Daily Kos

Walter Pincus nails Bush's ass again [Updated again]

by Omar

Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:42:34 PM PDT

In a new Washington Post article -- likely to be on page 1 tomorrow -- Walter Pincus lays out a blistering assessment of the Bush administration's dissembling prior to the Iraq invasion.

Update [2005-5-21 22:58:54 by Omar]: Apparently someone at WaPo made a weeeeee mistake. It now appears that Pincus's piece will appear on page A26. That's right; not A1, but A26! All I can say is: WTF?

Update [2005-5-21 23:15:29 by Omar]: It seems they have also changed the title of the article from More Evidence Of Bush Aides' Doubts on Iraq to Prewar Findings Worried Analysts.

 

More Evidence Of Bush Aides' Doubts on Iraq
Analysts Questioned Most Intelligence

(Key excerpts follow.)

...

The CIA clandestine service's European division chief had met in 2002 with a German intelligence officer whose service was handling Curveball. The German said his service "was not sure whether Curveball was actually telling the truth," according to the commission report. When it appeared that Curveball's material would appear in Bush's State of the Union speech, the CIA Berlin station chief was asked to get the Germans to allow him to question Curveball directly.

On the day before the president's speech, the Berlin station chief raised a warning about using Curveball's information on the mobile biological units in Bush's speech. The station chief warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball "problematical" and said their officers had been unable to confirm his information. The station chief recommended that CIA headquarters give "serious consideration" before using that unverified information, according to the commission report.

Nonetheless, Bush told the world the next day, "We know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile weapons labs . . . designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors." He attributed that information to "three Iraqi defectors."

By late January 2003, the number of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf area was approaching 150,000 and the invasion of Iraq was all but guaranteed. Neither Bush nor Powell reflected in their speeches the many doubts that had surfaced at that time about Iraq's weapons programs.

Instead, the president said, "With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region." He added: "Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

Wow. Looks like the snowball is starting to roll.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 125 comments

  •  Wow. Looks like the snowball is starting to roll. (4.00 / 7)

    Especially if we help push it along.

    Migra Matters: progressive immigration reform

    by Duke1676 on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:42:56 PM PDT

  •  Curveball turns to Snowball... (none / 1)

    but unfortunately it's got a snowball's chance in hell of helping, at this point. You can't impeach the guy when his party controls Congress. So what we have here is the Media(tm) rides to the rescue, two years and two months too late.

    Our current healthcare system is simple. Don't get sick.

    by tiggers thotful spot on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:44:19 PM PDT

  •  Bizarro world (3.93 / 15)

    Amazing, isn't it? All this stuff we knew all along!

    This business will get out of control...

    by Omar on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:44:33 PM PDT

    •  certainly is amazing (4.00 / 2)

      I just can not imagine the times, if I had not lived in it. It seems so ruefully amazing.

      by brenda stewart on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:56:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was reading a couple weeks back... (4.00 / 6)

      ...about a dKoser who actually got a response from an editor about why the Downing Street Memo wasn't newsworthy.

      ...The editor actually stated that the press knows GWB lied, knew it long ago, and that is why it is not news now that the smoking gun has been uncovered.

      ...Un-fucking-believeable.

      "Want to make God laugh? ...tell him your plans." -- Randy Wayne White -- Shark River

      by Blue Shark on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:06:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Last night our group.. (4.00 / 7)

        ... spokesperson did an interview broadcast on the local news at the SF Bay Area NBC affiliate... see diary here.

        They included comments from Professor Steve Weber, the Director of the Institute for International Studies at UC Berkeley. He basically said that very thing... Weber said, "Every piece of evidence that comes forward suggesting that the president at a minimum misled the public about the rationale for going to war in Iraq they'll seize on and hope it will push people over the edge. I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind. I think everyone already knows this."

        And this closing statement pretty much summed up his attitude: Others argue taking action on the Downing Street Memo is a waste of time. Weber says at this point, the memo is simply irrelevant.
        "I think the issue of why the United States went to war in Iraq is now moot, we're there, we've been there. I think the question that matters now is how do we get out," he said.

        What the hell? Is it any less wrong because they have gotten away with it until now? Imagine applying that logic to other egregious situations...

        You can go here to read the transcript of the report, which was pretty fair (excepting the anchor's error after it ended... we are attempting to get a correction.

        Misled Into War: A Timeline/DowningStreetMemo.com

        by highacidity on Sat May 21, 2005 at 05:43:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  asfd (4.00 / 7)

          It is an impeachable act to lie about sex, but not to lie your way into an unwinnable war for oil that kills hundreds of thousands of people?  What kind of world do we live in?  Where is the outrage?  We have got to change the congress in 2006 and throw these bastards in jail where they belong.  Or we have to have a revolution.  

          by sharonmatt20194 on Sat May 21, 2005 at 06:55:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There you are! :o) (4.00 / 5)

          With the exception of that inaccurate statement in the interview (and the last statement by Weber in the article), sounds like it went off really well.

          1. You got local coverage on an NBC major news affiliate in SF,

          2. A recap of that interview is on the MSNBC website, and most importantly

          3. They linked to DowningStreetMemo, AND DailyKos.

          Weber's final statement just proves the point that they're too damn lazy to dig up facts and present the truth.

          KUDOS to all of you for a job well done in such a short period of time!

          And if anyone hasn't yet seen the BBC Programme, Iraq - Tony and the Truth I strongly encourage you to download it for viewing later.

          It's quite a large file (35MB) so if you're on dial-up (like me) start it before you go to bed.  I began watching it directly via the website until about three-quarters of the way through, when I got disconnected.  I'll have to watch the ending later on.  This is a program that is MUST SEE TV.

          A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.

          by Terre on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:13:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I couldn't agree less (none / 1)

          with this statement:" the issue of why the United States went to war in Iraq is now moot"
          The reason is that being the agressor in a war is a crime against peace. The only excuse BushCo could have had was if there were any WMD's. Absent that, there is always the hope that they could be tried in the future. It is very possible that the Iraquis themselves could raise this issue in the future. The reason why we went there is extremely important.

          by cruz del sur on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:42:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Up to now, the Bushies have been (4.00 / 3)

            raising the defense that, even if there were no WMD's in Iraq, they reasonably believed that they were there, and so were only guilty of an error (for which they blame the intelligence agencies.)

            The Downing Street memo undermines this defense.  It  makes it clear that they did not believe there were WMD's there, or at the very least both that they should not have believed that they were there, and that the WMD's were in any event only a pretext.

            The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

            by lysias on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:58:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  More important reason (4.00 / 2)

            Is, these criminals have the nerve to claim their worthiness to continue to govern my country.  Don't ya think it's kind of non-moot for the next election?

            War on terror is the only category where that bastard continues to get approval ratings over 50%

            There is one big segment of this population that needs to get hit over the head with the nasty truth as often and forcefully as possible

            by sharman on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:13:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly (none / 1)

            in that the reason(s) that we went to war are extremely important. And the Downing memo just lets us know that that they were going to have a reason even if it was granny's underwear. But what are the real reasons? Read The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin. Check out the C-SPAN coverage of a speech by Griffin. The rest of the world has a much clearer picture. The other book that answers many questions is Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins.

            And if there is anything we can forecast from Perkins, it's that Hugo Chavez's days are numbered. He won't be allowed to stand up to the U.S.

            Even Pollyanna would have a hard time being sunny about this administration.

            by vlogger on Sat May 21, 2005 at 10:43:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  yeah, right (4.00 / 10)


          "I think the issue of why the United States went to war in Iraq is now moot, we're there, we've been there. I think the question that matters now is how do we get out," he said.

          Leaving aside the fact that this person misuses the word "moot" (which actually means "debatable," not "irrelevant"), how stupid is that comment? Let's try this one on for size:

          "I think the issue of why the president's dick was in Monica's mouth is now moot, it was in there, it's been in there, now it's out."

          John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

          by desmoinesdem on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:46:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ROFLMAO!! (none / 0)

            Too funny! Coughed out coke all over my table! ROFL!

            A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.

            by Terre on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:52:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  OT - moot (none / 0)

            Since I use it that way too, I had to look to see how wrong I've been.

            adj.


            • 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.

            • 2 a. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.

            • 2 b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.

            USAGE NOTE   The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance."

            Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence "The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination." When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant.

            At the dictionary page, more definitions support "debatable," but the other is accepted too.  Nice that they are so opposite in meaning.

            Help end world hunger by providing rice to hungry people for free.

            by OLinda on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:38:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you again (none / 0)

          and your colleagues, for the excellent work getting this on the air

          by sharman on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:29:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No kidding! (4.00 / 3)

      I remember about two months before the invasion telling a repug I work with that all of Shrubs reasons were complete crap. Now her nephew is over there and she still has her head in the sand.

      The lesson of that history is that you must not despair, that if you are right, and you persist, things will change. -Howard Zinn

      by blueyedace2 on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:21:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We were right about Iraq (none / 0)

    I think we should have a big "I told you so" rally on the mall in WDC.

    Netroots Nation: Changing the face of progressive politics.

    by pontificator on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:46:58 PM PDT

    •  How about (4.00 / 2)

      here instead?

      My signature beat up your signature.

      by Stand Strong on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:51:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Back Story (4.00 / 12)

        This picture was taken on May 1st 2003. The more interesting story here is not the 'Mission Accomplished' story, but were Bush went after he gave his speech on the U.S.S. Lincoln.

