Bush's Failed "War on Terror"

Most reasonable people, those not drowning in right wing Kool-Aid, know that Bush's policies have made the world bloodier and more dangerous. It now appears the Intelligence agencies from three diverse countries agree.

From the UK

Quoting from the article:

A team of MI5 analysts concludes: Though [terrorists] have a range of aspirations and causes, Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.

From the Saudis:

The findings of an investigation, to be published soon, into 300 young Saudis, caught and interrogated by Saudi intelligence on their way to Iraq to fight or blow themselves up, shows that very few had any previous contact with al-Qaida or any other terrorist organisation previous to 2003. It was the invasion of Iraq which prompted their decision to die.

And lastly, from Israel:

The Israeli Global Research in International Affairs Center reported earlier this year that Iraq has turned into a magnet for jihadi volunteers. But not established terrorists. Rather, explains report author Reuven Paz, the vast majority of Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.

Maybe this is the reason the Bushies have change "the global war on terrorsensitive more sensative phrase "a global struggle against violent extremism". John Kerry , are you listening?

Operation Coverup

This LA Times editiorial sums it up.

Operation Coverup

Scandals metastasize. That is the pattern since Watergate. What starts out looking like a small, isolated incident gradually reveals itself to be part of a larger abuse of power. Meanwhile, an unraveling coverup adds new elements. Is that happening now with the scandal over White House leaks of the identity of a CIA agent?

Some folks say that as we learn more, the scandal is getting smaller, not larger. Valerie Plame was a CIA functionary commuting openly to agency headquarters, not a spy working behind enemy lines. The law against revealing the identities of intelligence agents is complicated and probably wasn't broken in this case. And the story line gets muddier: Journalists may have revealed Plame's identity to White House honchos.

We don't buy it. However they came to learn about this juicy factoid, people in the Bush administration misused an intelligence secret to discredit a critic of its Iraq policy. And outing Plame, whether illegal or not, did harm to our national security. Plame may work in Langley, Va., but she worked with others who work in more dangerous locales. You only need to imagine how Republicans would have treated such a leak in the Clinton administration to dismiss their protestations that it's all no big deal.

It's a good bet that there has already been some lying under oath. One theory about the puzzling tenacity and ferocity of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald — why he is sending journalists to jail for refusing to provide information he already has about an activity that probably wasn't even a crime by people other than the ones he is persecuting — is that he's switched his attention from the leak itself to perjury by White House officials who were asked about it earlier in the investigation.

Perjury is your classic coverup method, and still is used when other methods have failed. Advances in the science of spin since Watergate, however, have made a high-risk, Nixon-style coverup unnecessary in many situations.

President Bush says he won't publicly comment about the Plame case while the investigation continues. But the reason the investigation continues is partly his fault. He should have determined early on who leaked Plame's CIA identity to members of the press, and dealt with it.

Why didn't Bush two years ago just ask Karl Rove and a few others in the administration whether they had leaked Plame's identity to Bob Novak and the others? Why doesn't he ask Rove now?

Is it because he knows the answer? Or because he doesn't want to have to fire Rove? As a precaution against such a catastrophe, Bush now says he will fire anyone found to have broken the law by outing an undercover intelligence operative. Previously he had said he would fire anyone who outs an intelligence officer, period.

The coverup, in short, is going well.

I agree with George W. Bush!

This may come as a surprise, but I finally found an area in which I agree with the current occupant of the White House.

On July 18th, the (p)resident declared he would fire anyone in his administration who COMMITTED A CRIME. Since I find myself in rare agreement with Bush, I feel unencumbered to offer some advice on where to begin.

How about your current Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams. Elliott Abrams pleaded guilty October 7, 1991, to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress about secret government efforts to support the Nicaraguan contra rebels during a ban on such aid. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Abrams November 15, 1991, to two years probation and 100 hours community service. Abrams was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Maybe you can rid yourself of Pentagon consultant John M. Poindexter. John M. Poindexter was indicted March 16, 1988, on seven felony charges. After standing trial on five charges, Poindexter was found guilty April 7, 1990, on all counts: conspiracy (obstruction of inquiries and proceedings, false statements, falsification, destruction and removal of documents); two counts of obstruction of Congress and two counts of false statements. U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene sentenced Poindexter June 11, 1990, to six months in prison on each count, to be served concurrently. A three-judge appeals panel on November 15, 1991, reversed the convictions on the ground that Poindexter's immunized testimony may have influenced the trial testimony of witnesses. The Supreme Court on December 7, 1992, declined to review the case. In 1993, the indictment was dismissed on the motion of Independent Counsel.

