Details the myriad illegal, immoral, and unethical activities of Dick Cheney when CEO of Halliburton, his obstruction of justice, and lies to the American public since his appointment as Vice President. For information on an equally corrupt politician, see link to Tom DeLay-Corporate Whore. Be sure to visit our cavernous vault of archives.

Blogroll Me!

 


Sean Penn: Impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney

Tuesday , December 19, 2006
By Roger Friedman

Oscar-winning actor Sean Penn called for the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in an impassioned speech Monday night in New York.

The occasion was Penn's winning the first annual Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award from the Creative Coalition, a non-partisan advocacy and lobbying group founded by New York actors such as Reeve, Ron Silver and Susan Sarandon more than a decade ago.

Penn was one name on a long list of honorees that included Branford Marsalis, Harvey Keitel and Marcia Gay Harden. He was introduced by PBS' Charlie Rose, who was preceded by Matthew Reeve, the documentary-making eldest son of Christopher Reeve and Gae Exton.

Penn, wearing slicked-back hair, suit and tie, came to the stage at Duvet, a party space on West 21st St., with serious intentions. Unfortunately, his cell phone rang a couple of times during his pointed remarks, and finally he had to answer it.

Such are the consequences of public speaking in the modern era.

Penn is no stranger to controversy, politics or their intersection. But last night's speech was a little different — even for him — amping him up to the next level in the war between liberals and conservatives over the war in Iraq.

Penn spoke in measured tones but was actually quite inflammatory. The combination worked. He also threw a verbal grenade into the crowd when he said: "So look, if we attempt to impeach for lying about a [oral sex act], yet accept these almost certain abuses without challenge, we become a [human] stain on the flag we wave."

The deleted word registered the level of shock it was supposed to, even for the fairly A-list hip crowd that included Heather Graham, Laurence Fishburne, Kerry Washington, Ruben Santiago Hudson, Giancarlo Esposito, Tony Goldwyn, Joe Pantoliano, Richard Belzer, Tamara Tunie and Richard Schiff, plus media types such as John Sykes, Matt Blank (Showtime) and Gerry Byrne.

Penn's proclamation went beyond just staining the red, white and blue. He preceded that line with: "Let's put his administration under oath," he said. "And then if the crimes of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors are proven, do as Article 2, Section 4 of the United States constitution provides, and remove the president, vice president, and … civil officers of the United States from office."

 


Cheney Awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom

Washington, D.C., December 14, 2006

Vice President Dick Cheney has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bush, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan announced today. Cheney thereby joins the ranks of other top-level officials whom Bush has honored with the prestigious award, including former Iraq CPA head L. Paul Bremer, General Tommy Franks, and former CIA director George Tenet. Vice President Cheney issued no public response to the honor and has been unavailable for comment.

"We think Cheney should be pretty pleased, though," said Mr. McClellan. "Cheney's always been a straight shooter who's not afraid of absorbing a little collateral damage if it will help him hit whatever goals he's targeting."

Cheney's Presidential Medal of Freedom, one of the two highest civilian awards in the United States, is unprecedented for a sitting vice president. Some observers believe the award may be related to the shooting incident last February in which Vice President Cheney, hunting quail in light cover on a clear, sunlit afternoon, mistook 78-year-old Harry Whittington, a Texas attorney, for a small, low-flying bird and shot him in the face.

"That's the kind of can-do, no-questions-asked, take-no-prisoners attitude we're looking for, and that's what the president is rewarding," said Mr. McClellan. "It's pretty much standard procedure for this administration and represents the same thinking that led President Bush to grant the awards to L. Paul Bremer, General Franks, and George Tenet. We reserve the Medal of Freedom for the kind of gargantuan incompetence that can otherwise only be papered over by a sudden, unexpected death."

"General Franks, for example, was supposed to invade and secure Iraq, but instead ignored the advice of his colleagues and left the country wide open to looting, chaos, and long-term insurgency," McClellan continued. "Tenet was supposed to take the fall for Bush's false WMD justification for the Iraq invasion, and he fell like a ton of bricks. And L. Paul Bremer was supposed to take billions of dollars of American taxpayer money and scatter them randomly and ineffectually around Iraq, and that's exactly what he did. They're all winners in my book."

In Cheney's case, Mr. McClellan explained, the award is "a bit more general".

"The president has decided to make Cheney's Medal of Freedom not for any one thing in particular," said Mr. McClellan. "It's kind of an all-purpose, 'you're doing a heck of a job' kind of thing. It's certainly not meant to help whitewash any lingering embarrassment from the Texas shooting incident or the pathetic attempt at a cover-up. Although I would put it to you that we still don't know whether or not Harry Whittington, the man whom Cheney allegedly shot, was in fact connected to al-Qaida, or if he were somehow the missing link connecting Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein, and I believe several intelligence agencies overseas may still be looking into that connection. Until we know for sure, we can just be thankful Vice President Cheney had the foresight and the will to take preemptive action before that smoking gun had the chance to turn into a mushroom cloud."

Vice President Cheney, who has been unavailable for comment since early 2001, remains unavailable for comment.

 



Mary Cheney’s Class Privilege

by Tommi Avicolli Mecca‚ Dec. 12‚ 2006

There’s always been two standards of behavior in America: One for the rich, the other for the rest of us. When abortion was illegal, the daughters, wives and girlfriends of rich men could travel over any border to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. Conservative members of Congress have always disregarded the laws against prostitution and legal age of consent to personally indulge in all sorts of sexual shenanigans, even as they ranted and raved about immorality in America, often turning the halls of our legislatures into bully pulpits.

This hypocrisy has a solid basis in American politics: The founding fathers, while pushing the all-so-noble idea that “all men are created equal” had slaves who sometimes bore them illegitimate children. Their wives and daughters couldn’t vote.

Now, along comes Mary Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, who announces that she is carrying a baby that she’ll raise with her lesbian lover of 15 years, Heather Poe. No word on whether she went the anonymous turkey baster or the best-gay-male-friend-as-sperm-donor route. The announcement, at least publicly, has been greeted with a cautious statement from the expectant grandparents: “The Vice President and Mrs. Cheney are looking forward with eager anticipation to the arrival of their sixth grandchild.” That’s all they’re saying about the soon-to-be blessed event.

To his credit, Cheney has stated in the past that he does not support an amendment banning gay marriage. He even expressed support for alternative lifestyles in a speech in Davenport, Iowa a couple years ago: “With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.”

Not all conservative parents of queer kids end up so publicly tolerant. When the son of Phyllis Schafly, a big right-wing organizer of the 70s, came out, she didn’t miss a beat in continuing to condemn homos as the greatest threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Despite having an out lesbian half-sister, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich responded to the recent Mark Foley scandal by blaming gays for the lack of action on the part of Republicans who allegedly knew that the former Florida Congressmember was writing sexy emails to a 16-year-old.

Mary has it good. Sure, she’s been trashed by the right-wing Christian crazies who think it’s oh so awful that the kid won’t have a Daddy. Mary needn’t worry. No matter what happens, she’ll always be able to raise the kid in a style to which most of us will never be accustomed. Who’s going to stop her? Mary has the class privilege to do whatever she wants. She’s never even been an activist. She’s paid no dues. During the last presidential campaign, queer activists criticized her for not championing the cause of gay couples. She hasn’t been a fighter for anything. Her ability to be open is thanks to the sacrifice of countless working- and middle-class queer activists who, since 1949, have risked life and limb to pave the way for Mary to be the poster child for lesbian moms.

It’s not fair. The more deserving recipient of lesbian mother of the year is the working-class dyke with child. She faces it all: social stigma, a low-paying job and a fragile security that could burst at any moment, especially given the ever escalating cost of living and the lack of universal healthcare. If she’s black or Latina she faces an additional hurdle. No one’s devoting any space for her in the papers or on the airwaves.

Mary Cheney, despite the fact that she's sticking it to the right wing by having her child in the first place, is ultimately another poster child for class privilege in America.

 


Embittered Insiders Turn Against Bush/Cheney

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 19, 2006; A01

The weekend after the statue of Saddam Hussein fell, Kenneth Adelman and a couple of other promoters of the Iraq war gathered at Vice President Cheney's residence to celebrate. The invasion had been the "cakewalk" Adelman predicted. Cheney and his guests raised their glasses, toasting President Bush and victory. "It was a euphoric moment," Adelman recalled.

Forty-three months later, the cakewalk looks more like a death march, and Adelman has broken with the Bush team. He had an angry falling-out with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this fall. He and Cheney are no longer on speaking terms. And he believes that "the president is ultimately responsible" for what Adelman now calls "the debacle that was Iraq."

Adelman, a former Reagan administration official and onetime member of the Iraq war brain trust, is only the latest voice from inside the Bush circle to speak out against the president or his policies. Heading into the final chapter of his presidency, fresh from the sting of a midterm election defeat, Bush finds himself with fewer and fewer friends. Some of the strongest supporters of the war have grown disenchanted, former insiders are registering public dissent and Republicans on Capitol Hill blame him for losing Congress.

A certain weary crankiness sets in with any administration after six years. By this point in Bill Clinton's tenure, bitter Democrats were competing to denounce his behavior with an intern even as they were trying to fight off his impeachment. Ronald Reagan was deep in the throes of the Iran-contra scandal. But Bush's strained relations with erstwhile friends and allies take on an extra edge of bitterness amid the dashed hopes of the Iraq venture.

"There are a lot of lives that are lost," Adelman said in an interview last week. "A country's at stake. A region's at stake. This is a gigantic situation. . . . This didn't have to be managed this bad. It's just awful."

The sense of Bush abandonment accelerated during the final weeks of the campaign with the publication of a former aide's book accusing the White House of moral hypocrisy and with Vanity Fair quoting Adelman, Richard N. Perle and other neoconservatives assailing White House leadership of the war.

Since the Nov. 7 elections, Republicans have pinned their woes on the president.

"People expect a level of performance they are not getting," former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said in a speech. Many were livid that Bush waited until after the elections to oust Rumsfeld.

"If Rumsfeld had been out, you bet it would have made a difference," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said on television. "I'd still be chairman of the Judiciary Committee."

And so, in what some saw as a rebuke, Senate Republicans restored Trent Lott (Miss.) to their leadership four years after the White House helped orchestrate his ouster, with some saying they could no longer place their faith entirely in Bush.

Some insiders said the White House invited the backlash. "Anytime anyone holds themselves up as holy, they're judged by a different standard," said David Kuo, a former deputy director of the Bush White House's faith-based initiatives who wrote "Tempting Faith," a book that accused the White House of pandering to Christian conservatives. "And at the end of the day, this was a White House that held itself up as holy."

Richard N. Haass, a former top Bush State Department official and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said a radically different approach to world affairs naturally generates criticism. "The emphasis on promotion of democracy, the emphasis on regime change, the war of choice in Iraq -- all of these are departures from the traditional approach," he said, "so it's not surprising to me that it generates more reaction."

The willingness to break with Bush also underscores the fact that the president spent little time courting many natural allies in Washington, according to some Republicans. GOP leaders in Congress often bristled at what they perceived to be a do-what-we-say approach by the White House. Some of those who did have more personal relationships with Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld came to feel the sense of disappointment more acutely because they believed so strongly in the goals the president laid out for his administration.

The arc of Bush's second term has shown that the most powerful criticism originates from the inside. The pragmatist crowd around Colin L. Powell began speaking out nearly two years ago after he was eased out as secretary of state. Powell lieutenants such as Haass, Richard L. Armitage, Carl W. Ford Jr. and Lawrence B. Wilkerson took public the policy debates they lost on the inside. Many who worked in Iraq returned deeply upset and wrote books such as "Squandered Victory" (Larry Diamond) and "Losing Iraq" (David L. Phillips). Military and CIA officials unloaded after leaving government, culminating in the "generals' revolt" last spring when retired flag officers called for Rumsfeld's dismissal.

On the domestic side, Bush allies in Congress, interest groups and the conservative media broke their solidarity with the White House out of irritation over a number of issues, including federal spending, illegal immigration, the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, the response to Hurricane Katrina and the Dubai Ports World deal.

Most striking lately, though, has been the criticism from neoconservatives who provided the intellectual framework for Bush's presidency. Perle, Adelman and others advocated a robust use of U.S. power to advance the ideals of democracy and freedom, targeting Hussein's Iraq as a threat that could be turned into an opportunity.

In an interview last week, Perle said the administration's big mistake was occupying the country rather than creating an interim Iraqi government led by a coalition of exile groups to take over after Hussein was toppled. "If I had known that the U.S. was going to essentially establish an occupation, then I'd say, 'Let's not do it,' " and instead find another way to target Hussein, Perle said. "It was a foolish thing to do."

Perle, head of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board at the time of the 2003 invasion, said he still believes the invasion was justified. But he resents being called "the architect of the Iraq war," because "my view was different from the administration's view from the very beginning" about how to conduct it. "I am not critical now of anything about which I was not critical before," he said. "I've said it more publicly."

White House officials tend to brush off each criticism by claiming it was over-interpreted or misguided. "I just fundamentally disagree," Cheney said of the comments by Perle, Adelman and other neoconservatives before the midterm elections. Others close to the White House said the neoconservatives are dealing with their own sense of guilt over how events have turned out and are eager to blame Bush to avoid their own culpability.

Joshua Muravchik, a neoconservative at the American Enterprise Institute, said he is distressed "to see neocons turning on Bush" but said he believes they should admit mistakes and openly discuss what went wrong. "All of us who supported the war have to share some of the blame for that," he said. "There's a question to be sorted out: whether the war was a sound idea but very badly executed. And if that's the case, it appears to me the person most responsible for the bad execution was Rumsfeld, and it means neocons should not get too angry at Bush about that."

It may also be, he said, that the mistake was the idea itself -- that Iraq could serve as a democratic beacon for the Middle East. "That part of our plan is down the drain," Muravchik said, "and we have to think about what we can do about keeping alive the idea of democracy."

Few of the original promoters of the war have grown as disenchanted as Adelman. The chief of Reagan's arms control agency, Adelman has been close to Cheney and Rumsfeld for decades and even worked for Rumsfeld at one point. As a member of the Defense Policy Board, he wrote in The Washington Post before the Iraq war that it would be "a cakewalk."

But in interviews with Vanity Fair, the New Yorker and The Post, Adelman said he became unhappy about the conduct of the war soon after his ebullient night at Cheney's residence in 2003. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction disturbed him. He said he was disgusted by the failure to stop the looting that followed Hussein's fall and by Rumsfeld's casual dismissal of it with the phrase "stuff happens." The breaking point, he said, was Bush's decision to award Medals of Freedom to occupation chief L. Paul Bremer, Gen. Tommy R. Franks and then-CIA Director George J. Tenet.

"The three individuals who got the highest civilian medals the president can give were responsible for a lot of the debacle that was Iraq," Adelman said. All told, he said, the Bush national security team has proved to be "the most incompetent" of the past half-century. But, he added, "Obviously, the president is ultimately responsible."

Adelman said he remained silent for so long out of loyalty. "I didn't want to bad-mouth the administration," he said. In private, though, he spoke out, resulting in a furious confrontation with Rumsfeld, who summoned him to the Pentagon in September and demanded his resignation from the defense board.

"It seemed like nobody was getting it," Adelman said. "It seemed like everything was locked in. It seemed like everything was stuck." He agrees he bears blame as well. "I think that's fair. When you advocate a policy that turns bad, you do have some responsibility."

Most troubling, he said, are his shattered ideals: "The whole philosophy of using American strength for good in the world, for a foreign policy that is really value-based instead of balanced-power-based, I don't think is disproven by Iraq. But it's certainly discredited."

 


Dick Cheney Totally Hates You
That shirt? Those shoes? Your kids? Hates 'em, and everything else about you, too. Can you feel it?

- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, November 3, 2006
That shirt you're wearing right now? Chances are, Dick Cheney hates it. That car you drive? Thinks it's for whiny un-American pansies. The fact that you've probably eaten tofu and wear designer shoes and have actually had sex while standing up? Pervert heathen traitor to the real America, Dick thinks. He hates that.

Some days, Dick has trouble counting all the ways in which he hates you, the world, life. Some days, he hates the fact that there are not enough hours in the day for him to count the ways in which he hates you and all you probably stand for. This makes him sad. Which he also hates.

It is a question often asked these days: Whence comes all this dark, dank feeling in America? Why does all seem tainted and soiled and lost lo these past years? When did simply being an American turn so dour and gray, like someone poured gasoline into a big glass of Sunny Delight? Here, I firmly believe, is a great portion of your answer.

It has become a national pastime, of sorts, listing all the things and all the events and all types of people -- liberals journalists prisoners suspects foreigners Democrats moderates animals environmentalists trees pacifists 'Nam vets women clean air -- Dick Cheney hates every single day. Even Republicans are a little taken aback by the length of the list.

Recently, this dark pall has become even more evident. Cheney's trademark hate spewed forth all over the media, like smoking black roof tar, when he appeared Fox News and claimed that the insane, increasing violence in Iraq between the Sunni and Shiite militias, the groups who are now killing each other and killing U.S. soldiers and causing havoc as a result of our failed invasion and failed puppet government and failed foreign policy, these vicious militias are killing even more right now because, well, because they read DailyKos.com.

And also, Truthout. And the New York Times. And this very newspaper.

In other words, Dick Cheney believes these radicals read lots of American liberal media and therefore understand that our midterm elections are upon us and that almost every Republican warmongering jackal is on the ropes, and if they increase their attacks it will only make Republicans look even worse than they do all by themselves -- which is, of course, already bad enough.

This is what Dick actually said. Why is the Iraq war deteriorating so horribly? Because Republicans are suffering. And the terrorists have it in for the GOP because the GOP fights for freedom and love and soft warm puppies, and terrorists hate that mushy stuff! This is what Dick wants Fox viewers to believe -- despite how, of course, years of insane GOP warmongering have given the world's terrorists everything they could've ever dreamed.

It's true. The terrorists of the world, including Osama, would love nothing more than 20 more years of Dick 'n' Dubya, if only to encourage more global instability, to rile more foreign resentment against BushCo's increasingly self-righteous, insular, vicious United States.

In other words, the terrorists love Dick. He and Dub and the World's Worst Administration have made for the greatest recruitment campaign in terrorist history. And man, does Dick hate that.

Yes, Dick hates your understanding of these ideas, your automatic recoil at his idiotic statements. He hates the fact that you know, when he comes out in support of torture and the "no-brainer" dunking of prisoners, that he's merely kowtowing to the last remaining lowest-common-denominator voting bloc of the GOP, the gun-totin' kill-'em'-all flyover-state fundamentalists who are, in their way, little different than the Taliban.

He knows you know. It doesn't matter. Because he hates them, too. "Dumbass vermin," he doubtlessly muttered, just under his breath, as the Fox cameras clicked off. Then he just chuckled.

In fact, it is very easy to go so far as to say that Dick Cheney hates his own boss and president, George W. Bush. Can you not tell?

Oh sure, Dick enjoys how tractable and malleable George is, how easily Dick can get his own nasty agenda items across and how he is often considered the "real" president, the most influential and draconian VP of all time. That makes him feel good, despite how good feelings are complete BS and make him suspicious as hell, which he hates.

But deep down, Dick secretly hates the fact that George is such an easily manipulable dink. And if there's one thing Dick hates, it's dinks.

Now, you might say, I do not like all this talk of hate. You might say, I do not like the fact that you talk about the vice president as hating me, my life, everything I stand for, even the life force itself. It all sounds so very ... hateful.

This is understandable. It is not a comfortable feeling. It is not something in which anyone but Dick Cheney likes to wallow for very long. But it must be noted here, because perhaps more than any other single human in recent history, Dick Cheney has brought the emotion of hate into the forefront of our national consciousness. He has made it our top agenda item, our most defining characteristic, the thing which we let spread around us, like a cancer. Karl Rove might've been BushCo's master architect, but Cheney provided all the nails.

But now, the good news. If Dick's hate of all things life-giving and positive and peaceful has been, in fact, some sort of enormous cosmic test, the thing we had to survive most, perhaps even more than Dubya's embarrassing, inarticulate bumbling, then it appears we have succeeded. Or rather, we're beginning to. The GOP is down to its last stockpiles of bilious gunpowder. The homophobia and the fearmongering now seem transparent and childish. The desperation is palpable and acrid. The beast is slumping, slowly, meanly, angrily back to its cave.

What, then, happens to all that built-up hate? What of that feeling that has, for so long, festered in the American heart, planted there by Dick in the hopes that it would spread and tumesce and keep us bitter and knee-jerk and reactive and controllable for decades to come?

Well, perhaps now, with the crumbling of the pseudo-fascist GOP empire, is when a bizarre transmogrification can occur. Now is maybe when the switch can be flipped and the poles can reverse and the hate actually implodes in on itself, burning us all clean. Or, you know, a little less dirty, which, at this point, is a damn good start.

In other words, maybe now is when we can once again begin to embrace those things, those ideas and those candidates and those clothes and those sexual positions and those nuances and those shoes and those books and those institutions that lie in direct opposition to Dick Hate.

It is, after all, a simple law of the universe: The more you love the vibrant and defiant and independent-minded gobs of this life, the more those things that are not those things will simper and shiver and wail.

See? It's already happening. Look closer at that Fox footage. Dick looks lost. He looks deadened. He looks, well, more than a little desperate. And man, Dick really hates that.

Which is, of course, a very good sign indeed.

 


UN watchdog: $22 mln missing in Iraq contracts

Mon Nov 6, 2006 9:20pm ET

WASHINGTON, Nov 6 (Reuters) - An audit of 15 noncompetitive contracts paid for by U.S. government agencies with Iraqi oil money was unable to account for $22.4 million in funds, a U.N.-led watchdog said on Monday.

The audit by KPMG, ordered by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, or IAMB, said in some cases Iraq did not receive goods, there were "unreconciled payments" and there was no evidence that steps were taken to fix previously reported problems.

The contracts varied, from oil pipeline security, police and military training, printing of the new Iraqi currency to the purchase of vehicles and food.

"In view of these findings, the IAMB recommends that the Iraqi government seek resolution with the U.S. government concerning the use of resources of the (Development Fund for Iraq), which might be in contradiction with the UN Security Council Resolution 1483," the board said in a statement posted on its Web site.

The IAMB, which also includes officials from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, was created by the U.N. Security Council in 2003 to oversee the use of Iraqi oil money while the country was under an interim U.S. administration.

The watchdog's mandate expires at the end of December and its last meeting is tentatively scheduled for Dec. 11-12.

Meanwhile, the IAMB also said an audit by Crowe Chizek accounting firm that looked at Iraq contracts between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Halliburton Co. (HAL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root were found "to be reasonable."

"The audit reviewed the findings of earlier audit reports by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and found that the conclusions reached by the DCAA were supported by the underlying accounting and auditing records," the IAMB said.

But the audit noted that transportation costs incurred by the Halliburton unit for fuel supplies to Iraq between May 2003 and March 2004 were very high, in some cases as much as 86 percent of the total contract costs.

"The IAMB continues to question the reasonableness of these costs and the adequacy of the administration contracts," it said.

The Texas-based Halliburton, formerly run by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, has drawn scrutiny for its work in Iraq, where it was the biggest U.S. military contractor.

 


Congress Tells Auditor in Iraq to Close Office

By JAMES GLANZ

Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.

Mr. Bowen’s office, which began operation in January 2004 to examine reconstruction money spent in Iraq, was always envisioned as a temporary organization, permitted to continue its work only as long as Congress saw fit. Some advocates for the office, in fact, have regarded its lack of a permanent bureaucracy as the key to its aggressiveness and independence.

But as the implications of the provision in the new bill have become clear, opposition has been building on both sides of the political aisle. One point of contention is exactly when the office would have naturally run its course without a hard end date.

The bipartisan opposition may not be unexpected given Mr. Bowen’s Republican credentials — he served under George W. Bush both in Texas and in the White House — and deep public skepticism on the Bush administration’s conduct of the war.

Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who followed the bill closely as chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, says that she still does not know how the provision made its way into what is called the conference report, which reconciles differences between House and Senate versions of a bill.

Neither the House nor the Senate version contained such a termination clause before the conference, all involved agree.

“It’s truly a mystery to me,” Ms. Collins said. “I looked at what I thought was the final version of the conference report and that provision was not in at that time.”

“The one thing I can confirm is that this was a last-minute insertion,” she said.

A Republican spokesman for the committee, Josh Holly, said lawmakers should not have been surprised by the provision closing the inspector general’s office because it “was discussed very early in the conference process.”

But like several other members of the House and Senate who were contacted on the bill, Ms. Collins said that she feared the loss of oversight that could occur if the inspector general’s office went out of business, adding that she was already working on legislation with several Democratic and Republican senators to reverse the termination.

One of those, John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that Mr. Bowen was “making a valuable contribution to the Congressional and public understanding of this very complex and ever-changing situation in Iraq.”

“Given that his office has performed important work and that much remains to be done,” Mr. Warner added, “I intend to join Senator Collins in consulting with our colleagues to extend his charter.”

While Senators Collins and Warner said they had nothing more than hunches on where the impetus for setting a termination date had originated, Congressional Democrats were less reserved.

“It appears to me that the administration wants to silence the messenger that is giving us information about waste and fraud in Iraq,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat who is the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform.

“I just can’t see how one can look at this change without believing it’s political,” he said.

The termination language was inserted into the bill by Congressional staff members working for Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and who declared on Monday that he plans to run for president in 2008.

Mr. Holly, who is the House Armed Services spokesman as well as a member of Mr. Hunter’s staff, said that politics played no role and that there had been no direction from the administration or lobbying from the companies whose work in Iraq Mr. Bowen’s office has severely critiqued. Three of the companies that have been a particular focus of Mr. Bowen’s investigations, Halliburton, Parsons and Bechtel, said that they had made no effort to lobby against his office.

The idea, Mr. Holly said, was simply to return to a non-wartime footing in which inspectors general in the State Department, the Pentagon and elsewhere would investigate American programs overseas. The definite termination date was also seen as helpful for planning future oversight efforts from Bush administration agencies, he said.

But in Congress, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle, there have long been accusations that agencies controlled by the Bush administration are not inclined to unearth their own shortcomings in the first place.

The criticism came to a head in a hearing a year ago, when Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, induced the Pentagon’s acting inspector general, Thomas Gimble, to concede that he had no agents deployed in Iraq, more than two years after the invasion.

A spokesman for the Pentagon inspector general said Thursday that Mr. Gimble had worked to improve that situation, and currently had seven auditors in Baghdad and others working on Iraq-related issues in the United States and elsewhere. Mr. Gimble was in Iraq on Thursday, the spokesman said.

Mr. Bowen’s office has 55 auditors and inspectors in Iraq and about 300 reports and investigations already to its credit, far outstripping any other oversight agency in the country.

But Howard Krongard, the State Department inspector general, said that the comparison was misleading, because many of those resources would probably flow to State and the Pentagon if Congress shuts Mr. Bowen’s office down.

“I think we are competitive to do what they ask us to do,” Mr. Krongard said, referring to Congress.

Mr. Kucinich and other lawmakers said that Iraq oversight could also be hurt by the loss of Mr. Bowen’s mandate, which allows him to cross institutional boundaries, while the other inspectors general have jurisdictions only within their own agencies. Mr. Krongard said that issue could be handled by cooperation among the inspectors general.

Officials at the State Department and the Pentagon made it clear that in general terms they supported Mr. Bowen’s work and would abide by the wishes of Congress.

While the quality of Mr. Bowen’s work is seldom questioned, he is sometimes accused of being a grandstander who is too friendly with the news media. Mr. Bowen has responded that it is standard procedure to publicize successful investigations as a way of discouraging other potential wrongdoers.

Among the disagreements on the termination language in the defense authorization bill was exactly how much it would have shortened Mr. Bowen’s tenure. An amendment in the Senate version of the bill actually expanded the pot of reconstruction money his agents could examine.

Because the tenure of his office is calculated through a formula involving the amount of reconstruction money in that pot, the crafters of that amendment figured that it would have extended Mr. Bowen’s work until well into 2008 — or longer if Congress granted further extensions.

Mr. Holly agrees that the Senate language would have expanded that pot of money, but he says that in the Republican staff’s interpretation of the formula, Mr. Bowen’s tenure would have run out sometime in 2007 whether the money was added or not.

In any case, as the bill came out of conference, the termination date of Oct. 1, 2007, was inserted, effectively meaning that Mr. Bowen would have to start working on passing his responsibilities to other agencies by early next year.

Capitol Hill staff members said that after House Democratic objections were overridden, Senate conferees agreed to the provision in a bit of horse-trading: the amount of money Mr. Bowen could look at would be expanded, but only with the hard termination date.

Mr. Bowen himself declined to comment on the controversy surrounding his office, saying only that he was already working with the other inspectors general to develop a transition plan in accordance with the defense authorization act. “We will do what the Congress desires,” Mr. Bowen said.

 
Shreddin' with Dick



Spotted on 10/19, by an eagle-eyed Wonkette reader: The Mid-Atlantic Shredding Services truck making its way up to the Cheney compound at the Naval Observatory.

Fun fact: Mid-Atlantic Shredding Services has been contracted by the Secret Service for our Executive Branch’s record-not-keeping needs.

The present contractor providing Pickup & Destruction of Sensitive Waste Material services is Mid Atlantic Shredding Services and the current rate is $0.095 cents per lbs.You better get crackin’, Dick — that evidence won’t destroy itself!

 


Cheney confirms that detainees were subjected to water-boarding

By Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney has confirmed that U.S. interrogators subjected captured senior al-Qaida suspects to a controversial interrogation technique called "water-boarding," which creates a sensation of drowning.

Cheney indicated that the Bush administration doesn't regard water-boarding as torture and allows the CIA to use it. "It's a no-brainer for me," Cheney said at one point in an interview.

Cheney's comments, in a White House interview on Tuesday with a conservative radio talk show host, appeared to reflect the Bush administration's view that the president has the constitutional power to do whatever he deems necessary to fight terrorism.

The U.S. Army, senior Republican lawmakers, human rights experts and many experts on the laws of war, however, consider water-boarding cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that's banned by U.S. law and by international treaties that prohibit torture. Some intelligence professionals argue that it often provides false or misleading information because many subjects will tell their interrogators what they think they want to hear to make the water-boarding stop.

Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have said that a law Bush signed last month prohibits water-boarding. The three are the sponsors of the Military Commissions Act, which authorized the administration to continue its interrogations of enemy combatants.

The radio interview Tuesday was the first time that a senior Bush administration official has confirmed that U.S. interrogators used water-boarding against important al-Qaida suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged chief architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Mohammad was captured in Pakistan on March 1, 2003, and turned over to the CIA.

Water-boarding means holding a person's head under water or pouring water on cloth or cellophane placed over the nose and mouth to simulate drowning until the subject agrees to talk or confess.

Lee Ann McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, denied that Cheney confirmed that U.S. interrogators used water-boarding or endorsed the technique.

"What the vice president was referring to was an interrogation program without torture," she said. "The vice president never goes into what may or may not be techniques or methods of questioning."

In the interview on Tuesday, Scott Hennen of WDAY Radio in Fargo, N.D., told Cheney that listeners had asked him to "let the vice president know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives."

"Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?" Hennen said.

"I do agree," Cheney replied, according to a transcript of the interview released Wednesday. "And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high-value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation."

Cheney added that Mohammed had provided "enormously valuable information about how many (al-Qaida members) there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth. We've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that."

"Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?" asked Hennen.

"It's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the vice president `for torture.' We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in," Cheney replied. "We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that."

The interview transcript was posted on the White House Web site. Interview of the Vice President by Scott Hennen, WDAY.

CIA spokeswoman Michelle Neff said, "While we do not discuss specific interrogation methods, the techniques we use have been reviewed by the Department of Justice and are in keeping with our laws and treaty obligations. We neither conduct nor condone torture."

 


What's Bad for America is Good for Halliburton: Just ask the Vice President

Huffington Post
Steve Young

In the same month that we lost a record number of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens lost many more, Vice President Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh that "if you look at the overall situation they're doing remarkably well."

Now we know that the Darth was speaking about Halliburton.

This week the Halliburton's third-quarter net income rose 22 percent with third-quarter revenue rising 19 percent to $5.8 billion.

But even more indecent was that the VP's talking point was dittoed by Halliburton officials.

"Iraq was better than expected," said Jeff Tillery, analyst (who does research for Halliburton) at Pickering Energy Partners Inc. "Overall, there is nothing really to question or be skeptical about. I think the results are very good."

"Overall, there is nothing to question or be skeptical about." Dost that not soar far off the puke-ability chart?

More than glaring is that both Cheney and Tillery both believe that the "overall" situation in Iraq has not to do with American soldiers dying or Iraqi citizens losing everything or civil war exploding, but with profit..."overall."

Still think Cheney is not deeply connected with Halliburton?

"This was an exceptional quarter for Halliburton," said Dave Lesar, Halliburton's chairman, president and CEO.

Do we need any more proof that, "overall," what's good for Halliburton is, overall, bad for the rest of us?

And you thought Dick Cheney was kidding when he said, "We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will."

Or is that Halliburton's company policy.

 


Don’t Bother to Send in the Clowns: They are Already Here

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 10/17/2006 - 7:08am. Editorials
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

BuzzFlash recently ran a series of commentaries on the contempt that the Busheviks have for democracy.

We traced this back to the "masters of the universe" outlook of the Kissinger era, in which Cheney and Rumsfeld were molded. It also can be attributed to the Straussian school of thought that influenced so many Neo-Cons.

In both cases, the basic attitude of the Busheviks is that democracy is too important to be left to the voters. In short, democracy isn’t worth a damn unless you own it and predetermine the outcome of an election.

That is why Bush is openly considering "changing" the so-called "democratically-elected" regime in Iraq. That is why Kissinger declared that the issues in Chile were too important to be left to the voters in the ‘70s. That is why Antonin Scalia led the theft of the 2000 presidency by declaring that if all the votes were counted it might sully the reputation of Bush, because -- it follows -- that if all the votes had been counted, Bush would have lost.

As we pointed out in our editorial series, Straussians believe that it is fully justified – and even necessary – to deceive the masses in order to achieve goals that only the "masters of the universe" can fully understand. In short, it is arrogant elitism, not the ideals of our founding fathers, that underlies the political theater of the Busheviks.

This is, of course, a betrayal of our Constitution, our tenets of democracy, and of the ideals of the American Revolution. That is enough to make one both rage and weep at the same time.

What is even more galling and unacceptable, however, is that these particular self-styled "masters of the universe" are utter failures. They are like the clowns that used to endlessly emerge out of a small Volkswagen Beetle.

They have succeeded at virtually nothing but failure.

Then they use their latest failure to justify the next failure.

If any of these clowns had to do a yearly job review based on the goals that they stated that they were going to achieve, they would be summarily fired.

The lack of accountability for "masters of the universe" is dumbfounding in a nation that prides itself on productivity, defined outcomes, service and delivering a successful product to the consumer.

On all these accounts of what supposedly makes America a financial powerhouse, this administration has failed on a level of governmental and foreign policy implementation.

And it hasn’t just failed in a run of the mill way; it has failed spectacularly.

Just yesterday, Cheney told a captive audience of soldiers in Kentucky that our military is building "bonds of friendship" with average Iraqis and winning the war.

A short while back, the Washington Post reported on a poll that indicated 60% of Iraqis support insurgent attacks on U.S. GIs! It also published a story that indicated polls showed that the vast majority of Iraqis wanted the American military to leave the country. Now, that’s a spectacular failure. The majority of people we are supposed to be liberating are essentially in support of killing our own soldiers.

But Cheney, born of the era of Kissinger’s worldview of rule by the elite, will not bother acknowledging the truth.

Better to spoon feed the masses reassuring pablum than to save the lives of our Gis, the Iraqis and billions upon billions of dollars that could be used for the common good of Americans.

Don’t bother sending in the clowns to the White House.

They are already there.

 


American Prison Camps Are on the Way

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet
Posted on October 9, 2006

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants."

Bush & Co. has portrayed the bill as a tough way to deal with aliens to protect us against terrorism. Frightened they might lose their majority in Congress in the November elections, the Republicans rammed the bill through Congress with little substantive debate.

Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.

The bill also strips habeas corpus rights from detained aliens who have been declared enemy combatants. Congress has the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus only in times of rebellion or invasion. The habeas-stripping provision in the new bill is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will likely say so when the issue comes before it.

Although more insidious, this law follows in the footsteps of other unnecessarily repressive legislation. In times of war and national crisis, the government has targeted immigrants and dissidents.

In 1798, the Federalist-led Congress, capitalizing on the fear of war, passed the four Alien and Sedition Acts to stifle dissent against the Federalist Party's political agenda. The Naturalization Act extended the time necessary for immigrants to reside in the U.S. because most immigrants sympathized with the Republicans.

The Alien Enemies Act provided for the arrest, detention and deportation of male citizens of any foreign nation at war with the United States. Many of the 25,000 French citizens living in the U.S. could have been expelled had France and America gone to war, but this law was never used. The Alien Friends Act authorized the deportation of any non-citizen suspected of endangering the security of the U.S. government; the law lasted only two years and no one was deported under it.

The Sedition Act provided criminal penalties for any person who wrote, printed, published, or spoke anything "false, scandalous and malicious" with the intent to hold the government in "contempt or disrepute." The Federalists argued it was necessary to suppress criticism of the government in time of war. The Republicans objected that the Sedition Act violated the First Amendment, which had become part of the Constitution seven years earlier. Employed exclusively against Republicans, the Sedition Act was used to target congressmen and newspaper editors who criticized President John Adams.

Subsequent examples of laws passed and actions taken as a result of fear-mongering during periods of xenophobia are the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, the Red Scare following World War I, the forcible internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II, and the Alien Registration Act of 1940 (the Smith Act).

During the McCarthy period of the 1950s, in an effort to eradicate the perceived threat of communism, the government engaged in widespread illegal surveillance to threaten and silence anyone who had an unorthodox political viewpoint. Many people were jailed, blacklisted and lost their jobs. Thousands of lives were shattered as the FBI engaged in "red-baiting." One month after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, United States Attorney General John Ashcroft rushed the U.S.A. Patriot Act through a timid Congress. The Patriot Act created a crime of domestic terrorism aimed at political activists who protest government policies, and set forth an ideological test for entry into the United States.

In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the internment of Japanese and Japanese-American citizens in Korematsu v. United States. Justice Robert Jackson warned in his dissent that the ruling would "lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need."

That day has come with the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It provides the basis for the President to round-up both aliens and U.S. citizens he determines have given material support to terrorists. Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of undesirables.

In his 1928 dissent in Olmstead v. United States, Justice Louis Brandeis cautioned, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Seventy-three years later, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, speaking for a zealous President, warned Americans "they need to watch what they say, watch what they do."

We can expect Bush to continue to exploit 9/11 to strip us of more of our liberties. Our constitutional right to dissent is in serious jeopardy. Benjamin Franklin's prescient warning should give us pause: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. 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 2007 by PoliPointPress.

 


Arrest over Cheney barb triggers lawsuit

By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
October 3, 2006

A Denver-area man filed a lawsuit today against a member of the Secret Service for causing him to be arrested after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek this summer and criticized him for his policies concerning Iraq.
Attorney David Lane said that on June 16, Steve Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people.

According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible," or words to that effect, then walked on.

Ten minutes later, according to Howards' lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had "assaulted" the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.

The lawsuit states that the Secret Service agent instructed that Howards should be issued a summons for harassment, but that on July 6 the Eagle County District Attorney's Office dismissed all charges against Howards.

The lawsuit filed today alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizure.

 


Cheney: GOP ‘will retain control’
(AP )
Vice President Dick Cheney rejects predictions that the Democrats will take control of Congress in this fall’s midterm elections.

Bill Sammon, The Examiner
Oct 5, 2006 5:00 AM (7 hrs ago)

ABOARD AIR FORCE TWO - Vice President Dick Cheney said he “can’t tell” how a Republican sex scandal will impact next month’s elections, but insisted “it makes no sense” for House Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign.

In his first public remarks on the burgeoning scandal, Cheney told The Washington Examiner in an exclusive interview that fellow Republican Hastert, R-Ill., should reject Democratic calls for his resignation.

“I’m a huge Denny Hastert fan — I think he’s a great speaker,” Cheney said in his private cabin aboard Air Force Two. “And it makes no sense at all for him to think about stepping down.”

Cheney aides described the vice president as repulsed by allegations that former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., sent salacious e-mails and instant messages to teenage boys working as congressional pages. At the same time, Cheney is determined not to let the scandal overshadow campaign issues that he considers far more important — national security and the economy.

“I think we’ve got good stuff to work with,” he said during a flight from Houston to Washington. “The Foley thing, again, as to how that cuts, I can’t tell.”

Cheney flatly rejected predictions by pundits that Democrats will take control of the House and Senate in November.

“We will retain control of both houses,” he said.

If Cheney is wrong, some believe Democrats will spend the next two years investigating the Bush administration with subpoenas and hearings. Some Democrats have already called for Bush to be censured, while others have hinted at impeachment proceedings.

“I don’t think we fear investigations,” Cheney said. “I don’t think they [Democrats] would get much done, if that’s all they’ve got. And I don’t think there’s great enthusiasm on the part of the country for that.

 


Is Desperate Cheney Scheming Nuclear Sneak Attack on Iran?

Jeffrey Steinberg

Senior U.S. military and intelligence sources canvassed by EIR do not rule out the possibility of a White House-ordered "Global Strike" unprovoked sneak attack against sites inside Iran before the Nov. 7 midterm U.S. elections. In fact, a number of particularly well-placed military and intelligence professionals identified the period from Oct. 4-18 as a possible window for just such a pre-election "preventive strike."

Operational plans for such an attack have been recently updated, and could be activated with virtually no lead time, utilizing long-range strategic bombers and missiles, and carrier-based fighter jets, already in or near the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf region, according to one senior U.S. diplomat. "The military did the planning, but they hated it. Expect mass resignations at the flag level, if the orders come down to launch," the source warned.

What's more, in the aftermath of Israel's failed "shock and awe" bombing campaign in the recent Lebanon war, do not rule out the U.S. use of nuclear "bunker busters" in an attack on hardened sites inside Iran, according to several of the sources.


[More:]

Hezbollah fighters waited out the initial weeks-long Israeli bombing campaign, inside air-conditioned reinforced underground bunkers, and then emerged to launch a barrage of over 4,000 rocket and missile attacks against Israeli targets. The psychological impact of the rain of missiles on the northern half of Israel eventually drove the government of Ehud Olmert to deploy "boots on the ground" inside Lebanon's treacherous southern region, leading to a second disastrous Israeli military debacle, at the hands of trained and seasoned Hezbollah partisan fighters.

While military professionals noted the Hezbollah victory as a turning point in the politico-military situation in the extended Southwest Asian and Persian Gulf region, fanatics in the Bush-Cheney White House have been reportedly driven into an even more desperate flight-forward commitment to near-term military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

So-called Iranian "nuclear weapons sites" are far more heavily reinforced and could withstand any conventional bombing attacks, according to military specialists. Therefore, the nuclear bunker-buster option cannot be ruled out, despite an intensive "generals revolt" last Spring, which temporarily forced the White House to remove the use of tactical nuclear weapons from the contingency plans.

Public Warnings

While the establishment mass media has conducted a top-down coverup of the White House plans for a sneak attack on Iran, a number of think-tank journals and Internet-based news services have sounded the warning:

• On Sept. 23, former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.), who headed a late-1990s Congressionally sponsored commission on the U.S. vulnerability to a terrorist attack, warned that the Bush White House was planning "The October Surprise," in the form of a bombing of Iran. Writing on Huffington Blog, Senator Hart bluntly warned, "It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election. Were these more normal times, this would be a stunning possibility, quickly dismissed by thoughtful people as dangerous, unprovoked, and out of keeping with our national character. But we do not live in normal times. And we do not have a government much concerned with our national character. If anything, our current Administration is out to remake our national character into something it has never been."

Senator Hart summarized the "Global Strike" war plan: "Air Force tankers will be deployed to fuel B-2 bombers, Navy cruise missile ships will be positioned at strategic points in the northern Indian Ocean and perhaps the Persian Gulf, unmanned drones will collect target data, and commando teams will refine those data. The latter two steps are already being taken."

Indeed, U.S. military sources have confirmed that special reconnaissance units have been on the ground inside Iran since the Summer of 2004, planting sensors and recruiting intelligence assets, to prepare the battle field for a U.S. air campaign.

• On Sept. 26, conservative syndicated columnist Paul Craig Roberts wrote "Why Bush Will Nuke Iran," declaring that "the neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israel) hegemony in the Middle East."

• Several weeks before the Hart and Roberts warnings, The Century Foundation posted a 28-page analysis, "The End of the 'Summer of Diplomacy': Assessing U.S. Military Options on Iran," by Col. Sam Gardiner (USAF-ret.), a respected retired Air Force strategist and war-planner. The document detailed the Bush White House's fractured logic, leading to a military assault on Iran, aimed at regime change, not the delay or destruction of the Islamic Republic's purported secret nuclear weapons program. In plain language, Colonel Gardiner spelled out why an attack by the United States on Iran would occur sooner, not later:

"Waiting makes it harder. The history of warfare is dominated by attackers who concluded that it was better to attack early than to wait. One source of the momentum in Washington for a strike on Iran's nuclear program is the strategic observation that if such an attack is in fact inevitable, then it is better done sooner than later."

Colonel Gardiner documented that the order of battle for Phase I of war on Iran would require virtually no lead time to put military assets in place. Rather, he spelled out a propaganda buildup as the key indicator of imminent attack: "The most significant indications will come from strategic influence efforts to establish domestic political support. The round of presidential speeches on terrorism is a beginning, but I expect more. An emerging theme for the final marketing push seems to be that Iran threatens Israel's existence. We can expect the number of administration references to Iran to significantly increase, and will see three themes—the nuclear program, terrorism, and the threat to Israel's existence." Gardiner added the warning that the Bush Administration would likely strike without seeking Congressional approval, concluding, ominously: "The window for a strike on Iran stands open."

• Months before the Gardiner report, The National Interest, the journal of the Nixon Center, published a detailed analysis by Col. W. Patrick Lang (USA-ret.) and Larry C. Johnson—two Middle East specialists with decades of military and intelligence experience—"Contemplating the Ifs," debunking the notion that the United States or Israel has any viable military option for confronting Iran. Taking a very dispassioned approach, the two reported: "Friends in the intelligence community tell us that civilian officials at the Department of Defense have been pushing aggressively for almost two years to 'do something violent' in Iran. but before we embark on another military operation, we must reckon the costs; we must ensure that we are willing to pay those costs; and we should ensure that neoconservative enthusiasts would not be tempted to say—if venturing into Iran becomes a misadventure—that it was impossible to foresee negative consequences. There are a lot of bad things that could happen if we launch a pre-emptive war with Iran. Before we act, we must thoroughly consider what our viable military options are."

Lang and Johnson dismissed, out of hand, a conventional ground invasion; disputed the viability of commando and air raids; blew off any "mirage" of a possible Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites; and then detailed Iran's asymmetrical counter-capabilities, concluding, "In the end, it may become necessary to confront Iran militarily over its emergent nuclear power status, but the costs would be so high that all diplomatic resources should be exhausted before such measures are adopted."

Voices in the Congressional Wilderness

The pathetic bipartisan surrender to the Bush-Cheney White House over the status of "enemy combatants," will only serve to send Dick Cheney and the ever-more-mad President George W. Bush into a flight forward into sneak attack war on Iran (see Editorial). A relative handful of Members of Congress from both parties have stood up against the tide of capitulation by both the Democratic and Republican leadership.

On Sept. 29, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) filed a resolution in the House, giving the Bush White House 14 days to turn over policy documents relating to Iran, including intelligence on Iran's nuclear energy program and "Iran's capability to threaten the United States with nuclear weapons"; any decision documents "to remove the ruling regime from power in Iran"; details of any "covert action being conducted by any United States Armed Forces in Iran"; details concerning "creation of a new office in the Department of Defense similar in scope, function, or mandate to the former Office of Special Plans"; any "Prepare to Deploy" orders by the United States Navy on the waters near Iran; and any National Intelligence Estimates or any other intelligence documents on the consequences, including economic consequences, of a U.S. attack on Iran.

The same day, Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.) and 19 other House Republicans and Democrats wrote to President Bush, urging him to open direct dialogue with Iran "as soon as possible," noting that "more than 25 years of isolating Iran has moved us farther from, not closer to, achieving these goals."

 


Vermont Congress candidate calls on Pentagon to arrest Bush, Cheney

by repost Wednesday, Sep. 27, 2006 at 9:41 PM

Saturday, Septmber 23— Former Army Lieutenant and candidate for Congress in Vermont, Dennis Morrisseau, today called for the arrest of President Bush and Vice President Cheney by the American military "if necessary" to prevent an unauthorized attack upon the nation of Iran.

The antiwar Vietnam vet is a Republican, but he has won approval from the State of Vermont to run on the ballot line “Impeach Bush Now,” rather than Democrat or Republican.

"American forces are apparently already active inside Iran, and Naval forces have received orders to deploy to that country," Morrisseau said. "The President has NO AUTHORITY to attack the nation of Iran whatsoever, in the absence of a full, formal Declaration of War on Iran by the sitting Congress."

Morrisseau said any order for an attack upon Iran or to deploy naval forces to its coastal waters is illegal, and called upon officers of the American military to "First, refuse to obey such an order. If the president persists and insists on ordering our forces into combat in or over Iran without a formal Declaration of War, then I call upon you, General Pace, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and upon such other military officers as clearly see their duty in these circumstances to detain both the President and Vice President, until such time as the Congress shall act."

Letter to General Pace of the Joint Chiefs

Morrisseau, who was court-martialled for opposition to the Vietnam War in 1968, said he has written to General Pace to ask for the intervention of the military. "In spite of my opposition to the Vietnam War and the court-martial which we ultimately defeated, I was a good soldier who had the respect of my superior officers throughout the ordeal. And they had mine!" Morrisseau said. "There are many many, very, very decent people in the active duty military. I know this," he said "people who love their country and democracy too, and hate war."

Morrisseau wrote that "Iran is no present threat to us or anyone. Their right to enrich uranium under treaties signed by us for the production of nuclear power is clear: and that is all they have so far done. An attack upon that nation now by us, acting alone will constitute an illegal war of aggression under international law. It is illegal under our law as well. I urge you to so advise the President," Morrisseau wrote to Pace, "and urge that he take no such actions. In particular, he must not act in the absense of a full, formal, responsible War Declaration by Congress. That is the Constitutional requirement."

If he and Cheney persist, Morrisseau wrote, "than the country must rely upon you, Sir, and our armed forces generally, to resist all illegal orders by Bush or Cheney, and take the gentlemen into custody if necessary."

October Surprise

Morrissaeu's website notes that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have issued orders for a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast.

This information follows a report in the current issue of Time, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1st.

As Time writes in its cover story "What Would War Look Like?" evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed—but until now largely theoretical—prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."

According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received recent orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21st.

Anti Vietnam War Veteran

Second Lieutenant Dennis Morrisseau was arrested and court-martialled as an Army 2nd lieutenant for repeatedly speaking out in uniform against the Vietnam War, then refusing shipment to South East Asia. His legal team defeated the court-martial and he was allowed to resign his commission in early 1968. The court-martial charges called for 5 years in prison at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary.

Statement by Morrisseau

I'm an old war horse and a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Vermont who believes we must impeach Bush and Cheney, and we must remove the neoconservative cabal from power.

Our great nation has suffered a coup.

And there is an immediate need for action and for the piercing of illusions. We need to step across old political boundaries and ideas. Who cares about "Democrats" vs. "Republicans"? The leadership of both parties is thoroughly corrupt. And that "leadership" exercises its power through control of Congress, not the presidency.

Presidents are figureheads and presidential elections are "bread and circuses." In our American system, Congress rules because Congress makes the laws and Congress writes the checks that fund all government activity.

Our leaders are very happy to have us believe otherwise.

But no president can govern at all without the full cooperation of Congress.

The 109th Congress and its leaders of both parties are fully complicit in all actions taken so far by the Bush administration, no matter what they say for public consumption. Their true loyalty is to their fellow senators and representatives and their corporate backers and not to us.

Morrisseau campaign website—

http://www.2LTMorrisseau.com

 


CAUGHT ON TAPE: Bush Ignores Intelligence, Misleads Public On Impact of Iraq on Terrorism »

In April, President Bush received the National Intelligence Estimate, which “represents a consensus view of the 16 separate spy services inside government.” NIEs are “the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces…and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence.”

Here’s what the NIE said, according to the New York Times:

[T]he American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks…The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

On August 21, President Bush held a press conference and told the American people the exact opposite.

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Cheney ‘Can’t Buy’ Idea That Iraq War Is Creating More Terrorists »

President Bush isn’t the only one who ignored the findings of the NIE that “the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism.” Vice President Cheney did too.

On the September 10, 2006 broadcast of Meet the Press, Tim Russert presented Cheney with a CBS/New York Times poll that said the majority of Americans agree with the intelligence community’s assessment that our actions overseas are creating more terrorists. “I can’t buy that,” Cheney responded.

Polling Data

Right now, is the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan creating more terrorists who are planning to attack the U.S., eliminating terrorists who were planning to attack the U.S., or is the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan not affecting the number of terrorists planning to attack the U.S.?

Creating more terrorists
54%

Eliminating terrorists
15%

Not affecting the number
24%

Not sure
7%

As a result of U.S. military action against Afghanistan, do you think the threat of terrorism against the United States has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same?

Increased
35%

Decreased
16%

Stayed about the same
46%

Not sure
3%

As a result of the United States’ military action against Iraq, do you think the threat of terrorism against the United States has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same?

Increased
48%

Decreased
12%

Stayed about the same
39%

Not sure
1%

Source: CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,206 American adults, conducted from Aug. 17 to Aug. 21, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

 


Congress to Bush/Cheney and their Profiteers: Account for Yourselves

Rarely do "bright lines" occur in politics. The New York and LA Times reported one today, albeit with starkly different headlines. The New York Times headline about its poll shouts, "Only 25% in Poll Voice Approval of the Congress. An Echo of 1994 Findings." The LA Times says, "Bush and GOP Making Gains Among Voters.

The turnaround is a sign that the election battle in November could be fierce. But history shows Democrats remain poised to claim seats."

What's the bright line? It's the fact that the Democrats have an historic opportunity to change the very essence of political and civil discourse in America this fall and by the way, to win. But the summary stories of both polls make clear that such a victory can only occur if, seat by seat, the Democrats can show clearly that a new majority in Washington will change America's course.

So far, we have not done that. But one issue alone--accountability--can sway voters. And, to paraphrase Henry Kissinger, it has the added advantage of being a truly signal issue. The polls show that voters are disenchanted with the course on which their nation heads, but they do not know what to do about it. The LA Times says that "46% of registered voters in the latest survey said their congressional representative deserved reelection, whereas 40% said they wanted to elect someone new - figures that that seem to show a greater desire for change than polls found shortly before the 1994 vote." The New York Times poll says, "While 61 percent of respondents said they disapproved of the way Congress was handling its job, just 29% said they disapproved of the way their "representative is handling his or her job."

The Democratic strategy for this election has always been to nationalize the vote and make it a referendum on President Bush and the Republican handling of the occupation in Iraq and the general direction of the country. However, voters increasingly ask, "what will you do if you win? What will be different?"

The answer: a new majority in Congress will hold the Bush Administration accountable for its conduct of the occupation, for its conduct of securing America and for its conduct as a paymaster to profiteers. If every Democratic candidate said, "look at the atrocities that have been committed in Iraq by people like David Lesar, the CEO of Halliburton, who has made about $150 million since the war started. Why has he gotten off scott-free while you are no better off today than you were five years ago, while good Americans continue to die in Iraq so that people like Lesar can get richer?"

It's the story we tell in Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers. It's the human story of abuse and death and family bereavement, of traitors and privateers such as Lesar and his fellow CEOs at Blackwater, Titan/L-3 and CACI that inform Americans about the urgency of change. We all respond to accessible stories. The film does the trick, but it's up to our candidates and party leaders to get the message out loud and clear.

The bright line: keep spending your money to make a few men very rich at the expense of thousands of dead and wounded, without any regard for national security or vote for people who will represent you, who will ask the tough questions and demand answers from Presidents Bush and Cheney, who will find out how the David Lesars of the world become so rich that they probably can't count their money, while our troops languish in a desert far away from home.

Imagine how a CEO of one of these companies would react if he were called before a Congressional committee knowing that he could face charges of treason, perjury and profiteering. I'd guess they'd realize that the bribes they've paid to Republicans these five years only pay off so long as the stories stay under cover. The stories are there to be told; it's our job to know them and to push our leaders to campaign on them. It's a sad but winning strategy. But it's also the Constitutional duty Congress has shirked for five years.

 


Cheney Biographer Launches Desperate Attack On Senate Intelligence Committee Report

Think Progress

In the Weekly Standard, official Cheney biographer Stephen Hayes attacks the recently-released portion of the Senate Intelligence Committee report that documents the fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies, not collaborators.

The report’s conclusion deals a devastating blow to Hayes, who has previously declared “case closed” on the connection between Hussein and bin Laden and has authored on a book on that sole issue. Unsurprisingly, he strikes back against the Senate report with more deception and spin:

1. Hayes’ sourcing for his information is unreliable; Senate sourcing is authoritative. Hayes pieces together unverified media reporting to develop his theory of a “connection.” He continues to rely on a discredited Defense Department intelligence memo. At one point, Hayes even sources his claims to the fact that Vice President Cheney repeated them. The Senate Intelligence Committee report relies on “documents uncovered in Iraq and new intelligence collected, including Intelligence Community debriefs of detained Iraqis and al Qa’ida members. … The Committee supplemented this effort by soliciting the Intelligence Community’s judgments of the accuracy of their own prewar assessments.”

2. Hayes ignores the conclusions of the intelligence community. The report notes that the CIA Inspector General has concluded: “The data reveal few indications of an established relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda. The DIA, which has reviewed more than 34 million pages of documents that were recovered from Iraq, “continues to maintain that there was no partnership between the two organizations.”

3. Hayes ignores the report’s conclusion on Zawahiri. He writes, “There is no mention of documents showing that the Iraqi regime cultivated a relationship with bin Laden’s chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, throughout the 1990s.” He ignores the report’s revelation that the former Iraqi Vice President said suggestions of a link between Zawahiri and Saddam were “completely false.”

4. Hayes ignores reports of Saddam’s refusal to partner with bin Laden. The Senate report documents Saddam’s rejection of bin Laden’s requests for assistance, his unwillingness to meet with al Qaeda officials, and his detentions of those he viewed as Islamist radicals. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a participant in the ‘93 World Trade Center bombings (whom Hayes cites as proof of a “connection”), is evidence of Saddam’s actions against al Qaeda because he was jailed by the Iraqi government in 1994 through at least 2002 when 60 Minutes interviewed him there. The Senate report concludes, “Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support.”

In his conclusion, Hayes writes, “Some day there will be an authoritative and richly detailed history of the nature of the relationship between the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups.” That day has come, and it’s a shame Hayes won’t allow himself to accept it.

 


Trickery continues on reasons for war

By Derrick Z. Jackson | September 13, 2006

THREE AND A HALF years and tens of thousands of bodies after the Great False War began , Vice President Dick Cheney still tells us it ``was the right thing to do, and if we had it to do over again, we'd do exactly the same thing."

Tim Russert of NBC's ``Meet the Press" asked Cheney, ``Exactly the same thing?"

Cheney said, ``Yes, sir."

In his address to the nation to note the fifth anniversary of 9/11, President Bush added his thoughts on why the Great False War was the right thing. ``I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Bush said. ``The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat."

They still are trying to bamboozle us about the threat. These latest attempts came despite last week's report from the Senate Intelligence Committee that destroyed with exactitude every last major, hair-raising reason the White House gave to launch the invasion. The report said in punishing repetition that ``postwar findings do not support" prior assertions or assessments that Iraq:

was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program in general or acquiring uranium from Africa or high-strength aluminum tubes in particular;

had biological weapons and that its biological weapons program was larger and more advanced than before the 1991 Gulf War;

possessed or developed mobile facilities for making biological agents for war;

had chemical weapons or was expanding its chemical industry for weapons production.

That was not even the most important part of the report. Cheney and Bush long ago conceded that the weapons of mass destruction did not exist. But they to this day still call Iraq the ``central front" of the so-called war on terror on scary notions that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had dangerous ties to Al Qaeda. The Senate Intelligence Committee report said:

``No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with [Osama] bin Laden."

``No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW [chemical and biological weapons] training" to Al Qaeda .

``No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or after Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Not only did Saddam Hussein not try to facilitate a relationship with bin Laden, according to the report, but it said that Saddam distrusted both bin Laden and the late Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The report said Saddam's mistrust of Zarqawi ran so high that at one point, Saddam unsuccessfully tried to have Zarqawi captured.

Yet, Zarqawi was a cornerstone of justifying the Great False War.

In his infamous February 2003 United Nations presentation, then-secretary of state Colin Powell said, ``Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." Powell said Zarqawi and his poison weapons training camp represented a ``potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda network." He said, ``We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

In June 2004, Cheney and Bush trumped up the sinister nexus in tag-team style. Cheney said Saddam had ``long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Bush was asked a day later what was the best evidence to back up Cheney's assertion. Bush responded, ``Zarqawi. Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to Al Qaeda affiliates and Al Qaeda."

That very same week, the 9/11 Commission announced it found ``no credible evidence" of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Last week's Senate report was a brutally ironic reaffirmation of that finding, given Powell's choice of words at the UN. The report said, ``The regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

In all this desperation to maintain credibility on the Great False War, bin Laden himself is slipping through America's fingers. The Washington Post reported this week that the trail to bin Laden himself has been ``stone cold" for more than two years, in the words of one counterterrorism official. With disapproval ratings for the handling of war running up to 65 percent in recent major polls, it is clear that Americans are growing cold to Cheney when he says, ``we'd do exactly the same thing." The only thing left is the manner in which Americans will throw a figurative stone.

 


Book of revelations
As details about the lead-up to the Iraq war are revealed, it's time to ask how much political resonance they really have.

David Corn
September 7, 2006 11:01 AM

A British editor sent me an email asking whether new revelations about the lead-up to the war in Iraq can cause political damage to President Bush and his Republican comrades in Congress. I knew why he was asking. I have a new book out (co-written with Michael Isikoff of Newsweek), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, which is loaded with revelations.



The book chronicles the intelligence battles that raged within the hallways and offices of the CIA, the State Department, the White House and Congress in the year before Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. The book opens with a scene from May 2002, in which Bush tells his aides he intends to "kick [Saddam Hussein's] sorry motherfucking ass all over the Mideast."

This is a tip-off that the White House was being, shall we say, misleading throughout 2002 and early 2003 when it repeatedly declared that no decision had been made to attack Iraq. The book exposes details of an extensive covert operation approved by the White House to pave the way for war in Iraq (again, at a time when the administration was claiming Bush had no plans to invade Iraq.)

It shows how (and why) Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress were scared to challenge intelligence briefings they received directly from vice president Dick Cheney on Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction - briefings that these legislators did not find convincing. (Still, they voted to grant Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.)

The book details how the CIA overstated flimsy intelligence and how the White House then overstated these overstatements and didn't bother to review the intelligence reports. (Bush did not even read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which was only 90 pages long, before ordering the war.) The book reports that CIA officers (before the war) suspected Iranian intelligence was working through the Iraqi National Congress (an exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi, who wanted war in Iraq) to influence the Bush administration and American public opinion.

I could go on. For more information on the book and its revelations, click here. But the question at hand is this: does any of this matter?

Of course, one answer is, of course. That is, uncovering and presenting the truth about such a historically important issue as what led to the launching of a war must, at some point, matter. There still is debate in the United States over the wisdom (or lack thereof) of Bush's Iraq endeavour. This book will provide material that will inform that ongoing battle.

But to reply to the query honestly I might have to admit that the revelations of Hubris (and those of other books and news articles) may not have political resonance. That's because the American public has already rendered a judgment on the war: it was a bad idea. Over 60% of Americans, according to opinion polls, now say Bush was wrong to have invaded Iraq. Only about a third back his decision to start this war.

The widespread dissatisfaction among Americans with Bush and his war, no doubt, is driven by the abysmal results. Thousands of American lives have been lost. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent. And still Iraq is a mess - and one that seems to be getting worse (with thousands of civilians being slaughtered in sectarian violence on a monthly basis).

My hunch is that most Americans care less about how we got to this point than about this point itself - had the war and the post-invasion period been a cakewalk, as some war advocates promised prior to the invasion, there would not be much talk in the United States about how Bush had misled the country into battle. Also, Bush has lost almost as much of the country as he could lose. He is down to his diehard base.

After sticking with Bush through the past three years - as his initial WMD rationale for the war evaporated, as his strategic decisions (de-Ba'athification, dissolving the Iraqi military) were proven wrong, as his policies in Iraq failed to stem the chaos and violence enveloping that nation - these people are unlikely to cut and run on Bush just because there is new and dramatic evidence that he rigged the road to war.

Republican candidates in the coming congressional elections are already weakened by Bush's low approval rating. Many do not want to campaign with Bush (though they still accept the campaign cash he raises for them). And they have to face the challenge of what to say about the war. Support the unpopular president and the unpopular war? Distance themselves and admit a mistake? But since politicians draw house district lines to favour incumbents, only about 35 of the 232 Republicans in the House of Representatives are in competitive races. So the war, and revelations about Bush and the war, will not affect most Republicans, who are in safe seats.

The Iraq fiasco, though, is clearly the undercurrent of this election. Bush and the Republicans are trying to tie the Iraq war to the so-called "war on terrorism". They are going to great lengths to depict critics of their Iraq misadventure as being soft on al-Qaida. (This is not logic; this is politics.)

Such a tactic may yet work. But the war appears to be the albatross around the neck of the Republican party. Its weight grows daily. And revelations about the run-up to the war - while perhaps not determinative in a political sense - do serve to remind people of an important fact: this war was a chosen war. And that means that the chooser-in-chief and all his aides and supporters still have to answer for that choice.