SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: cnyndwllr who wrote (174499)11/7/2005 5:03:04 PM
From: bentway  Respond to of 281500
 
It's all about oil. Iraq was the easiest way to "forward deploy" a large American force in the heart of the ME. We don't even want things to get much better there, because we want to be deployed there, ready to defend the oil in the region on short notice. We had to leave Saudi Arabia, and had to go somewhere..

To SAY it would reveal us as colonialist greedheads, which we want to pretend we aren't.

It's about the oil, just as the 1991 war was. WE "liberated" Kuwait, just to give it back to the oppresive, ruling King.



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (174499)11/8/2005 3:47:30 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Who will follow Libby out the door?
_________________________________________________________

By MARIANNE MEANS
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Thursday, November 3, 2005
seattlepi.nwsource.com

WASHINGTON -- If the indictment on five felony counts is accurate, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former main man, repeatedly and brazenly lied about his secret campaign to ruin the CIA career of Valerie Plame, the wife of a potent critic of the Iraq war.

There is much we still do not know about this scandal. But scandal it is.

So far, the story has only indirectly touched his boss. But it is hard to believe that Libby would take such a reckless legal risk without Cheney's input and approval.

As Cheney's closest adviser, Libby is not known for operating on his own with an agenda separate from that of the man believed to be the most powerful vice president in modern history. One oddity: Libby kept notes, in which he referred to the fact he learned about Plame from Cheney, not from the journalists he claimed were his sources.

Yet Libby was famous for advising lower-ranking aides not to write anything down because it could later be unwelcome evidence.

The independent counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, refused to speculate about Libby's motives. But the whole sorry saga seems obvious. Libby lied because he was confident he could get away with it. Secrecy and stonewalling are standard operating procedure in this White House. The protective cocoon of the presidency was meant to keep the truth at bay, as it has before.

Fitzgerald spent more than two years building his case against Libby for perjury and lying, in large part because Libby's lies kept throwing sand in the eyes of the prosecutors.

And the tactic worked, up to a point. The prosecutor couldn't pin down enough facts before last year's election; with the scandal just a minor, mysterious annoyance, President Bush was able to win a second term.

A great number of facts are still missing. But the first thread has now been carefully pulled. That could lead to the unraveling of the whole tangled ball of yarn. Libby is due to appear in court Thursday; he is expected to plead not guilty. That would mean a lengthy trial next year -- an election year -- with all sorts of witnesses testifying about inner White House workings. They will testify under oath, and they had better not lie.

Libby has hired a new lawyer and public relations outfit. Both Bush and Cheney praised him, as is their wont when somebody near them gets into trouble. Nobody has apologized or expressed regret.

But Libby has lost his job; letting him go was the least a president could do who once had vowed to ferret out the leaker of Plame's identity.

Libby could make a plea bargain, shut down the judicial process and take his secrets to jail with him. In that case, he would undoubtedly count on an eventual pardon from a grateful President Bush.

Fitzgerald said the indictment was not about the war in Iraq. His mandate was to pursue the leak, and that was all. But of course this scandal is about the war. White House hawks were furious because former ambassador Joe Wilson had poked the first serious hole in their carefully constructed -- but false -- case for invading a county that had not invaded us.

They wanted revenge against Wilson -- and his wife was vulnerable.

Two official investigations into the buildup for war did not sufficiently pursue the struggles between the CIA and the president's team of hawks with its ill-informed, naive reasoning. The investigations were heavily influenced by political constraints and left more questions than provided answers.

Democratic senators forced a locked-down, closed session of the Senate on Tuesday in order to debate national security issues prompted by Libby's indictment. They warned they would do this every day until the Senate intelligence committee launches a serious look into how -- and whether -- the country was misled about the pre-war planning. Senate Republicans promised an investigation, but have thus far failed to deliver.

When Libby moved to discredit the Wilsons in July 2003, Bush's warmongers were still hopeful that dissent could be squelched. But the war has been too bloody, gone on too long and been handled too badly. We all know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction, no possibility of a mushroom cloud and no connections to the 9/11 terrorists.

In a new USA Today-CNN-Gallup Poll, 55 percent of those surveyed say the Bush presidency is a failure. Somehow, some way, Bush has to claw his way back into public favor. The selection of Judge Samuel Alito, another Ivy League-educated white male Catholic, for the U.S. Supreme Court was a brief political distraction but cannot transcend all the president's other problems.

