Skip to main content

Ever since the tragic attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, "Benghazi" has been the Republican response to almost every question. Despite receiving the report of the State Department's Accountability Review Board (whose recommendations were immediately endorsed by the Obama administration), hearing the testimony of the outgoing secretary of state, secretary of defense and head of the CIA, and getting additional information demanded from the White House, GOP senators have threatened to block the nominations of the president's entire national security team.

Over the last few weeks, that grandstanding has crossed the line from cynical obstruction to slander. While South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham proclaimed "Hillary Clinton got away with murder," John McCain (R-AZ) charged the Obama administration with perpetrating a "massive cover-up." When pressed for evidence by Meet the Press host David Gregory, McCain could muster only:

"Do you care whether four Americans died?...Shouldn't people be held accountable for the fact that four Americans died?"
There was a massive cover-up, all right, just not involving Libya but Iraq. That U.S. catastrophe cost over 4,400 American lives, wounded over 30,000 and led to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. Ten years and over $1 trillion later, no one was held accountable. Instead, many got medals.

As the 10-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq approaches, it's worth remembering how that war was sold to the American people in the fall of 2002. (And it was "sold"; as Bush chief of staff Andy Card explained that summer, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.") In an Oct. 7 address in Cincinnati, President Bush warned, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." That echoed the talking point National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice mouthed a month earlier, when she fretted, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Addressing the VFW nearly six months before Colin Powell would make his infamous presentation to the United Nations, Vice President Dick Cheney was unequivocal about the threat from Saddam Hussein:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth."
For his part, John McCain was on board 100 percent. He didn't just agree that the Iraq war would be a short one and that Americans would be "greeted as liberators." Three months after the invasion in June 2003, McCain announced:
"I remain confident that we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
But it didn't work out that way. Bush, Cheney, Rice and McCain (among others) were, as Iraq Survey Group Charles Duelfer testified in October 2004, "almost all wrong."

Learn more about the cover-up that wasn't below the fold.

In April 2004, George W. Bush told a White House press conference that he couldn't think of a single mistake he had made as president. And when it came to his disastrous decision to invade Iraq after selling Americans on the mythical threat from Saddam's WMD, Bush and his GOP allies made sure that no light would be shed. No light, that is, at least until after Bush was safely reelected in November 2004.

That evasion was central to two separate investigations of pre-war intelligence which published reports in 2004 and 2005. After the White House initially opposed calls to create an independent panel to probe the intelligence used to make the case for war, President Bush relented. On Feb. 6, 2004, he named the members of the Silberman-Robb Commission which included, among others, Sen. John McCain. But Bush's panel, led by Judge Laurence Silberman (the same judge who overturned Oliver North's felony Iran-Contra conviction), would not include the subject of intelligence manipulation within its charter. The report concluded that the CIA had been "dead wrong" about Iraq WMD. But as Silberman himself noted about the 600-page report deliver in March 2005:

"Well, on the [that] point, we duck. That is not part of our charter. We did not express any views on policymakers' use of intelligence -- whether Congress or the president. It wasn't part of our charter and indeed most of us didn't want to get into that issue because it's basically a political question and everybody knows -- you can look at the newspaper and see what people said and make your own judgment."
Meanwhile, an even more egregious farce was underway in the Republican-controlled Senate.

On June 20, 2003, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence began its own work. Led by Republican Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Democratic Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the SSCI promised a two-phase report on the march to war in Iraq. Phase 1 would examine the failings of the American intelligence community. Phase 2 would investigate the uses of pre-war intelligence and whether the administration had manipulated it to fabricate a causus belli. Conveniently for the Bush White House, the potentially damaging Phase 2 inquiry would not come until after the election.

Not surprisingly, the SSCI Phase 1 Report released in July 2004 sought to lay the blame for faulty intelligence all at the feet of the CIA. Chairman Roberts concluded that "what the President and the Congress used to send the country to war was information that was...flawed" and "most of the key judgments in the October 2002 national intelligence estimate on Iraq's WMD programs were either overstated or were not supported by the raw intelligence reporting." But Roberts also presumed the conclusion of the as-yet-uncompleted Phase 2 report, "The committee found no evidence that the intelligence community's mischaracterization or exaggeration of intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of politics or pressure."

