plan Goes Haywire
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 14, 2007 5:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, sending an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq, even Bush cannot really believe will be enough to bring any kind of stability to Iraq. Now, we first have to accept that the Iraq invasion was trumped up, and that Bush, as the Wilson affair and Downing Street Memorandums amply demonstrate, created a false pretext for this war. The ultimate proof of fabrication being that when Iraq supposedly had WMD's, those very same countries, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia who would most likely be annhilated in any attack, all opposed the invasion. But, America, tens of thousands of miles away, was really afraid of Iraq WMD's (LOL), so how faked up can you get? So, now what is the "Master Plan?" Iraq is down the tubes no matter what America does. The Iraq invasion also created a golden opportunity for anti-American terrorists to unite and draw support. We can only speculate that by now bringing Iran into the conflict, Bush hopes to create a wider, broader Middle-East conflagaration, under the supposition perhaps that this is better then an outright Iraqi defeat and Iranian annexation of a good chunk of the country. The flaw in this reasoning is that any war with Iran is only going to make matters worse. The best course is for America to finally and definitively talk with Iran and bring them to the peace table, along with the other Middle Eastern states. Something so far America has resisted, hoping against long and increasingly impossible odds, no doubt, that things will still somehow go her (America's) way, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Go Go Go USA
Posted by: Melvin on Feb 14, 2007 6:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GEE; All good stuff!
AND you , in the USA, will sit on your arses & let it happen!
Go,Go ,Go, USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE ULTIMATE UNFUNNY BUSHISM
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 14, 2007 8:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry- a bit off topic but

THE ULTIMATE UNFUNNY "BUSHISM"

Many utterances by our President have spawned a veritable "Bushism" industry.

However what the President said today was anything but funny.

When asked if he believed there was a civil war in Iraq he actually said something like this- (I'll get the exact quote soon)

"How would I know ,living in this beautiful white house, if there is a civil war in Iraq?"

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!?????

Because you are the President of the United States of America,Sir and we the people are paying for your white house lifestyle and your misadventure into Iraq resulting in the death of young American lives, the huge misallocation of $ resources, and our loss of our nation's former respect in the community of nations.

THAT'S WHY, SIR,YOU-ESPECIALLY YOU- SHOULD KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN IRAQ!

You insult every American citizen and especially the families of our fallen soldiers by stating you do not know what is going on in Iraq..

I personally insist on an apology immediately! But ,Sir, you owe every American citizen an apology as soon as possible.

Sincerely but livid!

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tell Marjorie that the identity of the 9-11 hijackers is stil UNKNOWN
Posted by: brianct on Feb 14, 2007 10:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms Cohn writes the following:


'Indeed, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. '

Now her piece is very good, and its good to see she is aware that president Ahmadinejad never said 'wipe israel off the face of the earth'...even if it deserves it!
BUT a little investigation would inform her that 6 of the alledged hijackers, including some of the saudis! are alive..
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_flt_11.html

Its time people paid attention to this evidence that has been available for the last 5 years!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The sad state of the Democratic party
Posted by: l_m_n on Feb 15, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democratic candidates are falling all over each other to be the most anti-Iraq war. "I was against it from the start", says Obama. But wouldn't being against the Iraq war involve being a critical thinker, capable of picking apart the admin's blatant lies? How will their current attitude on Iran be spun in 2 years? Methinks we will see a lot more "I never saw Iran as a threat", regardless of what they're saying now.

The reason the Dems are so pathetic-looking is that they swallow the lies and follow Bush's party line, providing "bipartisanship" (which for some reason is played as a good thing... who in their right mind wants to be bipartisan with Bush?). Then, when it is unavoidable that Bush has screwed up, they say they were "really" against what Bush stood for the whole time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Arms Smuggling is the provocation!"
Posted by: zak822 on Feb 15, 2007 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's why President Bush is pushing it so hard. The evil Iranians are sending in weapons, thereby killing our troops.

So we have to have massive air strikes from our carrier forces to protect our troops. Special Forces type troops will go in on the ground on some pretext or other.

That's the line we're going to hear. President Bush believes deeply in the rightness of what he has done and in what he is going to do. And he is surrounded by people who believe this just as deeply as he does or who will support him for personal gain.

And that, my friends, is the heart of the matter. President Bush is a believer, not a thinker. He knows in his gut this is right. So many of the comments here and elsewhere talk about what's morally right, what makes sense, and other logical things. They don't have anything to do with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BUSH NEEDS TO GO NOW!
Posted by: bettyn on Feb 15, 2007 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can count on this power-mad bunch to launch some sort of preemptive strike on Iran shortly before election day in 2008. Then Bush will say the election is being postponed until the war is over because this act could very well result in a nuclear holocaust. We just can't take the chance that this MONSTER might pull some dirty trick like this. If he moves to make any sort of aggressive act toward Iran or ANY OTHER NATION, we must ACT IMMEDIATELY to impeach the whole Bush/Cheney gang.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BUSH NEEDS TO GO NOW! Posted by: boing007
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement