The People Have Spoken The Ground Has Shifted

Anti-War, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

And The Administration Has Blinked

On Saturday the forces of justice grew bolder, and the forces of darkness cringed.

A hundred thousand people showed up in Washington D.C. to speak truth to power, and though the media thought it best to cover a has-been hurricane that was not Katrina, killed nobody and revealed nothing of consequence that we didn't already know about Bush cancer, l'm positive that the denizens of the Beltway were amply aware that the temperature of anti-war fever in this country has just shot up.

The Mall was filled standing room only! People spoke there, movingly, about the unfairness of the war, it's dishonesty, and the need to end it as soon as possible. Mothers heard of how the Bush administration lied to their children and put them in harm's way under false pretences.

The horizon was filled with people who joyously shouted as they felt their power.

They chanted. They sang. And they showed that they and this country have turned a corner. Now we go on the offensive!

But the protest wasn't just in D.C., or in San Francisco. It was at my doorstep in Syracuse too.

I came at around noon. We met in front of county Republican Headquarters on West Onondaga. The signs were spirited and beautiful! Passersby cheered us on. We sang. We chanted. We had protesters on either side of the street. There were about 100 of us there, and one right-wing yahoo with a slgn that read: "The Syracuse Peace Council Kills Jews!" Weird! He started confronting us, but we would't take the bate.

Well his antics merely served to spur us on to carry on singing!

And anyhow, he served to show the exact pro-war to anti-war protester ratio that exists throughout the country!

At San Francisco there were thousands of anti-war protesters were gathered at the corner of Mission and 16th and at Dolores Park and marched through the streets.

"In Los Angeles," said Inside Bay Area, " police closed a downtown street to accommodate the protest, which they said drew an estimated 15,000 people." " In San Diego, more than 2,000 protesters marched through downtown to a city park where they displayed mock coffins commemorating the deaths of Iraqi civilians and white crosses to represent fallen American soldiers. On the streets of San Francisco, several thousand demonstrators embraced an array of political groups, including Seligman's, which is trying to get military recruiters out of public school campuses and to bring troops home."

In Syracuse, we were buoyed by a call from Peace Council delegate to Washington who told us of the hundreds of thousands who were there. And of course, that one heckler was there to entertain us as well, with his perambulations and "gems of wisdom." We defend his freedom of speech anyway.

On Marshall St., the crowd was only a little smaller, but no less in high spirits. I had informed the people of the phone call from D.C. I felt a sense of euphoria as I stood there in front of a TV5 camera in my self designed homemade "My Country Doesn't Lie To Me Mr. Bush!" T-shirt.

When I came home, my mother told me to turn on C-SPAN.

I saw something that made me proud of being part of it.

My mother said "Are you seeing this?"

"Mom" I said, "today I was DOING that!"

The next day I saw the Republican attempt.

Melanie Morgan was there, hardly anyone else. Oh, a few people wandered from here to there, and then they had the nerve to say that our guys did not represent the true sentiments of America! Funny how so few people, about four hundred, are experts on how America thinks, when just the day before, the whole of America showed up to tell people like Melanie Morgan what we think of her.

Finally they arrested Cindy Sheehan yesterday. She was peacefully demonstrating with a tactic called civil disobedience. i'm told that the police were entirely civil with her and she is being treated well.

I think of this as a tribute to her persuasiveness, the mood of the country and the fact that few people will allow anything that happens to Cindy Sheehan to be ignored.

Inside Bay Area
New Standard News
Melanie Morgan

The Blame Game or Accountability?

Bush Mess, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

So Now The Hot Lead Is Flying About Katrina!

So now, the hot lead is flying now about Hurricane Katrina! They say that they don't want to play the "blame game", yet they are more than willing to play the "wasn't me" game, and the "scapegoat game''.

Let's see, whose responsibility was it to first make sure that flooding due to a hurricane is kept to a minimum? Whose projects were authorized by Congress in 1997 and then pulled? The Army Corps of Engineers that's who! And whose subsection’s of the Homeland Security Department’s responsibility was it to oversee the Federal response to the disaster if not FEMA’s?

The Republicans would like it to be all about who was it at the state and local level who couldn't think on their feet, but even if that were true, nothing can erase the responsibility that the Federal Government had and shirked in the area of ensuring the safety of the people of the Gulf Coast.

The fact is there were warnings. The Army Corps of Engineers had reports. FEMA had reports before that. They even had an exercise; Hurricane Pam, which very accurately predicted what, would happen if a Category 5 hurricane hit the Gulf Coast near the Mississippi Delta.



Where did it go wrong?

The neocons want to shift the blame to the locals, telling us that the Mayor didn't use the school buses, or that Governor Blanco didn't position the National Guard on time, but that in no way goes to the root of the problem.

That problem was and still is - the narrow minded thinking of the Bush White House namely their suspiciously self-serving notions that less government (and therefore more private sector) is better, and of subsuming institutions vital to the national security, to their most selfish pet project.... Iraq.

These notions would work hand-in-hand to spell the demise of New Orleans's levees.

So, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

We needn't dwell on Iraq in this article; since it's been amply proved that, we went in there only to gain access to their oil and, no less importantly, to create a corporate capitalist paradise. But it does tie in to what happened during Hurricane Katrina, her subsequent aftermath.

Very simply, the money and resources needed to hurricane-proof New Orleans were diverted to Iraq. And it was done despite the fact that a thousand Cassandra's warned us about impending disaster.

And it wasn't like a Category3, 4 or 5 hurricane wasn't possible or even unlikely. There was Camille, another Category 5. But it was a Category 4 that taught us all many of the lessons that Bush & Co. saw fit to disregard. Before Camille, there was Betsy:



"On September 9 (1965*)" said a June 2003 Civil Engineering Magazine article called "The Creeping Storm," " Betsy hit the southern tip of the state. Almost every building in the small coastal town of Grand Isle was quickly destroyed. With 150 mph (240 km/h) winds, Betsy barreled up the Barataria Basin toward New Orleans. Lake Pontchartrain, which is just north of the city and is connected to the Gulf of Mexico, swelled with raging waters. Easterly winds pounded the high waters, in some areas easily topping the levees meant to protect the city. In streets in the eastern part of town, water reached the eaves of houses.

Betsy finally calmed near Little Rock, Arkansas. She had dropped only 4 in. (100 mm) of rain on New Orleans and had claimed 81 lives and caused more than $1 billion in damage. Unlike any storm before it, Betsy made clear that the city was all too vulnerable to hurricanes. Cradled in a wide southern meander of the Mississippi River just north of the Gulf of Mexico, New Orleans is surrounded by Lake Pontchartrain to the north, Lake Borgne all to the east, and lakes Cataouatche and Salvador to the south. This ring of freshwater is also surrounded by hundreds of square miles of wetlands and the Gulf of Mexico. To make matters worse, most of the city is below sea level.

Soon after the damage from Betsy was assessed, Congress made a historic decision to appropriate federal funds to build a system of levees to protect the city from a similar storm in the future. Its cultural significance aside, New Orleans was fast becoming the most important port in the nation feeding commodities up the Mississippi to all of the Midwest and serving as an important base for the burgeoning oil and gas industry. Congress was not about to let it wash away."

Up until the Bush administration, the Federal Government in the form of the Army Corps of Engineers and later FEMA, was interested in protecting the Gulf Coast from just such hurricanes. Studies were made. Estimates were given. Computer models were created. All of them pointed to the same problem, that the bowl of New Orleans and it's surrounding parishes were below sea level, that the system of levees while keeping the mighty Mississippi from flooding also prevented the necessary sediment from reinforcing the wetlands from erosion by the Gulf. The wetlands surrounding New Orleans if solid enough would have weakened any hurricane to varying degrees depending on how solid they were. But the studies told us that due to the erosion, they weren't as solid as when they confronted Betsy. The studies also predicted that the same erosion that was stealing the wetlands was lowering the land behind them. Therefore the levees were sinking. And if even a Category 3 hurricane were to hit:

"Within this bowl reside approximately 600,000 people. The West Bank, south of New Orleans and across the Mississippi River, has a population of about 500,000 who also live within levee protected bowls. Recent research reveals that a slow moving Category 3 hurricane, or stronger, could cause levee overtopping and complete flooding of New Orleans, with the West Bank even more susceptible. Floodwaters would have residence times of weeks. The resultant mix of sewage, corpses and chemicals in these standing flood waters would set the stage for massive disease outbreaks and prolonged chemical exposure. Estimates are that 300,000 persons would be trapped and 700,000 would be homeless; thousands could perish."



That was from "Coastal Land Loss: Hurricanes And New Orleans" a report by Ivor L. Van Heerden Phd.

We've only to wait for the body count to see just how prescient the report was.

And so the understatement; we were warned and up until the Bush administration people were doing something about it.

The pre-eminent example of this is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood control Project:

"As a result of the extensive flooding in May 1995, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana (SELA) Project with enactment of Section 108 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and Section 533 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996, as amended, to provide for flood control and improvements to rainfall drainage systems in Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Tammany Parishes, "

"Scope:

The project includes channel and pump station improvements in the three parishes. The channel and pumping station improvements in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes support the parishes master drainage plans and generally provide flood protection on a level associated with a ten-year rainfall event, while also reducing damages for larger events. St. Tammany Parish plans would provide flood protection for various rainfall events.

In Orleans Parish, approved plans involve improving five major drainage lines, adding pumping capacity to two pump stations, and adding a new pump station. Proposed plans include improving 13 canals, adding pump capacity to two existing pump stations, and adding two new pump stations. "

Under the Clinton administration and the beginning of the Bush administration, things proceeded apace. But when the "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq started to mushroom in cost and manpower, resources that were sorely needed in this country were diverted to Iraq.”

And then came Dubya, 9/11, and FEMA’s shift of priorities from disaster prevention and response to terrorism:

''Progress to Date

In Orleans Parish, nine contracts have been awarded, seven are complete, two are underway, and one remains to be awarded. Most of the remaining contracts had been scheduled for award in fiscal year 2003; however, funding limitations have prevented moving forward with those contracts. Overall, the currently scheduled work in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes is about 70 percent complete and should be finished in 2008, if funding can keep pace. "

The same occurred with the Lake Pontchartrain, LA. and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project:

"Updated May 23, 2005

PURPOSE.

The project is designed to protect residents between Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River levee from surges in Lake Pontchartrain driven by storms up to the Standard Project Hurricane. The SPH is equivalent to a fast-moving Category 3 hurricane."

Yet, the result of neocon interference became quite clear in the same report:

''FY 2006 BUDGET/EFFORT. The President's budget for fiscal year 2005 is $3.0 million. This will be insufficient to fund new construction contracts. We could spend $20 million if the funds were provided. These funds are necessary to maintain the project schedule and to meet our contractual and local sponsor commitments.

IMPACTS OF BUDGET SHORTFALL. In Orleans Parish, two major pump stations are threatened by hurricane storm surges. Major contracts need to be awarded to provide fronting protection for them. Also, several levees have settled and need to be raised to provide the design protection. The current funding shortfalls in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will prevent the Corps from addressing these pressing needs."

According to the Deon Roberts of Dolan Media Newswires, the Corps of Engineers was none to happy about it. In fact, they were in panic mode, and practically implored the Congress to restore the funding.

In an article written last year about the state of the New Orleans District of the Corps matters were described as being in a precarious state:

"In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding.

It would be the largest single-year funding loss ever for the New Orleans district, Corps officials said.

I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction, said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district. I think part of the problem is it's not so much the reduction, it's the drastic reduction in one fiscal year. It's the immediacy of the reduction that I think is the hardest thing to adapt to.

There is an economic ripple effect, too. The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now.

Money is so tight the New Orleans district, which employs 1,300 people, instituted a hiring freeze last month on all positions. The freeze is the first of its kind in about 10 years, said Marcia Demma, chief of the Corps' Programs Management Branch.

Stephen Jeselink, interim commander of the New Orleans Corps district, told employees in an internal e-mail dated May 25 that the district is experiencing financial challenges. Execution of our available funds must be dealt with through prudent districtwide management decisions. In addition to a hiring freeze, Jeselink canceled the annual Corps picnic held every June. "

Meanwhile, FEMA itself fell victim to the ideological meat grinder. According to the Independent Weekly, it started out in the right hands as an organization that at least had its heart in the right place:

"The need for more systematic mitigation efforts was driven home by 1996's Hurricane Fran, which killed 37 people and caused tens of billions of dollars in damages. In 1997, Witt established Project Impact, which would become the agency's most high-profile mitigation program.

Under the project, FEMA fostered partnerships between federal, state, and local emergency workers, along with local businesses, to prepare individual communities for natural disasters. Impact partnerships sprang up in all 50 states. In Seattle, Wash., for example, the grants were used to retrofit schools, bridges, and houses at risk from earthquakes. In Pascagoula, Miss., the project funded the creation of a database of structures in the local flood plain--crucial information for preparing mitigation plans. In several eastern North Carolina communities, it helped fund and coordinate buyouts of houses in flood-prone areas.

By the time, the Bush administration entered office in January 2001, some 250 communities had signed up for Project Impact. FEMA seemed sturdy, having found its role and proved itself capable of fulfilling it. But in the field of emergency management, some things can change as quickly as the weather. "

When Dubya came into office, he began following the neocon philosophy of privatization. l believe a CATO Institute report
best sums up the Dubya philosophy regarding FEMA and the government’s other social responsibilities:

"Any time there is a natural disaster FEMA is trotted out as an example of how well government programs work. In reality, by using taxpayer dollars to provide disaster relief and subsidized insurance, FEMA itself encourages Americans to build in disaster-prone areas and makes the rest of us pick up the tab for those risky decisions. In a well-functioning private marketplace, individuals who chose to build houses in flood plains or hurricane zones would bear the cost of the increased risk through higher insurance premiums. FEMA's activities undermine that process. Americans should not be forced to pay the cost of rebuilding oceanfront summer homes. This $4 billion a year agency should be abolished."

Bush believed in that way of thinking, and well before 9/11, he started making changes, forgetting the old saying, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.” again the Independent Weekly, states:

''At FEMA, President Bush appointed a close aide, Joe Allbaugh, to be the agency's new director. Allbaugh had served as then-Gov. Bush's chief of staff in Texas and as manager of his 2000 presidential campaign. Along with Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, Allbaugh was known as one part of Bush's "iron triangle" of professional handlers.

Some FEMA veterans complained that Allbaugh had little experience in managing disasters, and the new administration's early initiatives did little to settle their concerns. The White House quickly launched a government-wide effort to privatize public services, including key elements of disaster management. Bush's first budget director, Mitch Daniels, spelled out the philosophy in remarks at an April 2001 conference: "The general idea--that the business of government is not to provide services, but to make sure that they are provided--seems self-evident to me," he said. "

And so, Bush thought it best to put life-and-death matters under the mercies political cronies and private ownership.

"In a May 15, 2001, appearance before a Senate appropriations subcommittee, Allbaugh signaled that the new, stripped-down approach would be applied at FEMA as well. "Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program and a disincentive to effective state and local risk management," he said. "Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level."
As a result, says a disaster program administrator who insists on anonymity, "We have to compete for our jobs--we have to prove that we can do it cheaper than a contractor." And when it comes to handling disasters, the FEMA employee stresses, cheaper is not necessarily better, and the new outsourcing requirements sometimes slow the agency's operations. "

Quality suffers when the government takes a "let somebody else do it" attitude. The "I can do it cheaper'' attitude was no help either.

The Weekly postulates this truth quite well:

"William Waugh, a disaster expert at Georgia State University who has written training programs for FEMA, warns that the rise of a "consultant culture" has not served emergency programs well. 'It's part of a widespread problem of government contracting out capabilities,' he says. 'Pretty soon governments can't do things because they've given up those capabilities to the private sector. And private corporations don't necessarily maintain those capabilities.'
The push for privatization wasn't the only change that raised red flags at FEMA. As a 2004 article in the Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management would later note, 'Allbaugh brought about several internal, though questionably effective, reorganizations of FEMA. The Bush-Allbaugh FEMA diminished the Clinton administration's organizational emphasis on disaster mitigation.'
In February 2001, for example, the Bush administration proposed eliminating Project Impact, a move approved by Congress later in the year. (On the very day the White House proposal was submitted, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake rocked Washington State, which was home to several communities where Project Impact had sponsored quake mitigation efforts.) Ending the project and trimming other FEMA programs, the White House argued, would save roughly $200 million. In its place, FEMA instituted a new program of mitigation grants that are awarded on a competitive basis. ' "

After 9/11, FEMA was made to lose its identity as after it lost it's cabinet level status and it was folded into DHS. The emphasis was to be on response to terrorism, not disaster.



'' Michael Brown, a college friend of Albaugh's who had served as FEMA's general counsel, was recruited to head the agency, which would now be part of the DHS's Emergency and Response Directorate. When the reorganization took effect on March 1, 2003, Brown assured skeptics that under the new arrangement, the country would be served by "FEMA on steroids"--a faster, more effective disaster agency.
But the merger into DHS has compounded the agency's problems, says FEMA employee and union president Pleasant Mann. "Before, we reported straight to the White House, and now we've got this elaborate bureaucracy on top of us, and a lot of this bureaucracy doesn't think what we're doing is that important, because terrorism isn't our number one," he said. "The biggest frustration here is that we at FEMA have responded to disasters like Oklahoma City and 9/11, and here are people who haven't responded to a kitchen fire telling us how to deal with terrorism. You know, there were a lot of people who fell down on the job on 9/11, but it wasn't us.' ''

The structure of FEMA was stripped down, and changed to suit the new "let contractors handle the rough stuff" attitude. Privatization was the rule. Many feel that this type of management left FEMA less a coordinator, and more a helpless bystander like a little old lady depending on the mechanic to change her flat tire. If she was more robust and savvy, she could change her own tire and not be taken advantage of.

What FEMA employees lost was the can-do attitude of the Witt years. As the many departments and functions FEMA was known for were outsourced, the organization suffered a brain drain as risk managers and disaster experts left in order to do what they had trained to do, but this time as contractors, or employees of contractors. This left FEMA with precious few people of experience at any level of management. No wonder they couldn't even find their asses! I suspect that the Bush FEMA no longer has any concept of, or point of reference over what a disaster, man-made or natural, really is.

What to do? Well if Thurston's wine cellar needed replenishing, he finds a good wine merchant to re-supply him.

But you see, Thurston can be relied upon because he knows his wine.

FEMA is more like that little old lady with a flat tire. Even if she could change it, she wouldn't know how. The top men at FEMA are no longer the seasoned professionals of the Witt years. Disaster management experience was sucked out and outsourced.

And so FEMA found itself in the position of having to contract with former employees, and having to trust that a private contractor won't cheat them, skimp on procedures, or on safety. And the Independent Weekly says:

"The irony, disaster researcher Claire Rubin says, is that FEMA will now have to hire former employees like Zensinger as contractors. "Now, frankly, the senior brains and the people with 20, 30 years of operational experience, there's more of them in the private sector than there are at FEMA. It's a significant shift. If the government's going to get smaller and the catastrophes keep getting bigger, the net effect will be to outsource what you need. It might be cheaper, it might be more expensive, but it's not a great way to run this part of government." Following the current spate of hurricanes, she predicts, "you will see FEMA contracts flying left and right so they can get these people back who know how to do this stuff."

And how did Albaugh and later Brown view what the new job description of FEMA was to be? An article from TIME magazine relates that aside from being mere contractors and pencil pushers under the added DHS tier of mere contractors and pencil pushers, they were to be cheerleaders and hall monitors:

"Labor Day, about 600 fire fighters from across the nation sat in an Atlanta hotel listening to a FEMA lecture on equal opportunity, sexual harassment and customer service. "Your job is going to be community relations," a FEMA official told them, according to Joe Calhoun, an assistant fire chief from Portage, Ind., who was there. "You'll be passing out FEMA pamphlets and our phone number." The room, filled with many fire fighters who, at FEMA's request had arrived equipped with rescue gear, erupted in anger. "This is ridiculous," one yelled back. "Our fire departments and mayors sent us down here to save people, and you've got us doing this?" The FEMA official climbed atop a chair, Calhoun says, and tried to restore order. "You are now employees of FEMA, and you will follow orders and do what you're told," he said, sounding more like the leader of an invading army than a rescue squad. The scene in Atlanta was one of the many ways FEMA failed to live up to Katrina's challenge. "

Brown was the epitome of the helpless granny attitude. He had no clue as to what had to be done.

" First, despite being warned by multiple hurricane experts that Katrina would be a catastrophic hurricane, Brown waited until about five hours after the storm's landfall before he proposed sending 1,000 federal workers to deal with the aftermath. While people were dying in New Orleans, the U.S.S. Bataan steamed offshore, its six operating rooms, beds for 600 patients and most of its 1,200 sailors idle. Foreign nations--responding to urgent calls from Washington--readied rescue supplies, then were told to stand by for days until FEMA could figure out what to do with them. Florida airboaters complained that they had an armada ready for rescue work but FEMA wouldn't let them into New Orleans. Brown
defended his agency's measured steps, saying aid ‘has to be coordinated in such a way that it's used most effectively.’ "

He is said to have padded his resume so his FEMA bio has such statements as this:

“His background in state and local government also includes serving as an assistant to the city manager with emergency services oversight responsibilities and as a city councilman.”

To which even Scripps-Howard in an article about Brown’s defenders had to admit:

“While studying to become a lawyer, he worked in the administration of the small but fast-growing city of Edmond. Years later, Brown's official White House biography would list the position as "assistant city manager with emergency services oversight." Karns said his actual title was more modest: assistant to the city manager.”

But the inflation is said to have continued from there. His resume mentions that he ways a bar examiner:

“Prior to joining FEMA, Mr. Brown practiced law in Colorado and Oklahoma, where he served as a bar examiner on ethics and professional responsibility for the Oklahoma Supreme Court and as a hearing examiner for the Colorado Supreme Court.”

But according to Paul Campos of the New Republic that too is over inflated:

“According to his FEMA biography, "[H]e served as a bar examiner on ethics and professional responsibility for the Oklahoma Supreme Court and as a hearing examiner for the Colorado Supreme Court." Translation: In Oklahoma, he graded answers to bar exam questions, and, in Colorado, he volunteered to serve on the local attorney disciplinary board.”

How could a man like Brown be hired to work for an important position as at first general counsel to, and then head of FEMA?

I wouldn’t be surprised at the idea that Joe Allbaugh would bring in a college chum who happened to be of the same party. Networking and clubishness is the key to Republican power.

My feeling about Michael Chertoff is that like a lot of Republicans he’s in it for himself. Now that is conjecture. Don’t take my word. But the appointment of Brown, and Allbaugh before him can only indicate severe cronyism on the part of Dubya’s boys. Cronies only care for each other and themselves.

"FEMA was a disaster waiting to happen, the minute a disaster struck." Says New York Time's Maureen Dowd.
Then FEMA met Katrina, and disaster happened.


Independent Weekly - "Disaster in the making"
Scripps-Howard
CATO Institute report
TIME.com 4 "Places the System Broke Down"
Michael D. Brown's FEMA bio
Maureen Dowd - "United States of Shame
Hurricane Pam Exercise Concludes
ADCIRC Example: Hypothetical Hurricane Pam
LIST OF FIGURES



* Blogger's date

Vigil For Cindy

Vigil for Cindy (150 dpi) 1, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

Well, I stepped up today! I counted myself in for a Vigil for Cindy Sheehan! And l will attend as many as l can 'til we make Dubya say "uncle.” That wasn't very nice of Mssrs. O'Reilly and Limbaugh to call us "the Far Left," and "manipulators", because if they ever came out of their iron cocoons of rabid denial, then today, they might've stopped by Syracuse New York, at the corner of Marshal and University, and would have seen what real America looks like. They would have surveyed the crowd, (a fair-sized one) and would have asked themselves:


"Are these what 'manipulators' look like? They look like average citizens to me"!


What we had were people Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Limbaugh, not the "professionally angry", not politicians, not stars, just people. And they were people of all walks of life, race, and gender. We were all of good cheer, and proud of what our Cindy was doing. Maybe now you'll realize what a twit Dubya really is. He could have neutralized this whole business by coming out to see Cindy Sheehan and talking to her. Instead, he proved himself hidebound and insensitive to a grieving mother, whose son died in his war!

Dubya The Coward

Dubya The Coward, originally uploaded by Wazdat!.

So George W. Bush can't find the time to see Cindy Sheehan. He can only blithely ignore her-on the way to one of his sycophant's praise fests. And of course, he has his garrison of defenders, who have the temerity to tell her that her son would disapprove, and that she is a pitiful pawn of the extreme Left. But who can know a boy like Casey better than his mother? Who can understand her rock-solid motivations better than someone who endured the same kind of loss as Cindy did. I put more stock in her saying that Casey was going to Iraq to watch the backs of his friends and that he and his mother were always against the war, then in Bill O'Reilly's fevered Left Wing conspiracy theories. And that goes for his pompous two-cent psychology as well. (O'Reilly rather reminds me of Moliere's take on Pantalone, a stock character from Commedia dell'arte!)

Bush's snubbing of Cindy Sheehan is par for the course for Dubya. From his scripted "Town Hall" meetings, to his choreographed ceremonies, to his ramroding Right-Wing judges and psycho U.N. ambassadors down our throats, he has shown that he doesn't care a whit what people just a tad below his income bracket think. But he also fears to learn about it. Whenever he confronts a complex problem, he goes into denial and ignores it. On September 11 2001, Al Qaeda killed 3000 innocent lives. When Dubya failed to capture bin Laden, "dead or alive" turned into "doesn't matter now"! Iraq went on the front burner. But Bush can't even face the truth there. He went into Iraq on the backs of our boys to create the perfect Robber Baron paradise, yet when confronted with the whirlwind of hell that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and that of 2000 of our men, he hides behind his stock phrases. "We are making progress," and "Freedom is on the march." are getting stale now. And his Praetorian Guard, Karl Rove, Condi Rice and Scott McClellan bravely make themselves look foolish so Dubya needn't trouble his tender ego.

And so Bush must always live in his fortress-cocoon, blissfully ignorant of the disagreeable things around him - like a mother who lost her son in Dubya's war.

Now Cindy Sheehan has a different story. She doesn't have the luxury of starting a war and not being affected by it.

Her son, Casey, wasn't for the war, but his unit was going, and he felt that staying with his unit was his duty. Anyway, how much trouble can a humvee mechanic get into anyway? A week after he arrived in Iraq he was dead.

At first, Mrs. Sheehan thought that Dubya took responsibility for his war. But that was her grief talking.

But then she saw, as others did, how irresponsibly this "wartime President" planned the war, how cynically they pursued the occupation for their own selfish purposes. A man that she voted for and trusted, took her son without asking, and then he killed him.

So now she stands before Dubya in his cowboy playpen, and demands that he explain to her and others like her why their loved ones had to die in his war.

The Right-Wing has it's strategy cut out. They say that she as a grieving mother is being manipulated by the Far Left. Their cold-hearted strategy is to belittle her strength of character. That would leave them free to attack their real target, that Far Far Ultra Radical Left that's so friendly to the terrorists!

But Cindy Sheehan has the courage of her own convictions. In the two years since Casey's death, she co-founded an organization called "Gold Star Families for Peace".

She has traveled across this land, and has met some of leaders of the peace movement. That hardly describes a person manipulated by shady operators. When she pitched her tent outside Dubya's ranch, she did so on her own.

And she can very handily articulate her position:

"This is George Bush’s accountability moment. That ís why I'm here. The mainstream media aren’t holding him accountable. Neither is Congress. So I’m not leaving Crawford until he ís held accountable. It ís ironic, given the attacks leveled at me recently, how some in the media are so quick to scrutinize --and distort --the words and actions of a grieving mother but not the words and actions of the president of the United States.

But now itís time for him to level with me and with the American people. I think thatís why thereís been such an outpouring of support. This is giving the 61 percent of Americans who feel that the war is wrong something to do -something that allows their voices to be heard. "

As for those attackers and I might add - mischaracterizers, she has this to say:

"They don’t have any loved ones in harm’s way. As for people like O’Reilly and Hannity and Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh and all the others who are attacking me and parroting the administration line that we must complete the mission there --they don’t have one thing at stake. They don’t suffer through sleepless nights worrying about their loved ones."

As for Dubya, with his controlled events, Nuremberg-like Town Hall meetings, his 50th vacation on his pale-imitation-of-The Gipper's ranch, he can hide in Karl Rove's apron. He'll go thousands of miles to some pro-Bush weenie roast, but he won't drive one mile to see an old woman who’s son died in Dubya's war. Nothing more perfectly illustrates how people have come to feel about the war than Cindy Sheehan and her supporters. Nothing more perfectly illustrates Bush's fear and loathing of honest disagreement than his shunning her. And so I can now give George W. Bush his proper epithet:

"Dubya the Coward"!

There is a postscript courtesy of :

"COX NEWS SERVICE

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush, noting that lots of people want to talk to the president and "it's also important for me to go on with my life," on Saturday defended his decision not to meet with the grieving mom of a soldier killed in Iraq.

Bush said he is aware of the anti-war sentiments of Cindy Sheehan and others who have joined her protest near the Bush ranch.

"But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job," Bush said on the ranch. "And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But, I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

The comments came prior to a bike ride on the ranch with journalists and aides. It also came as the crowd of protesters grew in support of Sheehan, the mother who came here Aug. 6 demanding to talk to Bush about the death of her son."




That's right Dubya, show us that frat-boy spirit, and sluff off your responsibility to that woman. Peddle away, away, away....




Meet With Cindy.org

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