But during that very same June 2004 press conference announcing their findings, Vice Chairman Rockefeller in response expressed his frustration and alarm over Roberts' unsupported statements:

"And I have to say, that there is a real frustration over what is not in this report, and I don't think was mentioned in Chairman Roberts' statement, and that is about the -- after the analysts and the intelligence community produced an intelligence product, how is it then shaped or used or misused by the policy-makers?  So again there's genuine frustration -- and Chairman Roberts and I have discussed this many times -- that virtually everything that has to do with the administration has been relegated to phase two. My hope is that we will get this done as soon as possible."
Rockefeller was wrong to have trusted his Republican colleague. Despite Roberts' July 9 promise that "It is a priority...I made my commitment and it will get done," on March 10, 2005 he reversed course and declared Phase 2 was now "on the back burner." Roberts' stonewalling for the Bush administration didn't end there. Upon the release of the Silberman-Robb Commission report which avoided the question of White House intelligence manipulation altogether, Roberts just three weeks later on March 31, 2005 instead concluded his work was done:
"I don't think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further. To go through that exercise, it seems to me, in a post-election environment--we didn't see how we could do that and achieve any possible progress. I think everybody pretty well gets it."
On November 2, 2005, Democrats had enough. Minority Leader Harry Reid forced the Senate into a rare closed session to demand Roberts and the Republicans "speed up an inquiry into the Bush administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's weapons in the run-up to the war." When Larry King asked the next day," Is the Senate going to have a full investigation of what led up to Iraq?" John McCain said he didn't want to "waste a lot of time and energy."
'Well, Larry, I think that we have investigations going on and we have had investigations. I was on a commission of weapons of mass destruction where we reached several conclusions, including the obvious one that there was a colossal intelligence failure but also that every intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he did a pretty good job of convincing his own generals that he had them.

The Intelligence Committee is supposed to report out by November 14th an investigation that they've been conducting and I think we ought to have a look at their conclusions and I'm not against investigations. I just want to make sure that we don't waste a lot of time and energy."

Of course, that November 14, 2005 deadline never happened. As Think Progress documented, GOP Chairman Pat Roberts delayed the Phase 2 analysis yet again, ensuring there was "virtually no chance of being completed before the fall [2006] elections."

But Democrats won those 2006 midterm elections in what President Bush called "a thumpin'." And finally, on June 5, 2008, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence now chaired by Sen. Rockefeller published its Phase 2 report. As McClatchy reported, Republicans Chuck Hagel and Susan Collins joined the Democratic majority in concluding that "Bush knew Iraq claims weren't true."

"Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information," the report concluded.

Claims by President Bush that Iraq and al Qaida had a partnership "were not substantiated by the intelligence."

The president and vice president misrepresented what was known about Iraq's chemical weapons capabilities.

Rumsfeld misrepresented what the intelligence community knew when he said Iraq's weapons productions facilities were buried deeply underground.

Cheney's claim that the intelligence community had confirmed that lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 was not true.

These were not the only assessments concluding, as Chairman Rockefeller did, that the Bush administration "deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate." As the Baltimore Sun reported in September 2006, the SSCI "found no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaida or provided a haven for one of its most notorious operatives, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- conclusions that contradict claims by the Bush administration before it invaded Iraq." In March 2008, an extensive Pentagon review of 600,000 captured documents similarly concluded there was "no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network." So much for Rumsfeld's 2002 claim that the case for such links was "bulletproof."

It's no wonder that as late as August 2006, half of Americans thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. As for the mythical link between Iraq, Al Qaeda and 9/11, Bush propagandists like Ari Fleischer tried to keep falsehood alive even his boss left office. As Fleischer put it in March 2009:

"After September 11th having been hit once how could we take a chance that Saddam might strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed and I think we are all safer with that threat removed."
Amazingly, just days later former Bush National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Charlie Rose, "No one was arguing that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11." Of course, Condi had done just that as late as September 2006:
"There were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime."
No Bush official, including Rice, was ever held accountable for mistakes, misstatements, dissembling and deception over the disaster in Iraq. Some, like Condi Rice, were promoted. Rice, who had warned of smoking guns in the form of a mushroom cloud, casually linked Iraq to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and wrongly insisted "I don't think anybody could have predicted" someone would use a hijacked airplane as missile, went before the Senate in January 2005 to be confirmed as secretary of state. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin lamented that "Dr. Condoleezza Rice was in the room, at the table, when decisions were made, and she has to accept responsibility for what she said." California's Barbara Boxer went further, telling Rice during her confirmation hearing that "your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth," especially when it came to warning the American people about the threat from Iraqi WMD. As CNN recalled the exchange:
"If you can't admit to this mistake, I hope that you will rethink it," Boxer said.

"Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like," Rice replied. "But I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity."

As they slandered President Obama and Chuck Hagel and tried to hold up his confirmation as Pentagon chief over the Benghazi tragedy, Lindsey Graham and John McCain might have kept Rice's confirmation in mind. After all, while Republicans engaged in the first-ever filibuster of a defense secretary last week, in 2005 Secretary Rice was confirmed by 85-13. Among those who voted for the Rice despite her obvious role in President Bush's fiasco in Iraq and the real massive cover-up which ensued were Democratic Sens. Biden, Clinton and Obama.
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  once more, we should point out that (27+ / 0-)

    the Dems were not innocent bystanders either.  Only ONE person in Congress voted against the Authorization to Use Military Force. While a couple of low-level Dem gadflies spoke out against the war, no one in the Dem party leadership did. Indeed, even after the invasion turned into a fiasco, the Dem party was blabbering NOT that it was a mistake to go and we should get out now--they were arguing that the Dubya Administration was effing it all up, and a Dem Adminstration could win the war.

    It wasn't until Ned Lamont ran on an openly anti-war platform and won the primary (against the opposition of the Dem party leadership, who then refused to back Lamont in the general election) that the Dem Party bigwigs were shocked into the realization that there actually was an opposition to the war. A big one. Indeed, some junior Senator from Illinois became a spokesperson for that opposition and rode that wave all the way to the White House, defeating both the Dem Party/Hillary machine AND the GOP machine.

    The idea that the lying dishonest Dubya Administration pushed us into a war over the resistance and objections of the Democratic Party, are simply not true. The Dems were enthusiastic cheerleaders for the war, from day one, and indeed argued for years that they could run the war BETTER than the Repugs were, and WIN it.

    •  Falling for a lie and... (22+ / 0-)

      ...perpetrating the lie are two very different things.

      I'm too [insert adjective of choice, e.g., sane] to vote Republican.

      by Linus Too on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 01:16:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you're confusing the (2+ / 0-)

      2001 AUMF, regarding 9/11, Al Qaeda, and Afghanistan, and  the 2002 AUMF regarding Iraq. Only one member of congress voted against the former. 133 members of the House of Representatives, and 23 senators, voted against the latter.

      Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:22:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lenny, you are on fire today! (0+ / 0-)

      I just wish you weren't right.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:37:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dem Party/Hillary machine (0+ / 0-)

      hahahaha.  You mean the same machine he uses to fill cabinet spots?

      •  well yeah, aside from all the Wall Street guys ;) (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Heart of the Rockies, apimomfan2

        Ironic, isn't it, that I supported Obama in the primary because I had already lived through two Clinton terms and didn't want to see two more---and that's what we got anyway.

        (But to be fair to Obama, in a way he really didn't have much of a choice---other than Clinton, the Dems hadn't seen the inside of the White House since Carter, so if he wanted a Democrat with any White House experience, the Clintonistas were the only game in town.)

    •  that's the left's stupidity of ignoring talk radio (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the problem was that a hundred coordinated blowhard chickenhawks and some paid callers on 1000 of the loudest radio stations in the country were louder than the millions of protestors, of which i was one numerous times. we should have been protesting at the radio stations.

      for that reason we weren't getting our reps backs. any rep or objector who showed up in media who wanted to take on bush/ rove and object was getting named on national and local talk radio and the teabagger patriots would scream at them and their staffs and the producers who put them on.

      while dems called for more debate because they may have suspected bush/rove, i heard multiple national and local chickenhawks telling their 'patriotic' chickenhawk audiences (they're called teabaggers now) to call their senators and tell them to "stand up and be counted!" , all using that same term the night before the republicans were trying to force the vote - there's no time for discussion! and the media  went along (they got the same screams of traitor, remember 911!

      easy for you to say:

      The Dems were enthusiastic cheerleaders for the war,
      while you probably had no idea what was happening at your local chickenhawk radio. bush's 'mandate'  to go to war waas created exactly because you and 99% of the left didn't.