        Bush went to give a speech at a company called United Defense Industries. A year prior to Bush's speech, the majority owner of United Defense Industries was the $1.3 billion Carlyle Partner II fund.

        Of all the weapons companies it owned, the Carlyle Group was in essence the 11th largest defense contractor in the United States. It owned United Defense, makers of the Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicle. September 11th guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year.

        Just six weeks after 9/11, Carlyle filed to take United Defense public, and in December, made a one day profit of $237 million dollars. But sadly, with so much attention focused on the bin Laden family being important Carlyle investors, the bin Ladens eventually had to withdraw. Bush's dad though stayed on as senior advisor to Carlyle's Asia board for another two years

        In 2002, Carlyle sold off its biggest holding, United Defense. The sale may have been prompted by insider information leaked to Carlucci by his pal Rumsfeld. In early 2001, Carlyle was furiously lobbying the Pentagon to approve contracts for the production of United Defense's Crusader artillery system, an unwieldy and outrageously expensive super-cannon. Rumsfeld disliked the Crusader and had it high on his hit list of weapon systems to be killed off in order to save money for other big ticket schemes, particularly the Strategic Defense Initiative.

        But, as detailed in William Hartung's excellent new book, How Much Are You Making in the War, Daddy?, Rumsfeld didn't terminate the Crusader immediately. Instead, he held off on a public announcement of his decision for more than a year. By that time, Carlucci and Baker devised a plan to take United Defense public. The sale to unsuspecting investors netted Carlyle more than $237 million. Six months later, Rumsfeld closed the book on the Crusader. By then the gang at Carlyle had slipped out the back door, their pockets stuffed with cash. United Defense was able to petition the Pentagon to compensate them to the tune of several million for cancellation of the contract. Even when you lose, you win.

        So the men behind the Carlyle Group drift through Washington like familiar ghosts, profiteering off the carnage of Bush's disastrous crusades, untroubled by any thought of congressional investigation or criminal prosecution, firm in the knowledge that the worse things get for the people of the world, the less secure and more gripped by fear the citizens their own country become, the more millions they will reap for themselves. Perpetual war means perpetual profits.

        Let's leave the last word to Dan Broidy, author of The Iron Triangle, an illuminating history of the Carlyle Group: "It's not an exaggeration to say that September 11 is going to make the Carlyle investors very, very rich men."

        BAE Systems completed a buyout of United Defense Industries this year for approx. $3.97 billion dollars.

        If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

        by superscalar on Sat May 21, 2005 at 06:07:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Michael Moore came that close (4.00 / 5)

          to saying something like this in Fahrenheit 9/11:  "It's not an exaggeration to say that September 11 is going to make the Carlyle investors very, very rich men."  Moore all but came out and stated that basically Bush was a puppet front for a larger Bushco, weapons industry and oil cabal that would have invented Osama Bin Laden and the "terrorist threat" if they hadn't already existed, just to have a rallying point for profiteering...

          by concernedamerican on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:36:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  RE: Michael Moore came that close (none / 0)

            Moore all but came out and stated that basically Bush was a puppet front for a larger Bushco, weapons industry

            Cold War Relics

            In July 1999, as the fiscal year 2000 military budget was winding its way through Congress, the Pentagon and Texas-based arms maker Lockheed Martin were dealt a blow to the solar plexus.

            Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA), chair of the defense subcommittee of the powerful House Appropriations panel, gutted funding slated for the purchase of six F-22 Raptors, the next-generation combat aircraft. Without warning and with just one vote, Lewis' committee had put the $63-billion fighter program in jeopardy--infuriating colleagues, the plane's manufacturer, and Pentagon officials, including Secretary of Defense William Cohen.

            Lewis, who is more of a budget-hawk than a defense-hawk, argued that the F-22 hadn't been adequately tested and said the vote "sent a message ... that it's not going to be business as usual." Up until then, it had been: the F-22 has been the Air Force's "Golden Boy" for almost twenty years. And despite last year's funding anomaly, the jet is once again in Congress' good graces. On July 17, 2000, a House-Senate Conference Committee approved $4 billion for production of ten F-22 fighters.

            The Raptor, as the F-22 is known, was conceived in the 1980s to fight Russian aircraft, and is one of many state-of-the-art cold war weapons programs the Pentagon continues to tout as vital to U.S. security. Other such programs include the Navy's new attack submarine (NSSN), which will cost over $65 billion. With the Soviet Union's demise, the probability of an enemy sub force challenging or surpassing the current U.S. fleet is remote. And although the U.S. already fields the world's premier sub--the Los Angeles class--30 NSSN subs will be built by 2006.

            The obvious operative phrase in the above quote being In July 1999, as the fiscal year 2000 military budget

            In a previous Kos comment I wrote:

            The U.S. military needs toys. 260 million dollars each for 227 of these swanky babys.

            Shiny.

            boynohead

            I believe the original (now FA/22) price was supposed to be eighty million dollars apiece. The latest estimate I now read says $300 million dollars apiece. The count as I understand it is still 227.

            If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

            by superscalar on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:57:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, they cut the numbers. (4.00 / 2)

              The reason why the planes have gotten so expensive per copy is the DOD has repeatedly chopped the numbers back. From nearly a thousand, to 800, to 400 and now to 227. Every time they do that the price per plane goes up (because a big part of the cost is research and development, and these things have had a long, LONG R&D period, even by modern military standards!) In fact, you could argue quite cogently to just go ahead and buy the full thousand or so... the difference between 1,000 times $80 million ($80 billion) is not that much higher than 200 times $300 million ($60 billion). And at least you'd have lots of spare parts if not all of them were being flown due to pilot shortages and whatnot.

              The problem with the Bush administration's war is that it's robbing the DOD's conventional R&D, procurement and training budget blind in favor of operations in Iraq. Setting aside the morality of fighting the war for the moment, this is an unmitigated disaster for the US Armed Forces. They cannot recruit, cannot train, cannot equip, and cannot develop more reliable and safer pieces of equipment for our fighting men and women because the Iraq War is draining human and monetary resources. So they try to cut corners, always penny-wise and pound-foolish. To top that all off, they have curious (to say the least) weapons procurement strategies.

              Our equipment, like a POS car that has been driven for too hard and long, is facing obsolescence. It's becoming too old and expensive to operate all at once. The F-22 is not as good as the Air Force may think (any externally-mounted weapons makes it non-stealthy, and they constantly race to keep its electronics from becoming obsolete, part of the reason it's taken so long to develop), but it must be produced soon or the Air Force will not have any reliable non-aged combat aircraft. The F-15 aand F-16 are good planes, but they're getting long in the teeth.

              The Navy had to purchase the F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" series, even though it's clearly inferior to the F-22, simply because they were cheaper- and available right away. (They were loosely based on the F/A-18A through D "Hornets", originally flown in the late Seventies, tested in the Eighties, and flown in the Gulf War.)

              I know most of us oppose war on at least a moral basis, but don't you at least want something back for your share of taxes paid to the DOD? Well, kiss it goodbye under Ronald Dumsfeld- I mean Donald Rumsfeld. It's being blown to ensure our supply of Iraqi Black.

              by Black Brant on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:53:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The F-22 (none / 1)

                doesn't need externally mounted weapons. The only reason they would do that is if all the RADAR sites were shut down and I am willing to bet they would use a mix of F-22's in such flights. But that was really for attack, but the small diameter bomb will fit within the F-22s weapons bays and all of that talk about the "F/A-22", when they added, the "A" into the designation was more for political posturing than anything else.

                As for the electronics on the F-22, they are far from obsolete. There isn't anything that can even compare to it. What took it so long to develop was how integrated the avionics are and making them reliable. Unlike most aircraft, where the pilot manages various systems, weapons systems, ECM systems, and IRCM systems, the F-22 is designed such that all of these systems are integrated in a manner in which the pilot actually concentrates on the best way to fight the aircraft, not fly it and operate the systems. It actually stemmed from the electronic copilot research done during the 80's.

                It should also be noted that one F-22 is as effective as 10 F-15s. In fact in recent wargames the F-22s went against F-15s and the F-22s had an 80:1 kill ratio. That's unprecedented. The only real question I have for the F-22 is where it's reliability is now. I've read that was the last major hurdle they were dealing with, in terms of MTBF for the avionics.

                You are also so right on Rumsfeld. If he had a clue, he would know the area where we need to invest our money now is on the infantry men. I mean, they still don't everything they need over there, and that's just crap. They deserve better, and if that means cuts for the Navy and Air Force, then that's how it should be. But until they develop an armored fighting suit for an infantryman where alot of money can be made, I doubt that will happen.

                The sleep of reason produces monsters.

                by Alumbrados on Sat May 21, 2005 at 09:50:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Rummy (none / 0)

                  You are also so right on Rumsfeld. If he had a clue, he would know the area where we need to invest our money now is on the infantry men.

                  Remember, Rummy is Air Force (he was a pilot).  Infantry are those ants scurrying down in the trenches.  The air is where the action is.  It permeates his whole attitude towards military tactics and spending.

                  by Taylor26 on Sun May 22, 2005 at 05:30:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Personally (none / 0)

                I think we should cancel the entire F-22 program as well as the entire JSF (F-35) program.

                To replace aging aircraft buy some copies of exsisting models, maybe with some upgrades that don't require a bunch of R&D and testing. Roll those purchases to new "super" models which are to the older aircraft what the F/A-18F is to the F/A-
                18D.

