Bloviation.

Bloviation, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

This year l learned a new word:
To ''bloviate''. What ''bloviate'' means l believe is to pontificate self-righteously about how evil and stupid the other side is, and how exasperated you are that they don't follow the good, solid example set by who else? Your side. All the while the truth is, you don't know a damn thing about what you're ranting. Of course my stalwart examples are Michelle Malkin and Bill O'Reilly. They think they are showing me how the Left ''bloviates'', but they are the best examples of what they think they teach.




D'awright! d'awright! So O'Reilly is honestly shocked at why the "Liberals" aren't for his ''red blooded'' response to the situation in Iraq, or how the London bombings "prove" how Bush was right in fighting the enemy there, so we won't be doing so "over here''. But maybe that's because O'Reilly, and others of his ilk don't understand that terrorism and guerilla warfare are types of battle that are as much political as they are military. And so, our response should be as much political as it is military. O'Reilly always misses that point. For heaven's sake, even something as pathetic as Marines handing out toys in Saigon was far more effective than anything we've heard from Iraq. Hence O'Reilly always consistently demonstrates top-notch "bloviating". Others are Michelle Malkin, David Limbaugh, and of course his brother Rush.

Now Rush takes bloviating to a fine art. In the matter of the Supreme Court, he would rather that the Democrats meekly ''shut up" while their wise President makes all of their choices for them. Rush should get a look something called the CONSTITUTlON! From the phrase: "Advise and Consent of the Senate", it is in the word "Consent" that democracy is manifest. To say that Democrats don't have a say in choosing a Supreme Court, just because they lost the election, is saying that half the country hasn't got that right. That right is hardwired into the Constitution! How Rush could've missed that little detail is beyond me, and anyone else who has ever watched 25 years of CNN!.

Of course the most recent example of ''bloviating" is in the Bush gang's response to the Valerie Plame affair. The Republicans consistently attempt to mischaracterize Ambassador Wilson and Mrs. Plame. Him they call a partisan hack and a liar, only because he sent in a report from Niger that contradicted the stance of the Bus gang. No Iraqi deal for Niger yellowcake.

They keep accusing him of lying about an imagined direct between him and Dick Cheney. Nowhere, in any publication has anyone implied that Cheney contacted Wilson for the Niger mission. Robert Novak himself states in the article that is the very source of the scandal:

"The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."

lt was always agreed that the CIA contacted him on Cheneys behalf, but nobody ever said that either Cheney, or his office had EVER contacted Wilson.
Rush's little brother David Limbaugh is undaunted though, and remains hot on the trail with full blinders on:

"One such snippet was Joe Wilson's supposed revelation that President Bush lied when stating these notorious 16 words in his 2003 SOTU address: 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'
Now, let's be clear here. President Bush's statement was true when he made it, and it remains true today. The Brits made such a claim and reiterated it emphatically (with the Butler inquiry expressly validating President Bush's SOTU claim) even after the Bush-scavenging American Left falsely accused him of inventing the story."

Ok Mr. Limbaugh, then where is that yellowcake? Such a smart man as you can find the Iraqi WMD's just by using your Frist-cam! Oh, and while you're down there, could you maybe, sniff out some of that missing 480 tons of live ordinance that we left - just lying around for anyone to pick up? And what about that missing $ 8 billion ?
According to the Wojtowycz Dictionary this is "bloviation" on steroids! Not only does Limbaugh "state a position and staunchly never budge" to quote that master bloviator, Shaw's Henry Higgins, he doesn't know a damn thing he's talking about!

And one more thing about "bloviation", you can take it to unparalleled heights! - Or depths as the case may be.

Now the Right Wingnuts wish us to think that Valerie Plame had no cover to blow!

First they wished us to think that all she did was be a desk jockey. But then we found out that she overqualified for that position by having expertise in WMD's and being a dead shot with an AK 47! No little secretary she!

In fact as I remember it, and I may be wrong, she spent many years with official cover in Europe. The secretary excuse got blown out of the water. This is beginning to look like an episode of "The Road Runner!"

Next they trot their ACME all-purpose demolition excuse: Her cover was already blown to the Russians and Castro 6 years ago!

Awrigh, awright, AWRIGHT! But let's listen CAREFULLY to the "bloviations" of one Andrew C McCarthy of the National Review:

"As the media alleged to the judges (in Footnote 7, page 8, of their brief), Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow. Of course, the press and its attorneys were smart enough not to argue that such a disclosure would trigger the defense prescribed in Section 422 because it was evidently made by a foreign-intelligence operative, not by a U.S. agency as the statute literally requires.
But neither did they mention the incident idly. For if, as he has famously suggested, President Bush has peered into the soul of Vladimir Putin, what he has no doubt seen is the thriving spirit of the KGB, of which the Russian president was a hardcore agent. The Kremlin still spies on the United States. It remains in the business of compromising U.S. intelligence operations.
Thus, the media's purpose in highlighting this incident is blatant: If Plame was outed to the former Soviet Union a decade ago, there can have been little, if anything, left of actual intelligence value in her "every operation, every relationship, every network" by the time anyone spoke with Novak (or, of course, Corn)."

But listen to what he says:

'' Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow.''

"a SPY in Moscow"! That meant that a COVERT Russian counterintell was in progress at the time, and they'd be just as interested in keeping things secret as we would!
She would NOT be automatically outed to a REPORTER! If l had a dollar for every spy who was uncovered by our side or Russia, Soviet or otherwise, that got the front-page treatment, l'd be - living in a cardboard box! In all the history of the CIA, KGB, MI6, or the Mossad, no counterespionage agent would have EVER revealed to the enemy that their agents were compromised on the home soil! To do so would have compromised the counterintelligence effort to uncover the whole network of spies, and any effort to run them as unknowing disinformation conduits, or double agents. In the humintel biz, it's "Better the devil you know, than the one you don't know". If Putin knew about Plame, the ex-KGB man would've still kept her secret.

But now to continue with my new star witness Mr. McCarthy:

"THE CIA OUTS PLAME TO FIDEL CASTRO
Of greater moment to the criminal investigation is the second disclosure urged by the media organizations on the court. They don't place a precise date on this one, but inform the judges that it was "more recent" than the Russian outing but "prior to Novak's publication."
And it is priceless. The press informs the judges that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. In the Washington Times article ó you remember, the one the press hypes when it reports to the federal court but not when it reports to consumers of its news coverage ó Gertz elaborates that "[t]he documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."
Thus, the same media now stampeding on Rove has told a federal court that, to the contrary, they believe the CIA itself blew Plame's cover before Rove or anyone else in the Bush administration ever spoke to Novak about her. Of course, they don't contend the CIA did it on purpose or with malice. But neither did Rove ó who, unlike the CIA, appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status. Yet, although the Times and its cohort have a bull's eye on Rove's back, they are breathtakingly silent about an apparent CIA embarrassment ó one that seems to be just the type of juicy story they routinely covet."

And here comes some more "bloviating"!

"Gertz elaborates that '[t]he documents WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SEALED from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."'
Again the CIA still operated Plame as a covert agent this time as a NOC. And we may presume that this was so because her official cover was blown in Moscow.
But let us allow Mr. McCarthy to stick his foot further down his esophagus:
"Of course, they don't contend the CIA did it on purpose or with malice. But neither did Rove ó who, unlike the CIA, appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status."
First of all, l don't believe a guy like Rove wouldn't have a complete dossier on Joe Wilson and his wife on his desk after the Niger business. And certainly not after Bush had to eat the16 most embarrassing words ever spoken in a State Of The Union address.

"appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status."

Hmmm! Not only is it more plausible that Rove DID KNOW, it is no less plausible that a man of Rove's intelligence would not only know that Bob Novak would print what Rove said, but he'd probably have a full profile on Novak that would tell him so.
This leak reminds me of a scene from the movie "Absence of Malice":
An overzealous prosecutor in an attempt to trick Paul Newman to do some investigating for him, purposefully leaves Newman's file unattended on a desk beside reporter Sally Field's seat. This prosecutor knows Sally Fields is a reporter, yet he leaves the file on the desk and OPEN! She takes a peek, the prosecutor checks on her surreptitiously, and presto, changio, a Rovian leak is born!

How’s that for bloviatin’?



Mission To Niger By Robert Novak
Robert Novak
Valerie Plame
Joe Wilson
What I Didn't Find In Africa
Andrew C McCarthy

Bush Carnage

Bush Carnage, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

Like a cab horse with blinders on

Like a cab horse with blinders on, Bush continued to assume in his speech at Fort Bragg, that his ideological conclusions about lraq can serve as fact. He gave us all, - the same old same old. "9-11 9-11", "Freedom on the march! Freedom on the march! ". Unfortunately, and unconscionably for our troops, he offered very little evidence to back them up.

He was forced to acknowledge that the heavy carnage and loss suffered by the people of Iraq and the troops. After all, he saw it on TV! He even acknowledged that the American people ask themselves if the war is worth it.

What he didn't tell us is that the violence is getting worse.

ln the span of 2 months, April and May, more than 270 bombings occurred. And the method of bombing has gotten deadlier. In May 381 people were killed in "multiple casualty" bombings. This is from the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index And the Iraqi allies aren't doing much better. The tally of cops and soldiers killed reached 296 in June 3 times more than in either January or February. "Acts of War" death estimates have risen as well according to Brookings.

This year there were 25% more troop fatalities and twice as many insurgent attacks per day as there were in the preceding year.

Bush spoke about how "We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water.” after saying that progress has been "uneven".

Yes, it has been uneven, with new schools being built, enrollment increasing, new healthcare centers.

But electricity is barely above pre-war levels. On the average, lraqis have electricity for only 12 hours a day. Ninety six percent of urban lraqis are very unhappy about this. Twenty percent still don't have water.

The most fantasy-ridden statement Bush could've made was:


"They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an lraqi civil war."
Let's see...Spain took out it's 1,300 soldiers in April last year, courtesy of the bombing in Madrid. Honduras - 370 went home. The Philippines took away 51 troops after a hostage crisis. Ukraine will finish withdrawing its troops by the end of the year. 1,650 men, close to the amount that the US has lost. The Netherlands and Italy are leaving as well. So are Bulgaria's 450 troops, and Poland, the number 3 in Iraq after Britain, only backed off of a full withdrawal because of the Iraqi elections, and a talk with Condi. Still, their next rotation will have 200 fewer soldiers.

As for a civil war? Some people say that the insurgency is already a civil war. Herein we discover the lie of Iraqi "sovereignty.” How can it not be a civil war if the insurgents are fighting the armed forces of a "sovereign" Iraqi government? According to the Times of London, an Iraqi police colonel says that Sunnis are fighting Shia. Yet Bush says there is no civil war. That can only be true if one side or the other is merely part of occupying foreign power. A power say like - the United States.

Quite serendipitously, Dubya did luck out on the terrorism question. You see, there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war. Thanks to the neocon Laurel and Hardy act, if there aren't any terrorists there yet, there will be! For the record, Saddam denied bin Laden's request to establish training camps.

For that matter, most of the insurgents are not foreigners. They only number about 1,000. There are about 16,000 insurgents fighting. In Fallujah, in 2004, Marines counted only 2% of the detainees as foreigners. Now Brookings says 70% of the bombers came from Saudi Arabia, but even so, this doesn't mean that they are coming over here soon.

Still, there is the fact that al Qaeda has gotten much stronger in Iraq after the invasion. Since the invasion, a heretofore tenuous connection between al Qaeda and Zarqawi was strengthened and "al Qaeda in Iraq" was born.

Bush was being disingenuous to men who were being sent into danger, on account of his insincere stupidity.


Iraqi Insurgency

Coalition Of The Willing

Military Occupation

Reconstruction

Iraq Index as of 7/5/2005

In Response To Fort Bragg

In Response To Fort Bragg, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

Same Old... Same Old... Same Old...

All I can say is that I felt a great deal of shame when l beheld George W. Bush attempting to use our troops to save his coattails for Congress. When he spoke, he simply repeated the same old nonsense that he did before.

Bush is quite simply, an obstinate prisoner of his ideology - at best. He has carried out his decisions, and no one will tell him he's wrong! It's as if he were following some sinister inner agenda, and we are not privy to the info.

Fact upon fact can be shown to him, and he will simply tune you out and consider you - unimportant.

The danger is that Bush's fantasy world is having dangerous repercussions in the Middle East.

I listened to Bush, and every word he spoke, trying to paint a rosy picture on lraq, and Afghanistan, and I looked at those expectant young faces, I felt the clueless cynicism of Bush's words leave those men more disturbed about their fate than before.

He lied about the beginning of the war:

"A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition's goals in Iraq. I said that America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend -- a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, "

Weren't we supposed to have a "mushroom cloud'' for a smoking gun? In the months before the war, there was no mention of freeing the lraqi people. "Regime Change" was mentioned only in the context of ''911", and "terrorism'',

''911", and "terrorism'' are repeated a lot by Bush, as well as the phrase: "Freedom is on the march". And now, he and his cronies paper over the facts that they see we no longer ignore.

"One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people."

Really? And did the Iraqi people have a chance to tell you what kind of economy, what kind of infrastructure, or the degree of security they were expecting, when Bremer shut down the Iraqi economy, and left the populace at the mercy of the "insurgents"?



We have made no "significant progress" in the area of sovereignty and government. It took the political action of Al-Sistani, to force Bush to hold elections, and to count each vote for one person. The Sunni took no part in the election.

The Parallel Universe of the Bush administration could not admit to the deteriorating military situation, the poor planning that preceded it, and refused to acknowledge the true strength of the enemy.

''They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war.''

How many of our ''Coalition" partners have left? For the entire year in 2004, by the month a new ally left in response to terrorist kidnappings of their nationals. There was a mass withdrawal. As for a civil war, we are sitting on top of one. If we do not keep our heads, and start following a wiser course, we will have a war.

"We're working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity, and water. And together with our allies, we'll help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens."

Then show me the first example of such " basic services" that can be shown on CNN? Let's see how Haliburton and Kellogg, Brown & Root are handling this "rebuilding". If they are doing so the way they are handling the food distribution, I pray for the poor Iraqis! With the kind of favoritism, graft and embezzlement that is going on with KBR, how CAN they "rebuild'' the infrastructure?

And how poorly have our troops been mishandled! In response to criticisms of how poorly armed and equipped our men are what did Bush say?

"Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."

Nineteen bases say that you intend to stay forever. When General Shinseki told you that 4 divisions were necessary, you fired him. And now, thanks to lack of manpower, hunting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq is like squeezing toothpaste. You apply pressure in one place, and they move to another. They are still in Fallujah. Al-Sadr, SCIRI, and other Shiite militias are still around.

Now Bush gets starry-eyed:

"In this time of testing, our troops can know: The American people are behind you. Next week, our nation has an opportunity to make sure that support is felt by every soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guardsman, and Marine at every outpost across the world. This Fourth of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom -- by flying the flag, sending a letter to our troops in the field, or helping the military family down the street. The Department of Defense has set up a website -- AmericaSupportsYou.mil. You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community. At this time when we celebrate our freedom, let us stand with the men and women who defend us all."

Paul Rieckoff of Operation Truth.org said:

"We don't need to be told that flak jackets and safer Humvees are on the way, because we've already learned that a phone-call home and a few hundred bucks is probably the quickest way to get body armor. Hundreds of Troops have been wounded or killed because of faulty vehicles or missing armor, but who has been held accountable?"

The Veteran's Administration sticks our boys with horridly exorbitant bills.

The truth is, there were no WMD's in lraq. There were no terrorists in Iraq until we allowed them in there. There is no Iraqi economy, and no foreign investment. There are no basic services, or any basic infrastructure. The people of Iraq want us to leave, only if we do that too soon, we will ignite that civil war we know will happen. George Bush says he is grateful to the troops, but shows no feeling toward those disabled by that war. He has lied to his people, his troops. Hundreds of thousands of lraqi civilians have died, and we are no safer now, than we were on 911.

The Puppet and the Master

The Puppet and the Master, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

A Very Revealing Press Conference

The True Situation In Iraq, as Revealed by Mssrs Bush and Jaafari, as revealed by the press conference of June 24, 2005

The sheer transparency of the american occupation of Iraq was laid bare in the last segment of the press conference:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Final question, Mr. Prime Minister. Would you --

Q Mr. Prime Minister, I am a presenter on radio in Iraq. My question is for you. For more than two years we've started a change in Iraq, but the process of building is very slow. There are secure cities in Iraq, Samarra and Kurdistan. When will you begin the reconstruction in Iraq? When do we begin to establish the first bases of reconstruction? And you know that if you started reconstruction in Iraq it will mean that young people will have something to do, and they will leave terrorist activities. So the question is for Mr. Prime Minister. There were discussions held with the President Bush, and the most important thing you discussed with him we want to know about it.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Sometimes we don't tell you things, you know. (Laughter.) No, we discussed a lot of important things. We discussed democracy, we discussed having the constitution there, and we discussed security, we discussed reconstruction.

We are spending reconstruction money, but, you know, you need to ask that to the government. They're in charge. It's your government, not ours. This is the government that is --that has got the ministries in place that spends the money. We're willing to help, and we have helped. And I want to thank the Congress and the American people for their generosity in helping Iraq rebuild. And we're spending money.

But, remember, your question kind of made it seem like --that we're in charge. We're not. You had elections; 8.5 million people voted, and this good man is now in charge of the government. I don't want to be passing the buck, as we say, but we're more than willing to help reconstruction efforts, but this is a sovereign government --

PRIME MINISTER JAAFARI: Thank you, very much.

PRESIDENT BUSH: --with an elected Prime Minister by the people of Iraq. And so we want to look forward to working with the government. Our role is to help. His role is to govern and lead. And we've got the money allocated. Obviously, it's important to get electricity to the Iraqi citizens and clean water to the Iraqi citizens. And, you know, I was pleased to see the other day when I was reading that there's a lot of air traffic in and out of the airport now, quite a lot of air traffic. In other words, there's commerce beginning to develop. We want to be helpful. But the responsibility rests with the people who the Iraqi people elected. And that's you, Mr. Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER JAAFARI: Thank you, Mr. President. Of course, there were many points discussed with the President, Mr. Bush, in our special meeting, and we talked about so many facts. It was the first meeting between us, so we talked directly about the democracy in Iraq and the constitution, the achievement of the constitution, and we decided to continue the case of security until everything is well established.

And at the same time, we thought that there is a Marshall project after the Second World War that contributed --the

U.S. contributed in that and in the Truman's government when they presented assistance to the German people. German people had selected Hitler in a democratic process that had a 98 percent result, however, we are quite happy with this hospitality of the U.S. So Germany was able to work.

The Iraqi people did not elect Saddam Hussein. In fact, they suffered a lot from Saddam Hussein before he attacked the geographical adjacent countries. He took their money before he took the money of Kuwait. He occupied Kuwait, in fact, as he did, and there is a lot of indications to tell us that the Iraqi people are innocent of all that had happened. They have to pay off their --so many debts, and we hope that all countries will stand beside us to correct this unexceptional [sic] situation. They did not commit any crime against any people, they are peaceful. But it was Saddam Hussein who committed the crimes. And he brought about so many debts and losses to the Iraqi people.

We look forward to the international community to stand beside us, and we believe that this is a humanitarian stance. And we hope that Mr. Bush will try to redo a Marshall Plan, calling it the Bush Plan, to help Iraq, to help the Iraqi people. And this would be a very wonderful step that they stand beside us.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. Thank you all. ''

Today I heard my President very proudly... pass the buck to an operative. And no one can tell me that Jaafari was there as an equal !

No one can challenge the position that the United States is the real master in lraq. As a matter of fact, when expounding on the "War On Terrorism", Bush & Co. won't hesitate to brag about how they're in control. Yet when the question of finally rebuilding Iraq came up, Bush committed the unthinkable. The unbridled Conqueror of Iraq publicly disavowed any responsibility to rebuild what he had destroyed, and hid like a coward behind his stooge!

And oh, how stupidly he had begun! Not only does he rudely butt in to answer a question meant for Jaafari, but he betrays his discomfort at the very idea of betraying his unpreparedness at reconstructing Iraq. I love this line:

'' Sometimes we don't tell you things, you know ".

Yeah, "you know" I swear I could've heard his patented "heh, heh!" at the end of that statement!

He then proceeded to explain how it wasn't his responsibility to begin the rebuilding, but that it would depend on the actions of the '' Iraqi Government":

"We are spending reconstruction money, but, you know, you need to ask that to the government. They're in charge. It's your government, not ours. This is the government that is --that has got the ministries in place that spends the money. We're willing to help, and we have helped. And I want to thank the Congress and the American people for their generosity in helping Iraq rebuild. And we're spending money''.

Bush's press conference of the 23rd on Iraq clearly illustrates who the true masters of lraq are. True, Jaafari was there, but it was clear who's hand was up who's butt. It was especially clear at the end, when Jaafari was forced to back a play that must have been humiliating. I listened to that exchange, and l saw and heard Bush at his most self-serving, and base.

Ah! The hypocrisy! A disingenuous Bush suddenly got self - conscious:

''I don't want to be passing the buck, as we say, but we're more than willing to help reconstruction efforts, but this is a sovereign government --''

'' Passing the buck '' ? ! But that's EXACTLY what you did George ! It doesn't matter what the Iraqi government says, They've only a fledgeling army. You have a considerably larger force. You imposed so-called "sovereignty" according to the neocon Master Plan! And you are telling me that you don't have ultimate responsibility? Once again you ask a minion to pull your fat out of the fire?

'We are spending reconstruction money...''

Tell me then, how is the reconstruction coming along, Mr. President ? Why don't we hear about it on CNN, or MSNBC?

And Bush the Space Commander-in-Chief rhapsodizes:

''And, you know, I was pleased to see the other day when I was reading that there's a lot of air traffic in and out of the airport now, quite a lot of air traffic. In other words, there's commerce beginning to develop. We want to be helpful. But the responsibility rests with the people who the Iraqi people elected. And that's you, Mr. Prime Minister.''

No, that's YOU Mr. Bush!

Ruthlessly Bush - Part 2

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

The Benchmark of Moral Turpitude

BBC News Thursday, 24 March, 2005, 10:22 GMT:

"Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, resigned in March 2003 because she did not believe the war with Iraq was legal. Her letter was released by the Foreign Office to the BBC News website under the Freedom of Information Act.

A minute dated 18 March 2003 from Elizabeth Wilmshurst (Deputy Legal Adviser) to Michael Wood (The Legal Adviser), copied to the Private Secretary, the Private Secretary to the Permanent Under-Secretary, Alan Charlton (Director Personnel) and Andrew Patrick (Press Office):

1. I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678. I do not need to set out my reasoning; you are aware of it.
[The following italicised section was removed by the Foreign Office but later obtained by Channel 4 News]
My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)
I cannot in conscience go along with advice - within the Office or to the public or Parliament - which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.
2. I therefore need to leave the Office: my views on the legitimacy of the action in Iraq would not make it possible for me to continue my role as a Deputy Legal Adviser or my work more generally.
For example in the context of the International Criminal Court, negotiations on the crime of aggression begin again this year.
I am therefore discussing with Alan Charlton whether I may take approved early retirement. In case that is not possible this letter should be taken as constituting notice of my resignation.
3. I joined the Office in 1974. It has been a privilege to work here. I leave with very great sadness"



From Elizabeth Wilmshurst's Resume:


"Expertise
International Law:

the use of force
international criminal law including the international criminal court
the law of the United Nations and its organs
consular and diplomatic law
State and sovereign immunity
international humanitarian law."


"Academic and Professional Experience

2003-Date Visiting Professor, University College, London University
1999-Apr 2003 Deputy Legal Adviser, Foreign & Commonwealth Office
1994-1999 Legal Counsellor at United Kingdom Misson to the United Nations, New York, then in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office
1990-1994 Legal Counsellor, Foreign & Commonwealth Office
1986-1990 Assistant Legal Adviser, then Legal Counsellor, Attorney General's Office
1974-1986 Assistant Legal Adviser, then Legal Counsellor at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
1972 Lecturer, Bristol University"

Ruthlessly Bush - Part 1

Bush Looking Angry Inverse Painted, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

Sunday Times of London July 12, 2005:

Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action

The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source.
PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY
IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)
Summary
Ministers are invited to:
(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.
(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.
(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.
(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.
(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.
Introduction
1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.
2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.
3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.
4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.
The Goal
5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.
US Military Planning
6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.
7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.
The Viability of the Plans
8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.
UK Military Contribution
9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.
The Conditions Necessary for Military Action
10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.
Justification
11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.
12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.
13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.
14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.
An International Coalition
15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.
16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.
17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.
A Quiescent Israel-Palestine
18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.
Benefits/Risks
19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.
Domestic Opinion
20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.
Timescales
21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.
22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that:
(a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels;

Downing Street Memo.com

AfterDowningStreet.org

Charity: O'Reilly Style

Bill O'Reilly Wrapped in Vanity, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

And What Does O'Reilly Know About Charity?

Sooooo! Bill O'Reilly actually HAS a heart!. He's getting maudlin because suddenly he has discovered that rhere is famine in Africa. Of course it required Tony Blair to wade across the pond all the way to Washington to switch the old ticker on, since O"Reilly rarely uses it. But now his leader Bush needs him to be compassionate, so he switched the old pump on.

Suddenly O'Reilly's characterization of Bush and Blair's work in Africa reminds me of that stereotypical insult about Poles, or Italians, or Ukrainians et al., screwing on a lightbulb.

You see, what with our unnecessary involvement in lraq, how can we now manage the resources to think of taking on the bandits starving the people in Sudan? Mr. O'Reilly, we can't get together the resources to help Africa with our "Coalition Of The Willing". We need Europe, and that entity O'Reilly hates so much - the UN.

O'Reilly hoists himself on his own petard when he mentions how Live Aid foundered on the rock of local tyrants. We barely have an army large enough to handle Afghanistan and Iraq, and the ghastly way we are handling those wars is having a devastating effect on recruiting. This means that we can't even get in to protect the people, let alone feed them.

O'Reilly's crocodile tears for the starving people in Sudan fall disingenuously since at the same time he defends a policy that has left the Iraqis living in the Stone Ages, and turned Afghanistan into a large opium farm. O'Reilly speaks of a Marshall Plan for Africa. Where was Bush's beneficence when he gave Iraqi jobs to foreigners, while he gave away their economy to American and foreign interests? As far as NGOs like Doctors Without Borders are concerned, first make it safe for them in Iraq where at least you have an army there, before you go off on another adventure.

To me the whole thing is a disingenuous "Wag The Dog" tactic. Bush and Blair wish to misdirect our attention from the Downing Street Memo, and so they are cynically using Africa as a prop to hide behind. O'Reilly, who to me doesn't look the charitable type, (Though I'm sure he has a few favorite charities.) is suddenly wearing sackcloth and ashes for Africa. I just wish he could spare a few threads for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly's Official Home Page

O'Reilly Sucks

Fox News.com "The O'Reilly Factor"

An Answer To an Open Letter

Hannity the Blind, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

The Problem Is, The Blind Arrogance of The Right!

I just read from The Moderate Republican where Dennis posts "An Open Letter to Democrats from a concerned Republican". Well Dennis, here is my reply:

The problem with your party is that it has been taken over by ideologues of a totalitarian leaning bent, and that being so, moderates of your party have about as much chance of fighting the Right Wing as a Quaker did against Nazi Germany. The truth is, that up until recently, your wing has allowed the conservatives to walk all over them, and you hadn’t the nerve to oppose them. You say you are a person of color. On how many hands can you count the number of “persons of color” in positions of influence in your party. We at least have Jesse Jackson, Kweisi Nfume, Vernon Jordan and Al Sharpton. Also, there are times when race issues become entwined with labor issues, and the right to work will be upheld by people of any race, religion or sexual orientation. This usually happens in the Democratic Party. Can the Log Cabin Republicans say the same?
You accuse us of offering “no ideas” of our own. You say: “The Baby Boomers are getting ready to retire and that will put pressure on the system.” I’m afraid that you’ve allowed yourself to be confused by your leaders. Can we start with the simple notion that there is NOTHING WRONG WITH SOCIAL SECURITY? Nothing that a few tweaks and simple mathematics can’t solve? Look, simply pay down the deficit like President Clinton did. A small raise in the Income Tax (yes, you’ll have to do that). Raise the cap on Social Security. If we do it now in small increments we will avoid a whole lot of pain later. Those of us who can, should have a reduction on their benefits, without raising everyone elses. And let US THE PEOPLE DECIDE WHAT THE SLIDING SCALE SHOULD BE, not the denizens of a back room in the White House or the Capitol Cloak Room.

I’m sorry that you don’t like Howard Dean, but now, more than ever, we need a truth teller.

Dean is simply saying what most of us believe. We are witnessing a time when the rabid ideologues of your party are threatening the foundations of our democracy with things like permanently prolonging the most extreme parts of the Patriot Act. We have witnessed the temerity with which they tried to destroy the checks and balances system of our government, and are even now attempting to co-opt the judiciary. The unbridled corruption of the Right with their corporate networking, and the quid pro quo’s with which they buy one another, launder money, and funnel it to maintain power has turned the Capitol into a brothel. The New Boss Tweeds are Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, and the RNC is their Tammany.

You say: “I'm busy trying get my own party to become more sensible, so I can help you. So, you need to do this. Please stop speaking to the converted and make a choice to reach out.” But we are reaching out. Every time we point out the hypocrisy between what the Right says, and what it does, we reach out. We ask the American people to be honest. Every time we point out that nothing has been done to improve the day-to-day life of Iraqis, while our boys die there needlessly in a war that in no way was meant to better things there, and that the cynical way they conduct it has created the largest terrorist boot camp in the world, we appeal to American’s mercy, common sense and reason!

Let’s be honest. A party whose Majority Leader can bully Congress and contort it to defend him at any price, a party that thinks nothing of creating such abominations as Camp X-Ray, Baqubah and Abu Ghraib cannot in any way “become more sensible”. Your best bet is to come over to our side. Be a moderate Democrat. At least here you’ll have more influence. Listening to people is part of the ideology.

A Letter To Congressman James T. Walsh (R. NY, 25th District)

James T. Walsh, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

Please Come See Your People!

Sent to Representative James T. Walsh, and to the Syracuse Post Standard:


Dear Sir:

I understand that you are on the fence as to what you should do concerning Social Security. On the one hand, your party and your President are calling for you to step in line with their approach to “saving” Social Security. On the other, your constituents feel that they are better informed about the Social Security situation and feel that the Republican approach is a cure that is not only worse than the disease, but a poison for a disease that doesn’t exist. I feel that listening to your constituents is the better choice, and if you heed my invitation, you will hear what your constituents have to say.

Your constituents are worried that the shortfall Bush warns about occurring in 2018, will occur much earlier if money from the deficit is borrowed to pay for privatized accounts. They are worried that this would affect the Social Security of their grandchildren. Likewise, they know that would have to be severely regulated to the point where they are virtually restricted to the very thing that our present Social Security is already based on, Treasury bonds. Thus the private accounts really do not make any improvements in Social Security.

In This Together, CNY Alliance for Retired Americans, Greater Syracuse Labor Council, Central New York Labor Council (Utica, NY), The Oswego County Labor Council, and The Working Families Party, are planning a Town Meeting, a public forum on Social Security. They wish to invite you, Congressmen Boehlert and McHugh, Senators Schumer and Clinton and their representatives. It is to be held at Grant Middle School on Thursday, June 23rd, 2005. The aim is to discuss the important, and potentially destructive changes being proposed for Social Security. They wish to invite you, and I wish to invite you, as my Congressman to this forum.

You will hear how real people feel about the Social Security issue. I’m sure that no one will have to be screened, or otherwise invited, or approved of in order to attend this meeting. What you will get is the real deal, how people truly feel about an institution that has stood by them through thick and thin, always could be counted on, and really doesn’t need drastic unnecessary dangerous surgery.


Sincerely:

George A. Wojtowycz

Why Do We Fight Bolton? Could It Be He's - Unsuitable?

Bolton 2, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

I'm listening this Memorial Day to Fox News as they get maudlin over the deaths they created in their war in Iraq. What an irony! They weep crocodile tears for the "heroes", men and women who didn't really want to be there, and who once again - as in Vietnam are dying for something meaningless. And I want to know, will this war, like the one in Vietnam, spread further in the Middle East as the administration covetuously eyes the oilfields of Iran? We sent our troops into Iraq, claiming that we are there to "liberate" them, and make their lives better. Well that's the excuse Bush has switched to, now that the WMD hoax was discovered. Have we "accomplished" that "mission"? Not according to anyone outside of the government who has been there.

After two years of occupation just the electricity alone has not been restored. Water? the only liquid you can readily get is what's in the freely flowing sewage. Clean water? That's a more difficult problem! No Iraqi business homegrown or introduced has been allowed to start up again, or flourish. Only foreign businesses are allowed to operate Not one Iraqi is working, and everyone is poor, disease is rampant, as well as hunger, but no NGO's feel safe enough to come back during this 4th of "Major Military Actions", which were supposed to be over after Bush stood under the "Mission Accomplished" banner. As for justice? We have replaced the "justice" of Saddam, with the "justice" of the GITMO GULAG! Insurgents continue to be well armed well supplied and well lead. And every day someone dies, not counting the soldiers! Our allies are dwindling away every month. the world has called us "murderers, butchers", and worse yet, "torturers"! And yet Bush does not listen to wiser heads and continues to plow ever more deaply into the mire. There can be only one reason. He wants American economic hegemony over the Middle East. Men have died for George W. Bush's arrogance.

And how does this tie in John Bolton? Bolton's appointment as Ambassador to the U.N. is symbolic of the projection this policy towards the rest of the world. How can one be welcomed to that body after insulting it at every oppportunity? Bolton is a man who can't even show proper respect and sensitivity to his own (former) wife, let alone to countries overseas. A few Bolton quotes should make clear how unfit he is for the U.N., but extremely fit for neocon purposes:

"There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

"Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests."

"Many Republicans in Congress - and perhaps a majority - not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a "make my day" outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost, and the adverse consequences predicted by the U.N.'s supporters begin to occur, this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system. "

"As you know, I have over the years written critically about the U.N. I have consistently stressed in my writings that American leadership is critical to the success of the U.N., an effective U.N., one that is true to the original intent of its charter's framers."

"In an interview in 2000 on National Public Radio, Mr. Bolton told Juan Williams, "If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world." ... "And that one member would be, John Bolton?" Mr. Williams queried. "The United States," Mr. Bolton replied. (New York Times, March 9, 2005)" (Friends Committee on National Legislation)

From these quotes it can be seen that this is not a man who wants to know or care what other nations think of the boneheadedly rude politics of the Bush administration. Clearly Bolton is intemperate, illogical and chauvinistically so. The only thing that Bolton can do in the UN is make enemies for us. Then Dubya will say, "See, they are all against us, those lily-livered-tea-drinking-pinky-up europeans!" This should suit China fine of course since we are already moving ever so swiftly off the stage as the economic giant of the world. There is a most frightening thought! The next superpower of the world will be - totalitarian China!

See, what Bolton doesn't seem to understand is that we are not the supreme power on the planet anymore. We are in a deficit. Our industry is dwindling and the corporations do not see fit to build it up. NAFTA and soon CAFTA allow them the luxury of looking to their own interests! But this is only an illusory imperialism. Globalism can only go so far. If you don't have a firm national base to stand on, how can you compete against the world.

Yet what an irony this creates! And so Bolton is hoist on the petard of corporate globalism! NAFTA has made us all the more dependent on the good graces of the world! Bolton is arrogantly blind about the our loss of greatness, like some pathetic old Victorian, fighting desperately the loss of Kenya.

David Corn captures this gung-ho perfectly:

"Bolton's extremism does not stop at the UN's front door. A year and a half ago, I described Bolton, who's widely considered the leading hard-ass of the neocon clan, this way:
Bolton is a hawk's hawk in the Bush administration. He is the agent conservateurin Colin Powell's State Department. He has led the administration's effort against the International Criminal Court. Last year, he single-handedly tried to revise U.S. nuclear policy by asserting that Washington no longer felt bound to state that it would not use nuclear weapons against nations that do not possess nuclear weapons. (A State Department spokesman quickly claimed that Bolton had not said what he had indeed said.) Bolton also claimed that Cuba was developing biological weapons--a charge that was not substantiated by any evidence and that was challenged by experts. In July, he was about to allege in congressional testimony that Syria posed a weapons-of-mass-destruction threat before the CIA and other agencies, which considered his threat assessment to be exaggerated, objected to his statement. When England, France and Germany recently tried to develop a carrot-and-stick approach in negotiating an end to Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, Bolton huffed, 'I don't do carrots.'"


And the only reason that people like William Kristol defend him is - that they are exactly like him! Here's Kristol in his own words:

"Despite Soros's millions and the Times's resources, the assault on Bolton has been pathetic. What does it amount to? He's a longtime U.N. skeptic--appropriate, one would think, given the U.N.'s "Zionism is Racism" history during the Cold War, and its ineffectiveness (to be kind) in Rwanda in the '90s and in Sudan in this decade. But he's worse than a skeptic, the critics say: He has been disrespectful of the august body in which he will represent us. Why, he once joked, "The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." Well, truer words were never spoken."

And truer colors have never been revealed.

Read Also:

Bush Gives the UN the Finger

Two Jokers And A King

Galloway and the Dunces, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

Here are two of the most momentous items that are very revealing of the state of affairs in our government, that are not covered as they should be by the media. So here they are, in their own words. Enough said:

The secret Downing Street memo

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)



Galloway vs. The US Senate: Transcript of Statement

George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, delivered this statement to US Senators today who have accused him of corruption

"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.
"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.
"Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.
"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.
"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defense made of his.
"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.
"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.
"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.
"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.
"Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.
"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realize played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.
"There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.
"You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.
"I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.
"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].
"Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.
"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.
"Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?
"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.
"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.
"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.
"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.
"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.
"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.
"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.
"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.
"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."
© 2005 Times Newspapers

Гордость Приходит Перед Падением. (Pride ... Fall 2)

Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

DeLay can’t shed that lobbyist tar baby Jack Abramoff no matter how hard he tries. Or maybe both he and Abramoff are both like flies caught on flypaper, two made from Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas stationary, three from invoices for the Moscow Country Club.

Proof that not only were DeLay associates traveling on the dime of a lobbyist, but that Abramoff paid for the junkets of other Republican Congressmen isn’t that hard to find now that CBS.com obtained the Preston Gates expense accounts for trips taken to Saipan by various groups sponsored by Jack Abramoff and another lobbyist Patrick Pizzella dated May 20, 1997.

For the January 24th Congressional Trip airfare for Congressman Thompson was $5,013.22, and for Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) it was $4,596.22. Clyburn claims it was from an organization known as the National Security Caucus Foundation. The Oklahoma Daily states:

“The lawmakers were invited to the Marianas by a nonprofit organization, the National Security Caucus Foundation. Clyburn said he understood the foundation would be paying the expenses.

But Gregg Hilton, who ran the now-defunct foundation, said the group never paid for the trip. He said the lawmakers weren't told the foundation that invited them never put up the money. Both Clyburn and Thompson filed House disclosure reports showing the group paid for the travel, and Clyburn provided the invitation letter.

Hilton, who was on the trip himself, said the National Security Caucus Foundation was a project of the American Security Council Foundation, an organization he ran and now serves as a director. The foundations promoted a strong national defense, democracy and human rights.

Hilton said he arranged the trip with the island government and was led to believe by Preston Gates officials that the territory would pay the expenses and be reimbursed by the private sector.

He said he was not aware that Abramoff or Preston Gates paid for the trip until AP showed him the documents.”

Yet the paper trail is a very short one to Saipan and the names of Clyburn, Thompson, Abramoff and Preston, Gates, Rouvelas are prominent on it.

Well, if a pair of Democrats could be taken to task for an ethics violation, then the same rule should apply for the Majority Leader and his staffers.

The Marianas trip was done by DeLay’s then chief of staff Ed Buckham and DeLay aide Tony Rudy.

The authentication is quite simple. The Memoranda of May 6 and May 20, 1997 sent to Abramoff were sent by one Jennifer Senft (now Jennifer Senft Hamann, Director of Development for Citizens For a Sound Economy). They were in regards to “CNMI (Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands) Billing” for the May 6, 1997 memo, and “CNMI Travel Expenses for the March Bill” for the March 20, 1997 memo.

For their “January 24th Congressional Trip”, Airfare for Congressman Thompson was $5,013.22, and for Congressman Clyburn was $4,596.22. Hotel expenses for them were $227.20 for Congressman Thompson, and the same for Congressman Clyburn.

Now, Jack Abramoff’s Leadership Trip of December 4 – December 12, 1996 listed in the May 6, 1997 memo includes all expenses “minus airfare”. “Hotel in Saipan for Ed Buckham” was $2,028.61. “Airfare from Saipan to Manila” was $518.00. “Upgrade for Buckham to Manila” was $52.00. The same was for “Upgrade for Rudy to Manila”, and “Upgrade for Abramoff to Manila”.

Now what is significant to me in as far as it concerns the claim that a “non-profit” organization, the National Center for Public Policy Research, paid for Tom DeLay’s trip to Moscow, is that the name of the head of this organization, Amy Ridenour appears, (though misspelled) under “Patrick Pizzella’s Think Tank Trip of November 10 – 15, 1996 airfare for Audrey Mullen, Amy Ridenor and Roy Marsden “. “Amy Ridenor’s” (Ridenours), airfare was $5,440.95.

The Moscow Trip

MSNBC News whose records are as yet unquestioned by anyone states:

“WASHINGTON - In August 1997, then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and his friend lobbyist Jack Abramoff were at the Moscow Country Club — the most exclusive golf course in Russia. Hotel records obtained by NBC News show DeLay stayed two nights, in room 229, with Abramoff next door.
The cost of DeLay's room, with all the amenities, was $295 a night. On the bill, charges for DeLay and his chief of staff are mixed with Abramoff's — room charges, sports pool bar, mini bar and phone, for a total of $3,302.50
NBC News has learned the expenses were, in fact, put on the credit card of a lobbyist and a Russian businessman. A document obtained by NBC News suggests DeLay was informed soon after the trip, by the non-profit National Center for Public Policy, that it paid the bill — which is allowed under House rules.

A source close to the case says $885 was charged to Abramoff’s credit card, and records indicate the rest was put on the credit card of Alexander Koulakovsky, general manager of a Russian oil and gas company called NAFTASib.”

Well once again the hotel bill records do not lie.

"INVOICE 3231 Moscow Country Club (Russia), 11/08/97

9000 DeLay 0.00 11/08/97 12:27

3 HMNG 11/08/97

->227 Mr. Abramoff
10/08 Telephone 30.00
->227 Mr. Abramoff
10/08 Telephone 330.00
->227 Mr. Abramoff
10/0B Telephone 30.00
->227 Mr. Abramoff
10/08 Telephone 54.00
->227 Mr. Abramoff
10/08 Telephone 229 Mr. DeLay 72.00
11/08 Mini Bar 22Q Mr. Buckham 29.50
11/08 Mini Bar 227 Mr. Abramoff 4.00
11/08 Mini Bar 2:7 Mr. Abramoff 6.00
11/08 Mini Bar 22: Mr. DeLay 8.00
11/08 Min: Bar 229 Mr. DeLay 6.00
11/08 Telephone 174.00
->227 Mr. Abramoff
11/08 American Express 2417.50
07/99
Total 3302.50 3302.50
Balance 0.00 USD


Total incl. VAT : 3302.50
Folio amount net: 2752.08
VAT: 550.42
Local Currency total 19319,63 Thousand Rubles"