Marianne Means is a Washington, D.C., columnist with Hearst Newspapers.

© 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (174499)11/8/2005 4:40:28 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
The Blogs of War

capitolhillblue.com



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (174499)11/8/2005 2:09:09 PM
From: Mary Cluney  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Rice has at least been consistent on that point. When we first invaded and occupied Iraq she stated that it would be a "generational" involvement on the part of America. In doing so she used words creating the impression that the Iraqis would be our "children" for many decades. That message sent chills down my spine.

I am an optimist.

I know George W. Bush does not have a clue about foreign policy. He didn't know who was in charge in Pakistan when he was running President back in 2000.

I seriously doubt that he has done that much reading since 2004 to get up to speed.

Whereas Karl Rove is his brain in politics, Rice has been his brain in foreign policy. Everything Bush knows about foreign policy has been taught to by Rice.

Cheney and the WHIQ cabal kept Colin Powell out of the loop and hi-jacked American Foreign policy. IMO rice had a hand in this, but was not in the Cheney inner circle. She was (I hope) just being opportunistic.

If Karl Rove gets sidelined because of the CIA leak case, there will be a vacuume that Rice has to fill.

Worst case, things can not be worse than they have been - policywise.

Things can only get better.

I am an optimist.



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (174499)11/10/2005 8:40:10 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
An Army Ready to Snap

By BOB HERBERT
Columnist
The New York Times
November 10, 2005
select.nytimes.com!

Have you heard what's been happening to the military?

Most people have heard that more than 2,000 American G.I.'s have been killed in the nonstop meat grinder of Iraq. There was a flurry of stories about that grim milestone in the last week of October. (Since then the official number of American deaths has jumped to at least 2,055, and it continues to climb steadily.)

More than 15,000 have been wounded in action.

But the problems of the military go far beyond the casualty figures coming out of the war zone. The Army, for example, has been stretched so taut since the Sept. 11 attacks, especially by the fiasco in Iraq, that it's become like a rubber band that may snap at any moment.

President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld convinced themselves that they could win the war in Iraq on the cheap. They never sent enough troops to do the job. Now the burden of trying to fight a long and bitter war with too few troops is taking a terrible toll on the men and women in uniform.

Last December, the top general in the Army Reserve warned that his organization was "rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force" because of the Pentagon's "dysfunctional" policies and demands placed on the Reserve by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

As one of my colleagues at The Times, David Unger of the editorial board, wrote, "The Army's commitments have dangerously and rapidly expanded, while recruitment has plunged."

Soldiers are being sent into the crucible of Iraq for three and even four tours, a form of Russian roulette that is unconscionable.

"They feel like they're the only ones sacrificing," said Paul Rieckhoff, a former Army lieutenant who served in Iraq and is now the executive director of Operation Truth, an advocacy group for service members and veterans.

"They're starting to look around and say, 'You know, it's me and my buddies over and over again, and everybody else is living life uninterrupted.' "

When I asked Mr. Rieckhoff what he thought was happening with the Army, he replied, "The wheels are coming off."

The Washington Post, in a lengthy article last week, noted:

"As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war."

For those already in the Army, the price being paid - apart from the physical toll of the killed and wounded - is high indeed.

Divorce rates have gone way up, nearly doubling over the past four years. Long deployments - and, especially, repeated deployments - can take a vicious toll on personal relationships.

Chaplains, psychologists and others have long been aware of the many dangerous factors that accompany wartime deployment: loneliness, financial problems, drug or alcohol abuse, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, the problems faced by the parent left at home to care for children, the enormous problem of adjusting to the devastation of wartime injuries, and so on.

The Army is not just fighting a ruthless insurgency in Iraq. It's fighting a rear-guard action against these noncombat, guerrilla-like conditions that threaten its own viability.

There are reasons why parents all across America are telling their children to run the other way when military recruiters come to call. There are reasons why so many lieutenants and captains, fine young men and women, are heading toward the exit doors at the first opportunity.

A captain who is on active duty, and therefore asked not to be identified by name, told me yesterday:

"The only reason I stayed in the Army was because one colonel convinced me to do it. Other than that, I would have walked. Basically, these guys who are leaving have their high-powered educations. Some are from West Point. They've done their five years. Why should they stay and go back to Iraq and die in a war that's just going to keep on going?"

Beyond that, he said, "Guys are not going to stay in the Army when their wives are leaving them."

From the perspective of the troops, he said, the situation in Iraq is perverse.

He could find no upside. "You go to war," he said, "and you could lose your heart, your mind, your arms, your legs - but you cannot win. The soldiers don't win."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (174499)11/12/2005 6:42:53 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
A Veteran Speaks to President Bush on Veterans Day

bobgeiger.blogspot.com

President Bush,

As our nation celebrates the contributions and sacrifices of America's Veterans today, I thought I would take the time to let you know how one Veteran feels about your commitment to our military and your true level of patriotism. After all, the Republican party smears anyone they oppose by questioning their support of the troops and their national loyalty so that's all fair game, right?

You wear the self-provided mantle of a wartime president, love to appear before troops – even if it's a fake piece of theater with pre-screened questions and answers – and use as one of the last available devices in a failed presidency, your zeal for all things military and national security.

But there are many things a Commander-in-Chief must be to truly gain the respect and authority that such a designation merits – and you have shown none of those.

To be sure – and the CBS fiasco notwithstanding – there's not a thinking American who truly believes you served your time honorably in the Air National Guard. While the specific piece of documentation produced by CBS News may have been questionable, what is beyond dispute is the total lack of paperwork or witnesses showing that you ever truly served – period. You leapfrogged over hundreds of other qualified applicants to the National Guard because of your family connections and, despite all your crowing about service to country, dodged your main opportunity to live out that creed.

But is military service necessary to be an effective president and Commander-in-Chief? Not really. President Bill Clinton – you remember him; the person your party savaged for his lack of military service – didn't serve a day in uniform and yet was a capable and thoughtful Command-in-Chief. You never saw Bill Clinton invent intelligence and mislead the country into a disastrous war and you certainly never witnessed Clinton's people ridicule and shame highly-decorated Veterans like John Kerry and Max Cleland as your crew of Chickenhawks has so gleefully done. If Audie Murphy himself were a Democrat today, you and your party would find a way to smear his service as well.

Which brings us to the Iraq war.

This issue is now so far beyond anything that we Veterans can argue about amongst ourselves, whether we be liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans. Because it is no longer a matter of political perspective or belief. Your administration invented intelligence – I believe "fixed" is the word the British used in the Downing Street Memos – and lied to the American people.

It is now an indisputable matter of fact that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no immediate way of attaining that capability. That didn't stop you, Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and anyone else you could get in front of a camera from lying about that contention which, at the very least, you had evidence to suggest might not be true. But then, we saw how much you listened to Ambassador Joe Wilson when he tried to set you straight, didn't we?

There was also no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and no connection between Iraq and the events of September 11, both of which you misled us about originally and continue to imply, in a despicable attempt to bolster your presidency to a nation that is now collectively seeing the truth.

As a Veteran, I resent this, I resent your administration and I most certainly resent you.

Those of us who have served in the military know the rigors of boot camp, the positive aspects of completing that introduction to true mental and physical discipline and the lifelong feeling of pride in successfully finishing those hard months. Many of us have also held a rifle, fired that weapon at another human, had bullets come at us and know what that truly means.

And no, Mr. President, it's not the toy-soldier, "bring-it-on" thrill that your protected, sheltered experience would lead you to believe. It is terrifying. You're scared to death, shoot at almost anything that moves and pray to whatever deity you worship that you see tomorrow. But you would have no way of knowing that – not even through the stories of the sycophants you are surrounded by, most of whom have never served a day in uniform in their lives.

Because of all of this, I "celebrate" Veterans Day by thinking of 2,057 Americans who, because of you, will never hug their spouses or parents again and will never see their kids grow up. I think of the 100,000 Iraqis you have killed by using the honorable intentions and service of those on active duty in such a dishonest and horrible way. I think of the 15,000 brave men and women who will exist for the rest of their lives minus a limb and those who will forever carry the mental images of war because of your personal agenda —an agenda that had nothing whatsoever to do with national security.

And, because of the budget cuts that your administration has visited on returning Veterans of the Iraq war, many of them cannot get desperately-needed treatment, which is the icing on the cake of your five-year display of bad faith toward those who have served.

It is Veterans Day and, as one of those Veterans, I am sad and I am angry.

So you want to do something to honor Veterans today, Mr. President? Stay in the White House, out of public view and at least have the decency to say nothing.

If you want to really do something noble that would truly honor those who have served, use that time to think about admitting what you have done to Veterans. And then give serious thought to doing the honorable thing – and resigning.