                The main investment for the US military should go primarily into training, logistics, and infosystems (aka IT infrastructure). This is where the real edge we enjoy over the rest of the world is and the place we are most likely to keep it.

                by ces on Sun May 22, 2005 at 02:12:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Are you talking.... (4.00 / 4)

              ...unit costs or fly-away costs? I see people mix these up all the time. Don't get me wrong, it is an expensive plane and costs more than it was supposed to. However, the planes it was supposed to fight are operational in India and China and they do outclass our F-15's easily. Also, with the proliferation of SAMs, I can't say it's a bad purchase, knowing what I know of it's performance. I know most Americans are so ignorant of weapons sytems and military forces they look at our performance in Iraq  and in Afghanistan to compare these issues, but neither had a well trained Air Force to speak of.

              The main reason Republicans "cut it's funding" was to actually increase defense spending. They knew it wouldn't be cancelled, but by moving the money for it to other programs then forced Clinton adminstration to add the spending in for the F-22. The program is so far along, it would be stupid to cancel it now. We would actually save very little, because so much has already been spent on the program over the past twenty five years. That's what many people don't understand, we now include the development costs in the unit cost of the aircraft, which is one of the reasons it looks so much more expensive then previous programs.

              Having said that, we are spending way too much on these programs. If you want to look at a program that's going to cost us more than this, look at the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program. It's still in development and was meant to be a low cost replacement for F-16's, F-18's, and Harriers. One of the ways they were going to save costs was by not having alot of on board sensors. It was going to get that information from F-22's, AWACS, UAV's and other sensor platforms using secure datalinks. However, just like the original Light Weight Fighter Program that lead to the F-16, after getting the go ahead for production, the military has been loading the program back up with sensors, which is bullshit. Part of the reason they are doing this, is with so many nations tied into it they think it can't be cancelled. As a result, the fly-away cost has ballooned from approximately $40 million/aircraft to $100 million/aircraft and it is led by Lockheed Martin, of course.

              If I was in congress, I would move to make sure that no more money is spent on the program then the number originally sought, which is much higher than the F-22, times the original purchase price, $40 million. So basically, if the costs balloon to $100 million, the services get 2.5 times less aircraft. I understand sometimes there are design changes and some cost growth, that is to be expected with any new developments. But most of the F-35's costs are due to the Pentagon putting more into the plane then was irginally intended. Let them take the money from one of their sensor UAV programs then, to make up the shortfall.

              They actually took sensor systems and other items off the F-22 to lower the price, believe it or not. I would probably also lower the number of F-22's purchased to around 180, but that won't save much money as all of the development costs are then spread across 180 aircraft, instead of 227, which drives their price up again. The main reason I would reduce them, though, and maybe even a little more, is because if we had fewer weapons systems, we couldn't be fighting around the globe, at least not on our own.

              I think the United States should be somewhat limited on the number of battles it can fight around the world on it's own. I know that won't happen, because that makes it more difficult to control the world's economy. I should say, it won't happen of our own volition. It will happen, because the jack asses in the White House have so mismanaged the economy, we will be lucky if the four services aren't sharing bullets in a few years. Where Russia went these past fifteen years is where we are heading. When this happens, I think you will see China rapidly rise to become the world's leading military power and take control of the sea lanes, e.g. - the "oil" routes.

              Although we should have been doing this for years now, I am hoping we will be able to take some money, then, and use the brilliant minds in the defense companies to work on alternative energy technology.

              In fact, I think there should be some sort of law, although I know there is always a way around it, but there should be something to ensure that we spend as much on livingry as we do on weaponry. Right now, I believe 90% of what we spend on R&D is on weapons systems and only 10% is spent on living ry. FYI, livingry is a Buckminster Fuller term to describe technology that enriches life, not destroy it, i.e.-The opposite of weaponry.

              Considering how much of our wealth is controlled by so few people, to me there should be some sort of law that states once you make up to a certain amount of money, anything above that said value goes to the government. Say, $10 million/year? I see absolutely no reason why anyone should need to make more than that a year. If that drove those few wealthy individuals to other countries, then so be it. There simply isn't one single reason anyone needs that much money. NONE. Too accumulate so much wealth in the hands of a few, when there are so many problems in this country and so many homeless and hungry and with the health care crisis, is simply immoral. Sorry to get OT at the end here, but I see the few moenyed interests as some of the greatest threats our Democracy has encountered.

              The sleep of reason produces monsters.

              by Alumbrados on Sat May 21, 2005 at 09:35:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I sent an "I told you so" email... (4.00 / 10)

      to my rather large email list, when it became apparent that there were no WMD in Iraq. I pointed out all the information I'd sent out during the interminable build-up to the war. I pointed out that I'd already told them almost everything that was now coming to light, because "I know how to read," and the information had been available all along. It was smug. It was superior. And, it was incredibly satisfying.

      "I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or prostitute." ~ Rebecca West

      by Recordkeeper on Sat May 21, 2005 at 05:14:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am there. (none / 0)

      by sharonmatt20194 on Sat May 21, 2005 at 06:55:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  well hold on a minute (4.00 / 2)

    this makes it sound as if the Germans expressed their concerns to the CIA, not to Bush. So the whipping boy gets whipped again. Good old George Tenet. Give him another medal.

    fouls, excesses and immoderate behavior are scored ZERO at Over the Line, Smokey!

    by seesdifferent on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:47:33 PM PDT

  •  BushCo/Newsweek (none / 1)

    This is why it's particularly galling to to hear the admin take Newsweek to task for relying on a "single unconfirmed source" in the Qa'ran item.  

    What did the President know and when did he stop knowing it?

    by Pyewacket on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:49:35 PM PDT

  •  Was Judith Miller complicit, stupid, or both? (4.00 / 2)

    Those seem to be the only options.

    by Bob Johnson on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:52:11 PM PDT

  •  Also... (4.00 / 3)

    On the front page of tomorrow's New York Times:

    Army Faltered in Investigating Detainee Abuse

    Despite autopsy findings of homicide and statements by soldiers that two prisoners died after being struck by guards at an American military detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, Army investigators initially recommended closing the case without bringing any criminal charges, documents and interviews show.

    This business will get out of control...

    by Omar on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:52:32 PM PDT

    •  Tide Turning Lover's Quarrel (none / 0)

      Also in tomorrow's NY Times (on-line now):

      Bush Administration is bad-mouthing Karzai's leadership as

      Also on Reuters (on-line now):

      Karzai is bad-mouthing the Bush Administration over Afghan prisoner abuse by U.S. troops and he wants to take over custody of Afghan prisoners and control of U.S. military operations.

      Seems there's a general unraveling from within the Bush Administration on several different issues.

      Arrogance and hubristic imperial pride only goes so far, it seems.

      by Patricia Taylor on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:57:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Arghhhh... (none / 1)

    Assholes in the press.

    Where was this reporting before the fucking war?

    The neocons had been writing about their plans ot invade Iraq since 1992.  And now it's a revelation that these jagoffs lied?

    Well, thank god for small favors, I guess...

    by Bob Johnson on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:57:05 PM PDT

  •  The problem with ideology... (4.00 / 4)

    ... is that in order for it to remain an ideology one must bend facts to suit it. They start with a preset notion and nothing, absolutely nothing can convince them they're wrong.

    As far as the war, remember how it just kind of came out of nowhere? Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Iraq? Huh? That's how I knew it was bullshit from the get-go.

    Bush knew he was right to invade Iraq and nothing, absolutely nothing could stop him. Not facts, not reason, not logic.

    Give me a flip-flopper who will change his position based upon facts any day.

    hink

    Hyperbole will be the death of us all!

    by MrHinkyDink on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:00:44 PM PDT

  •  Some people say (Andrew Cockburn) (none / 0)

    that Walter Pincus has such strong ties to they agency that they suspect that he is a "Company man".

    If you have got a boss, you need a union. Read www.purpleocean.org/blog/

    by BartBoris on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:19:37 PM PDT

    •  He is. (none / 1)

      Hadn't reached your post when I posted mine above.

      You have to analyze these stories in terms of where the reporters' real loyalties lie. Pinky, like Spiky Isikoff, is Company all the way.

      -- "I decline utterly to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire." ~Winston Churchill

      by Eleftheria on Sat May 21, 2005 at 05:45:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  you know (4.00 / 5)

    at this point i'd gladly take nixon over bush.  at least he was trying to get us out of a war.

    I got nuthin (-6.88, -6.15)

    by guyermo on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:23:02 PM PDT

  •  Those mobile "bioweapons" (none / 0)

    labs were, I think, mobile breweries, because there was a fermenter on the truck. When a NYT columnist was touting mobile germ warfare labs, I emailed that they were breweries and he didn't answer.

    by CrawfordMan on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:25:57 PM PDT

  •  HAMMER THE MEDIA (4.00 / 14)

    I used to go to the Washington Post and the New York Times for the news.  Now I go to bring the news to them.  

    A three day letter writing campaign from Media Matters, FAIR, and dKos broke through the US media blackout on the evidence surfaced in the UK on the "documents of illegality" of war in Iraq.

    Find the news, and insist they report it!!  Keep it up, Kossacks!  