How about a technical firing of Robert Earle from the Pentagon. A report to Congress by independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh stated: Robert "Earle attempted to conceal evidence regarding the arms sales to Iran and the diversion of profits. ... He destroyed [National Security Council] documents, assisted North in the destruction of documents … and made false statements to the FBI." Earl was granted immunity for his testimony in the Reagan administration's most damaging scandal and was never prosecuted.

And the list would not be complete with out the following cast of thugs. They were thugs in the 80's and turns out they are thugs today.

One of the most outspoken Iran-Contra figures is Otto Reich,the Statee Department's top official for Latin America. From 1983 to 1986, Reich led a State Department office accused of acovert domestic-propaganda effort against Nicaragua's leftistSandinista government.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Questions lingerover thee former Defense Department official's 1986 contacts with Israelon thee Iran arms sales.

U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte. His service in the 1980sambassadorr to Honduras, which the U.S.-supported Contra rebels used as a base, has drawn criticism.

Seems like this would be a great start. It will make it easier once the indictments start coming down from "Treasongate".

I'm Shocked - Further Evidence of Bush War Lies

How much evidence must accumulate before the sane majority of Americans understand that Bush lied us into war. An elective war that has killed and maimed tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.

An interesting nugget has surfaced in conjugation with the Plame outing, providing further direct evidence Bush lied in the 2002 State of the Union tripe. In the White House effort to cover their lies by the smear campaign mounted against Joe Wilson and his NOC wife, the Washington Post REPORTS .

The main point is this;

[The secret State Department memo] records that the INR analyst at the [Feb. 19, 2002] meeting opposed Wilson’s trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.

There you have it, the State Department's INR (they were the most dubious intel agency about all the Bush lies) knew a year before the State of the Union Address that the Niger claim (those 16 words) was untrue!

So much blood is on the hands of the Bushtanistas. Good Christian Man, My Backside!

The other major finding of the article, not germane to this topic, there is no doubt that Plame was covert and her identity was to be kept secret. The right wing will continue to spin the lie she was just a desk jockey. God these people are so contemptible!

No Election is Safe from Bush

We all know about Florida in 2000. The conscience policy of scrubbing 96,000 African Americans (likely democrats) off the voter roles in a state that decided the election by 500 votes. Decided only after the US Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court's ruling to uphold state law to review ballots and determine the voter intent.

There are the stories of voter suppression in Democratic performing precincts in Ohio where voters had to stand in line for hours before they could cast a ballot. Again a close election in the state which determined the eventual winner, George Bush in both instances.

There is another election that was tied closely to Bush. The elections in Iraq was just another "turning point" in Bush's bloodly Iraq fiasco. Would it be cynical of me to think Bush's hands are dirty in another election?

A NYTIMES article shows that the Bush Administration, over the prohibition of Congress, may have attempted to influence the Iraq election in favor of their favored candidate Allawi.

The article appears in the NEWYORKER and is authored by the best (only?) investigative reporter in the business, Seymour Hersh. The only difference in this one is it was an utter failure. Iraq elected an Iranian freindly Shia government and the Alawi slate was trounced.

Sad that all the death and destruction may lead to a stonger Iran in a strategic partnership with Iraq.

A Leak Worse than Plame - Must Read

The beltway is abuzz with charges and countercharges about the outing of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame. Who was responsible for this treason is subject to a Special Council investigation. The truth will come out and it will show, yet again, how this Bush White House will do or say anything to smear good patriots in order to hold power.

However, there is another Bush Administration leak that is even more insidious than the Plame lead. This one just might lead straight to the London bombings and the death and destruction inflicted on its citizens. To get a full understanding, please read JUAN COLE

Some pertinent parts of the link;

John Aravosis at AmericaBlog brings up the awful possibility, based on an ABC report, that the Public Relations-hungry Bush administration may have interfered with a British and Pakistani investigation of an al-Qaeda plot to bomb London that ties into July 7.


The question is whether Bush played politics with terror around the time of the Democratic National Convention in late July, 2004. Jim Lobe reminded us at the time that ' The New Republic weekly quoted Pakistani intelligence officials as saying the White House had asked them to announce the arrest or killing of any "high-value [al-Qaeda] target" any time between July 26 and 28, the first three days of the Democratic Convention. At the time, former CIA officer Robert Baer said the announcement made "no sense." "To keep these guys off-balance, a lot of this stuff should be kept in secret. You get no benefit from announcing an arrest like this."