      This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

      by certainot on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 05:55:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  um, I was protesting out there with you (0+ / 0-)

        I've been arrested about a dozen times at various protests over the years.

        PS--the Dems WERE enthusiastic cheerleaders for the war. That's one of the reasons I was out there protesting and getting arrested. Against BOTH Gulf Wars.

        •  for both those wars we should have gone to the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          radio stations to wave signs.

          talk radio was rove's most important tool but there was no recognition of that. while we were in the middle of the street with tear gas or over at the capitol they had a few yapping twit chickenhawks with giant microphones yelling rove and pentagon talking points over us the rest of the month. same as with OWS. and it's the same with global warming.

          benghazi was nothing without talk radio doing the groundwork screaming repetition. dems could have seen it coming, instead, whether it was better or not, rice is successfully swiftboated and it's another slowdown distraction and a senate seat up for grabs.

          they've got think tanks full of PR pros monitoring and designing campaigns and laundering them into made-to-order constituencies for any occasion and the only reason they can do it is that the left ignores their talk radio megaphone.

          i'm sure WE would not have been intimidated if we were voting then!!!

          now we have a 'democracy' where reps have to think about getting shot, or going down in small planes, or their family's safety, just because some jackass on the loudest stations in the country names them. and the left/dems/liberals that claim to get their backs have no idea because it hurts their ears to listen to it. it's pitiful.

          the stoprush boycott bunch have done more for democracy the last year than any of our protests.

          This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

          by certainot on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 07:21:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's still important. Still needed. (0+ / 0-)

            Radio is and always has been a life line in rural areas, and for at least two and a half decades rural radio has been dominated by right wing hate talk shows. Many people who live in those areas are so deeply propagandized by RW hate that they cannot recognize that there is any legitimate opposition to gop-hate opinions.  These listeners consider Limbaugh and Hannity to be mainstream and moderate, Beck's well-accepted too. All the shows are playing on multiple channels simultaneously. Almost every station has more extreme, locally-grown wannabes spewing very extreme views over the air, in hopes of making it big in the radio business. Radio stations in small communities are big business, staffed with local celebrities.

            Rural hate-radio listeners are hard working people who should be voting democratic, but instead they vote pure red. If you dare to ask them why, they'll tell you it's about job losses they blame on environmentalists; it's over 2nd amendment fears and big government fears; it's about climate change denial (and this from people with degrees in science!); it's over perceptions of excessive taxation.  It's about knuckling under to the "job creators". It's about the topics amplified daily by AM radio.

            Hate radio defines social norms in these areas. Targeting advertisers in these markets will be difficult.

            •  couple more things besides boycott that might help (0+ / 0-)

              it's a major shame that it's gotten to this point and still a problem none of the major progressive groups nor the dem party has any organized response to try to challenge it. and many of those low-pop areas have 2 senators

              the boycott is helping and i think in the rural areas you talk about there is still  common sense - it's just that there are NO alternatives.  there are additional angles for fixing the radio.

              many of the bigger stations in those states are piggybacking universities though, and those unis, no matter where they are, have no excuse for their endorsement of RW hate and disinformation. and especially the global warming denial. without that uni sports association a lot of RW stations will suffer and may have to find alternatives.

              also, any discrediting of the main talk radio gods in public and real time on the national level will translate all over and to the wannabes that repeat the same material. that should also be a priority.

              also a searchable databank of the main talkers transcripts would help. maybe it could be scrambled a bit to get around copyright laws. transcription software could make it automated. that way the coordination could be exposed and pointed out to the press and politicians so they would stop pretending the sudden explosions of 'outrage' weren't as organic and popular as suggested by the GOP.

              that should be a no-brainer at the dem party level anyway- i just heard the state at. general on the local radio morning show telling the audience over an dover to call their reps to help the GOP gov against some legislation in the state. and that's the same station rove used to attack one of the last at. generals for not going after fictitious voter fraud.

              This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

              by certainot on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:55:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Billmon and Jane Hamsher worked hard to uncover (20+ / 0-)

    the truth in those dark days.

    The USA was lit entirely with gaslight.

    Daily Kos and allies tried to get the word out when the mainstream press was in bed with the government. (Remember embedded journalists?)