    HAMMER THE MEDIA!!!!!

    by Apian on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:34:32 PM PDT

    •  And always provide the LINKS!!! (none / 1)

      ok?

      by sooner on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:58:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  LINKS (4.00 / 4)

        LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN
        Downing Street Evidence -- Washington Post Refuses to Cover

        dKOS BREAKS THROUGH US MEDIA BLACKOUT
        dKos Takes On Washington Post and Wins

        PUTTING THE PRESSURE ON NBC ABC CBS PBS
        FAIR ACTION ALERT -- Contact MSM Must Cover Illegal Iraq War Evidence

        by Apian on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:11:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This Letter to Woodward Was Printed MSM (4.00 / 6)

          May 11, 2005
          Bob Woodward
          Washington Post
          woodwardb@washpost.com
          Dear Mr Woodward,

          The Washington Post received about 200 letters yesterday and it's all my fault. Downing Street Evidence - Washington Post Refuses to Cover. I wrote a piece that I'm including in a file, about how the ombudsman Michael Getler refused to address the lack of coverage the WaPo has given to this most important story. That wasn't like him.

          I have been giving it a lot of thought. Why does the US media have so much trouble reporting this story? First, because the proof - the Downing Street minutes, and the Goldsmith March 7, 2003 legal finding have been authenticated and released by Tony Blair. Second, because of the language. One way to minimize the import of these documents is to call the two documents a memo. The US media calls it `a memo,' referring to the minutes of a meeting, and Goldsmith's opinion or finding - these cannot be minimized by calling them `memo.' A `memo' gives the public the impression that these are casual notes. Minutes of a meeting, and the legal finding of the Attorney General cannot be so minimized - documents of this type carry a legal weight.

          The US media and public are using this word because for almost a year now we have been reading memos from the likes of John Yoo, Bybee, Haynes and Gonzales. The language in memos of Yoo and Bybee are very nearly the same as the language in the Goldsmith March 23, 2003 opinion, as far as liablility before the International Criminal Court, and trying to get around the Geneva Conventions.

          It would make one have to ask - who actually wrote the Goldsmith March 7, 2003 opinion? With Gonzales and Ashcroft giving Goldsmith an intense working over - what kind of force did the US apply to the UK to comply with and be complicit in criminality? We know that Gonzales convened a meeting on acceptable levels of torture, that included "water-boarding." Did they use that on Goldsmith to make him recant his opinion that the invasion of Iraq was illegal?

          The reason no one can properly write about these documents and their impact is there are no words allowed to tell the story with. This country has lost it's language to tell the truth with.

          When you are at war and you take prisoners, they are called prisoners of war, or POWs. When you invade a country illegally and decimate their cities after you've been bombing them rotten for ten years, and they fight back, they're called resistance fighters. But we're getting cute out here, too. We know whenever we hear the words "regime change" it means violation of international law.

          When you have documents released from the British Prime Minister consisting of minutes of a meeting of intelligence and defence department ministers, and the legal finding of the Attorney General submitted to the Prime Minister on the illegality of the war in Iraq - these documents cannot be dismissed by calling them "a memo."

          I'm well aware of how we lost our language, and who is to blame. The way to avoid criminal prosecution is to be the one who changes the meaning of words so the law is not the law any more. And I have to credit him for the word un-sign.

          But I don't think the practice of writing should go extinct just because one's leadership doesn't know what words mean or how to use them.

          So that's what I think is causing this news blackout. (As in pass out during a drunk and not remember where you were or what you did when you wake up.) The thing is the release of these materials have brought about the demise of Tony Blair. Ten members of Bereaved Families have brought charges against Tony Blair for war crimes before the International Criminal Court. And that bodes ill for Bush. (Source: Military Families Against the War; http://www.mfaw.org.uk/ )

          I'll not take up any more of your time. I can only hope that you are writing this story, and I hope you enjoyed all the letters that were sent to you.

          Sincerely yours,

          Apian

          by Apian on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:19:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Great letter. (4.00 / 2)

            You say it was printed?

            This business will get out of control...

            by Omar on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:46:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (4.00 / 3)

              It has now been read by about 100,000 readers.  But what mystifies me is only one reader seemed to get my point:

              It's classic Orwellian technique.

              If you control the language, you can
              control thought.

              Like the letter says, the terms "memo" and "regime change" activate different psychological triggers to "minutes","statement" and "invasion". Controlled media, controlled language, controlled thought.

              This important point has almost been missed.  It determines where we are going to go with this story and if it's got "legs."  If I could sue GWB for what he has done to language and literacy in the US I would.

              I have been fighting an uphill battle on this one.  But it's possible we can break through the US media blackout with truth, and rescue meaning.  From that justice follows.

              by Apian on Sat May 21, 2005 at 10:33:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Sept 24 (4.00 / 3)

      I've read about protests and marches being planned for 9/24.  I've been to a couple here in LA, but the rally never goes down to Sunset Blvd to surround the CNN building.