Also

For the sake of three year old intelligence, the Bush administration had helped blow the first inside double agent the Pakistanis and the British had ever developed. The British had been preparing a set of indictments and pursuing the investigation, in part by using Khan. They were forced to move before they were ready. Some suspects escaped on hearing Naeem Khan's in the media. Of those who were arrested, several had to be released for lack of evidence against them.Muhammad Sadique Khan, one of the July 7 bombers, was apparently connected to one of the suspects under surveillance in early August, 2004.

Why do good Americans who happen to be Republicans continue to support party over country? These people lied us to war, smear true patriots and play politics with our national (and London's) security. Are they that blinded by their partisan zeal? Where does one go for Republican Rehab?

Outsourcing Made Simple

Suppose you wanted to employ a bunch of people, both Americans and foreigners, and you wanted to employ them in America. At the same time, suppose you didn't want the hassle of dealing with American labor law? What would you do?

I don't know whether to laugh, cry or just sit back and marvel at this "resourcefullness" of this COMPANY> .

Any Comments?

The Democrats are an Angry Party

You hear it over and over again. Democrats are just a bunch of angry people consumed with a hatred of Bush. We need to just accept that Republicans run everything at the federal level and just get over it.

Maybe we should learn from the civil and kind treatment the right wing and republicans afforded Bill Clinton and many in his administration (satire intended!). There is one major difference, as I see it. Republicans were angry with a loathing of the individual person of Bill Clinton. They could not challenge the success and progress made on many fronts by the policies during the Clinton years. Democrats anger at the man is peripheral to this basic fact, the man's policies are doing great harm to this country and the world. The Bush legacy of death and destruction, deficits and debt and a world that looks at the United States as the biggest obstacle to peace.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4716148&sourceCode=RSS

As the world was shocked and mourned the London bombings, let us reveiw some reactions from the "not angry" right wing of this country. From the blog RAISINGKAINE

Michelle Malkin: “London has been a breeding ground for bomb-loving Jihadists.”
Captain’s Quarters: “We, Brit and American, will finish the job. There is a reason that English-speaking people have dominated the world for centuries…”
Blogs for Bush: “We on the right are lectured endlessly on how the dissent shown by the left vis a vis the War on Terrorism is actually the highest form of patriotism…I’ve long held that its actually just a bunch of anti-American bellyachers spouting off on things beyond their comprehension.”
Trey Jackson: “Enough hand holding, appeasing, talking “their” talk……….THE BUSH DOCTRINE…………….either you’re with us or against us. I say, first Declare War on Syria with our Coalition (Brits, Japanese, Baltic Nations, Israel, Australia) with a tactical approach to moving into Iran. ”
Mark Steyn “With hindsight, the Spaniards were let off lightly for their contemptible behaviour [voting out a conservative government in the aftermath of the Madrid train attacks of 3/11/04]….After the initial shock of stumbling over the truth, what will Britain do? Go back to the Bob Geldof agenda or avenge her dead?”
Little Green Footballs (multiple comments): “We need to stop f--king with these people and kill every one involved. I mean anyone with prior knowledge, anyone who payed for it, and anyone who supported it. Regardless of nationality.”
“If its Islamic it will probably blow up. All Islamic get full body searches with VERY high intensity X-rays .”
“The best way to deliver those high intensity x-rays is through some W76 warheads at around 100 kt a piece. It will be easier to give a full body search after that.”
“Britain should END ALL ISLAMIC IMMIGRATION NOW….Continuing to welcome the enemy into your country is insane.”
“subhumans, first time on 2 feet…round em all up, every friggin’ last one of them…unfortunately, I still think it will take even more violence from the Arabs before the West wakes up and goes savage on em”
“Some folks go out of their way to tell me that treasonous, anti-American statements made by high-level Democrats and high-level liberals just about every day don’t reflect on Democrats or liberals.”
“Say I’m a bigot. I don’t care anymore. I spent part of my day reading the insanity at DU, and I know the enemy and he is LIBERAL. They attack the Constitution and our freedoms, and muslim scum attack us with bombs and swords. They are on the same team, there is no doubt.”
“Martyring Muslims doesn’t seem to make much of a difference to the fanatics. What is needed is to take their human capital out their hands - their children. No more warped children, no more jihadis. ”
And on and on it goes in right-wing Hate Land. In sum: 1) the terrorist attacks were actually a good thing, a buying opportunity, and a unifying experience; 2) all Muslims are terrorists (not just the 0.001% who blow up trains, etc.) and should be “rounded up,” “shot in the back of the head,” kept out of the country and/or have their children taken away from them; 3) liberals and Democrats are treasonous and “the enemy,” just as bad as the terrorists; 4) civil liberties and the rule of law should, apparently, be completely thrown out the window in a time of “war;” and 5) if you do anything than vote for right-wingers, then you deserve what you get.