    Thank goodness for Markos et alii. Those were very bad days.

  •  An interesting question to ask John McCain (19+ / 0-)

    As WE all know, John McCain is not one to make many public appearances.  However, when he makes one of his rare appearances on one of the Sabbath Gasbag shows, this would be an interesting statement to ask him about:

    I remain confident that we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
    For example: Mr. McCain why were you so confident?  

    And, the obvious follow-up: Have you ever wondered why all those sources were wrong?

    Of course, no one will ever do that because McCain is such a rare invitee on a Sabbath Gasbag show.

    [Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security] do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

    by MoDem on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 01:20:45 PM PST

  •  GOP is obsessed with peanuts (7+ / 0-)

    all non-issues while all the major problems in front of us are being ignored.

    •  And the press aids and abets (0+ / 0-)

      This obvious sideshow.

      "Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don’t pretend to understand." ~ Atticus Finch, "To Kill a Mockingbird"

      by SottoVoce on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:17:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  more people will die when the US doesn't have (0+ / 0-)

    a Secretary of Defense.

  •  Who was held accountable for the 3,000 of 9/11? (9+ / 0-)

    Who within the Bush Administration was either fired, demoted or identified as having screwed up, leading to the death of 3,000 Americans?

    Are Repiblicans paraphrasing Stalin: "4 deaths are a tragedy, 3,000 are statistics"? Because they sure grieve more for the comer than the latter... Is this a partisan thing?

    The GOP, as always, is playing politics. When they win elections, they make Dems pro with them in the name of patriotism, and when they lose elections, they...require Dems to work per the Republican policies!

  •  Iraq remains a moral stain on the US (15+ / 0-)

    Certain members of the Bush administration should be brought to trial for fraud, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against civilization. If convicted, they should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

    The entire Republican party, 100% of it, is also significantly responsible. I suspect that Iraq, even more than decades of vulgar propaganda, is eating away at the soul of the party. They are haunted by the ghosts of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

    Yes, there were plenty of complicit enablers in the Democratic Party, in the media, and in the beltway chattering class. It was a widespread systemic failure.

    But Republicans bear the most blame.

    “Americans are fighters. We're tough, resourceful and creative, and if we have the chance to fight on a level playing field, where everyone pays a fair share and everyone has a real shot, then no one - no one - can stop us. ”-- Elizabeth Warren

    by Positronicus on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 01:34:53 PM PST

    •  Viet Nam remains a moral stain on the US (7+ / 0-)

      for many of the same reasons:  lies as reasons to invade a foreign country and get into a shooting war; support for corrupt and venal actors to fulfill our own agenda despite the population's not wanting us there; claiming the "enemy" had capabilities that never manifested; the entire escapade motivating both enlisted men and political figures to ignore their humanity thereby obscuring the difference between right and wrong.

      War. shunning fundamental honesty in dealing both with the American and foreign citizenry, and abdication of our national morality is the story of U.S. foreign involvement for much of the 2nd half of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st.  We seem incapable of keeping it from happening again and again.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 02:51:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree completely. I thought we had learned (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Heart of the Rockies

        our lesson in Vietnam.

        Tragically, we did not.

        “Americans are fighters. We're tough, resourceful and creative, and if we have the chance to fight on a level playing field, where everyone pays a fair share and everyone has a real shot, then no one - no one - can stop us. ”-- Elizabeth Warren

        by Positronicus on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 06:38:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Both these wars were built on lies. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        My heart breaks thinking of all the deceased and wounded in these wars from people in power who sold these wars.  Will we ever learn when all the smoke & mirrors of fear come out again.

        Do not adjust your mind, there is a flaw in reality.

        by Shrew in Shrewsbury on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 08:10:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (4+ / 0-)


     "I remain confident that we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

    For example: Mr. McCain why were you so confident?  

    I'll tell you my opinion on why they were so confident.  In October of 2002 a North Korean ship was intercepted by the Spanish Navy.  They searched it and found 'something' under the bags of concrete mix that North Korea wasn't supposed to be trading, let alone have in its possession - it was components for something nuclear.  The Spanish Navy called in the US Navy to determine what to do with it.  The article indicated that the ship was allowed to continue with its contents intact.  I cannot find anything to back up what I'm saying, but I did read it on an 'official' site - ABC IIRC, or CNN - can't remember which now.  I've gone back to look for the information, but haven't been successful.