      The weak media should be considered our primary target in the War on Fiction.  Maybe they think we'll go away if they ignore us.  Well, they've needed gentle prodding every step of the way, let's keep gently prodding right down their complicit throats.  If groups want to rally in the streets and listen to themselves scream, cool.  But I think they could do better.  

      And then when their sorry asses have figured out that we're paying damn close attention and we're not going away, we need to support them and have their backs when the White House starts--um, continues--attacking and scapegoatig these media outlets.

      Read my lips: we do not torture.

      by captnjaq on Sat May 21, 2005 at 05:01:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes! Apian, well said. (none / 1)

       I used to go to the Washington Post and the New York Times for the news.  Now I go to bring the news to them.

      Sad but true. Isn't it insane that on top of everything else we need to accomplish in our individual lives everyday, we need to constantly be sending the media the actual news, begging them to do their job?!

      by chicagochristianleft on Sat May 21, 2005 at 05:49:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope this snowball gets as big as the (none / 0)

    rock in the Myth of Sisyphus.

    Corporate Media: Republicans are their base.

    by lecsmith on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:53:19 PM PDT

  •  Great article... (4.00 / 2)

    ...but I wish he would have mentioned the aluminum tubes.  

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by BarbinMD on Sat May 21, 2005 at 05:08:56 PM PDT

  •  Impeach Bush 2007 (none / 0)

    By then, the economy should be in tatters, gas over $3.00/gallon, and Democrats in control of the House and Senate.

    Of course, Bush could pardon Tom DeLay and Cheney. resign, and have President Cheney pardon him - but Cheney might just toss Bush off the cart for the wolves.

    Then, too - does a US Presidential pardon render war crimes trials at the Hague moot?

    Character is who you are in the dark! Dr. Emelio Lizardo / Lord John Worfin

    by RepubAnon on Sat May 21, 2005 at 05:17:53 PM PDT

  •  didn't we already know this? n/t (none / 0)

    "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

    by catnip on Sat May 21, 2005 at 05:27:35 PM PDT

  •  Hope (4.00 / 9)

    I can dream, can't I?

    This business will get out of control...

    by Omar on Sat May 21, 2005 at 06:00:24 PM PDT

    •  Ugh! You've given me nightmares! (none / 0)

      This looks like a cross between the inmate on the "Go To Jail" space on older vintage Monopoly game boards and one of those morphs-into-an-alien scenes from really bad 1950s-vintage sci-fi movies.

      Then again, maybe we should use this picture to deter collegiate cocaine use...

      by liberaldregs on Sat May 21, 2005 at 09:47:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  FYI: Commission Report Link (none / 0)

    Report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction

    http://www.wmd.gov/report/

    Well-behaved women seldom make history - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

    jc's designs

    by jaysea on Sat May 21, 2005 at 06:13:41 PM PDT

  •  Now it says A26. They moved it from A1. (none / 0)

    Gawd Damnit!!!

    by Pirate Smile on Sat May 21, 2005 at 06:45:24 PM PDT

  •  Pincus's piece on the Downing St. memo (none / 1)

    also appeared inside the first section.  The Washington Post is hedging its bets.

    But, after the Bush administration responded to the first Pincus piece by raising that fuss over the Newsweek article, I'd say the Washington Post is showing considerable courage.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:00:58 PM PDT

  •  More naked photos? (none / 1)

    The question is, why did they move the story to the backpages?

    Answer?
    BREAKING FRONT PAGE STORY: Naked Pictures of Tariq Aziz Surface.

    (-9.13, -8.10)

    by Florida Democrat on Sat May 21, 2005 at 09:42:50 PM PDT

  •  beware of walter pincus (none / 0)

    because he's a CIA whore.  Excuse me, walter pincus is a "former" CIA whore.  and he didn't even have to be outed, unlike david corn and michael moore (the leader of the CIA's "hate america crowd").  yes, the CIA is neck-deep in shit and it's just going to get worse when operation mockingbird redux is exposed.    

    ... and the truth will set you free.

    by RJR on Sat May 21, 2005 at 10:00:39 PM PDT

  •  my protest letter to Post on burial of story (4.00 / 3)

    What is your aim and agenda.?    

    Why are you burying Walter Pincus's story on pre war Iraq lying and manipulation by the Bush admininstration?  

    Why did you change the title?   From More Evidence Of Bush Aides' Doubts on Iraq to Prewar Findings Worried Analysts.

    You folks are beginning to make Pravda look good.

    I don't know how your knees hold up with all the bowing, scraping and other unmentionables that the editors of the Washington Post do vis a vis the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld politburo.

    Debra

    by debcoop on Sat May 21, 2005 at 10:52:52 PM PDT

Permalink | 125 comments