Wow! And this is just an example of what the righties are saying.

Meanwhile, Democrats universally abhor the London attacks, pray for the victims, urge a greater focus on tracking down Osama bin Laden, and point out that the Iraq war has been a major distraction from the real fight against al Qaeda. For that, we are called “traitors” and “anti-American bellyachers” who have “gone too far.” This, my friends, perfectly encapsulates the mentality of the right wing - stifle dissent, demonize the political opposiition, threaten to “round up” and even kill all members of an entire religion (Islam), etc. In its own way, this type of thinking is even more threatening to our Democracy than the terrorists themselves, heinous as they are. Both must be opposed.

And my favorite, listen to Faux News anchor John Gibson's rant

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507080002

So I ask, who is angry and full of hate?

Who is Stuck on That Flypaper?

Have you ever engaged a Bush apologist in debate and all they can come up with is some simple slogan they have been fed by Limbaugh, Hannity or Faux News?

One of the favorites one-liners they use to justify Bush’s Iraq Folly is “We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”. This is called the "Flypaper Theory" and for an example of this lunacy, click Here

As you can see, these people think we are “occupying” Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which will limit their ability to strike western targets around the globe. This is both ridicules when you look into it and very sad and tragic reflected in the death and carnage going on in Iraq every day.

First, how demeaning to our troops to think these people think it okay for our troops to be "flypaper", attracting killers to pick off our Soldiers one and two at a time in the killing zones of Iraq. These people are safe and sound in front of their keyboards typing out this contemptible garbage. As we are rightfully shocked and saddened by the bombings in London, on that very same day in Iraq almost as many were killed.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC351576.htm

Just another ordinary day in Messopotamia.

The disingenuous part of this thinking seems to be there are a limited number of Islamic terrorist and we have “invited” them into Iraq which limits their ability to engage in terrorism elsewhere. The first problem with this theory is the obvious. If true, incidence of terrorist attacks must surely be down. As you can guess,the Washington Post and many other sources report otherwise. Bush's very own State Department will not even publish what has been an annual report of terrorist incidence. We can only assume to hide the damning information contained in it showing these attacks have tripled in 2004.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

New York and Washington in 2001, Bali in 2002, Istanbul and Casablanca in 2003, Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 exposes how shallow is this reasoning. It apprear major terrorist attacks can occur, regardless of Iraq. Paraphrasing Richard Clarke, "We must be successful 100% of the time while terrorist must only be successful once". Terrorist attacks will occur unless we are able to stop them in advance.

May we ask if the number of terrorist are in decline as we capture and kill them? Well, as you may have assumed, this part ot the argument flats flat as has been reported. CIA Counter Intellegence reports that new recruits are flocking to Iraq, learning their deadly trade, and leaving to other parts of the globe. "Blowback" will surely follow down the road as a small cell or terrorist can inflict great harm.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8330229/

Just as Afghanistan gave rise to Bin Laden, Iraq is giving birth to a whole new generation of Islamic extremist bent on spreading terror. Iraq is merely offering an easy opportunity for Jihaddists to kill American soldiers and Marines because of the lack of planning a general post-war incompetence that is the hallmark of the Bush Administration.

It would appear to me that the "flypaper theory" does apply in Iraq, just not as the proponets have imagined. The US military are the flies, Iraq is the flypaper and it is there where we are stuck.

Welcome to our Blog

Welcome to the Newport News Democratic City Committee blog. We have name our blog "Informed Content" for a very simple reason. We believe the right wing echo chamber, by design, twists and distorts the records of Democrats and the Democratic Party to drive voters into the GOP. On issue after issue, Americans agree with positions embraced by most Democrats. Only by driving home the misleading talking points in the media can they succeed. As the song lyrics read, "We're Not Going to Take it Anymore".

This blog will, in our small way, help combat the GOP with a very simple weapon. Our weapon will be the truth and we will expose the right wing at every opportunity. As the late great Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts".

So please enjoy this blog. Please participate and contribute to this blog. While the right wing uses wedge issues to divide Americans, we will use this forum to build a strong democratic grassroots coalition in our great city built on honesty and the truth.