    When it was rumored that Bush ordered the Army to start moving its units around in August of 2002, then the North Korean ship in late October, making gains in the House in the 2002 elections in November, it was clear to me by late November of 2002 that it wasn't going to matter who did what, who said what.... we were going to war with Iraq - one doesn't start making major logistic changes in the US Army and not let the 'play' with their toys after having moved them around the way they were in '02 and '03.

    •  While Clinton was still Prez, toward the end of (6+ / 0-)

      his second term, during the 2000 campaign, I recall a Republican, but don't recall which, mentioning interest in Iraq on a Sunday talkie. It was in passing, during a long-winded discussion of another point.

      I wish I could remember exactly what was said, because it sat me right up. I REALLY wanted Gore to win from that point onward much more so. I was not at all surprised when Iraq was called out, piggy-backed, immediately after the 9/11 attacks. They had their eyes on Iraq before they were in the White House.

      Benghazi ain't nuttin'. What BushCo did was really something. Something dark, wicked and covert.

      I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

      by Gentle Giant on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 02:05:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  PNAC was already calling for "regime change" in (5+ / 0-)

        Iraq in 1997.  It was their first step towards the eventual invasion and Americanization of the entire Middle East.

        Sadly, if you look at PNAC's papers from 1997-2003, you will find that every step they outlined then have all been pursued and continued by both the Dubya Administration and the Obama Administration.

        PNAC's agenda is now bipartisan.

        •  And it follows a precise continuation (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Nelson, apimomfan2

          ...into the present moment. The embeds are deep.

          Denial is a drug.

          by Pluto on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 04:58:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  one example of that is in the Pacific (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pluto, Ender

            One of PNAC's "recommendations" back in 1996 was that the US Navy transfer a large portion of its assets to the western Pacific, especially in the area near the Malacca Straits. PNAC noted correctly that China gets most of its oil from the Middle east (the US, as an aside, gets virtually none), and ALL of that oil has to pass through the very narrow choking point of the Malacca Straits to reach China. And that gives the US an opportunity to place a strategic boot on China's throat. By building up an overwhelming military presence in that area, we maintain the option of shutting off the flow of oil to China, nearly completely, any time we want.

            And beginning with the Dubya Adminstration and continuing into the Obama Administration, we have done exactly that. (And conveniently enough, both administrations were able to use the fig leaf of "fighting Islamic terrorists in Indonesia" to do it.)

            Of course, China took notice of that, and took steps to counter it.  Directly as a result of the American move into the Malaccan Straits area, China began working to produce new anti-ship missiles and also developed and deployed its own aircraft carrier. Both of those new weapon systems are intended to keep the Straits open in the event of an American naval blockade.

  •  Thanks for putting all this on the record (12+ / 0-)

    Of course everyone in the Bush administration lied through their teeth through all of this, just like they did concerning their response to Katrina (officially they didn't do anything wrong there either). What I DON'T get is why this administration has in essence pardoned all of them, unless it's a defensive move considering all the lying and misrepresentation the Bush people and McCain/Graham have been doing all along.

    Benghazi is simply a false equivalence. Pure and simple.

    -7.75, -8.10; . . . Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall (h/t cooper888)

    by Dave in Northridge on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 01:39:04 PM PST

  •  even if Saddam had WMD (9+ / 0-)

    how was he supposed to deliver them when 2/3 of his country was a no-fly zone and the rest was under heavy surveillance?

    •  True. That argument often gets lost. The key point (8+ / 0-)

      is that Saddam was no longer a serious threat, even if he did have a tiny stockpile somewhere. I would not have been surprised to find a little bit of mustard gas, or something he still had from the first gulf war. But, his capacity was so diminished, it was practically meaningless. I kept waiting for the Bushies to find one tiny bottle of something and say: "Ah ha! We are vindicated!!!" But, they would not have been vindicated even with a bunker full of weapons, because that by itself is meaningless. Of course, they didn't even manage to find a bottle of anything, much less a bunker. So, their incompetence was even greater than anyone initially imagined.

      Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

      by tekno2600 on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 01:47:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The curious incident of the dog in the nighttime (4+ / 0-)

        I still wonder why they didn't plant anything.

        Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

        by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 02:02:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  those of us who knew about chemical weapons (10+ / 0-)

        (I did a few magazine articles for "The Nation" on them way back when) already knew that Saddam had none, and also knew why he COULDN'T have had any.

        Iraq's nerve gas was being made in a modified pesticide plant that they bought from France and Germany. Because of the crude process they were using, they got lots of impurities, and those impurities led to the chemical breakdown of the nerve gas within just a few months. They were never able to solve that problem. During the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqis were not even able to stockpile their chemical weapons--they had to ship them directly from the factory to the front so they could be used quickly before they broke down into nontoxic components.

        So once all of Saddam's chemical weapon factories were destroyed during the First Gulf War, and he no longer had the ability to make any new nerve gas, everyone who was familiar with chemical weapons already knew then that Saddam's entire chemical arsenal, no matter how much of it he might have squirreled away somewhere, would be totally and completely gone in just a couple months--it would quite literally melt away into harmless goo, and there wasn't a damn thing anyone could do to stop it. By the time of the leadup to the Second Gulf War, any chemical weapons Saddam may have had in the past had already vanished into thin air.  It wasn't being hidden anywhere; it wasn't shipped to Syria; it was gone.  Poof. Years ago.

        And the US military--which was providing Saddam with the satellite data necessary to plan his chemical attacks on the Iranians---must have known that too.

        •  Does the purity matter? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Iraq was using it as they produced it during Iran/Iraq. They didn't need to store it. If you get slimed with 95% or 50% purity VX you're dead, not half dead or quite nearly dead, you're dead. The amount of nerve agent landing on you is more than enough to kill you.

          If you want to store it you have to invest in the process and storage like we did in the US. That being said, I wouldn't volunteer to bathe in the products of a 20 year old Iraqi round. Let's say you start with one liter of VX, getting that down to one microliter means that you have to be absolutely certain that 99.9999% of the original agent is gone. Is it still effective as a weapon, no. Would I want to get that on me, no.

          •  not to the people it was dropped on, no (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cheminMD, tekno2600, wilderness voice

            The lethality of it wasn't the problem.  The problem was that the impurities couldn't be removed, and interacted with the VX to break it down over time.  That meant that within a few months any VX that Saddam produced was reduced to harmless sludge. And that process was irreversible.

            Iraq was using it as they produced it because they HAD to.  If they didn't, it would be worthless in a short while. It was a situation of "use it or lose it".

            The US never had any of those problems because we weren't making our VX in a modified pesticide factory.  We produced pure stuff that could be stored for decades without breaking down. (And that was long before we developed binary versions of VX and GB.) Iraq could not do that.

            •  Be careful with the few months (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tekno2600, wilderness voice

              You're right, once you've got enough EMPA and water present, the reaction is underway. Most of the kinetics work done on VX only follows the reaction for a 3 to 7 half-lives. This only gets you to the low percent remaining range. If you want to take that to "harmless sludge", you would have to get down to the no-effects levels (1 microgram = 1 nanoliter) for VX. That's over 9-nines purity from a 1 liter round.

              Assuming a 20 day half-life, that could take a couple of years if the kinetics stays linear. I wouldn't bet my life on VX kinetics being linear. This was considered briefly back in the 1990's as a possible chem demil approach, add water, some EMPA to overwhelm the stabilizer and kick start it then let it go. That was not chosen as an practical demil solution.

              I agree that from a WMD standpoint those rounds are worthless. If you were the EOD tech that got the call on that round you'd be singing a different tune.

              As far as Iraq using crappy yields as they produced it because they had to, or not improving the process because they didn't have to, either one works. There's a Rumsfeld quote that actually applies there (you go to war the the agent you have...). Take binary GB for example, you don't mix it until immediately before use. Binary for GB is nice and stable (if you store it dry) until you mix it. Once mixed, there's the matter of the HF formed from the DF/IPA reaction. Don't want that sitting for 10-20 years inside a steel or aluminum round. Don't want that on your skin either.

              •  I'm not privy to the classified info on exactly (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cheminMD, tekno2600, wilderness voice

                how long the Iraqi stuff lasted.  I do know it was a matter of months, not of years. It was pretty crappy stuff.

                The Iraqis did develop their own version of binary VX, which was even crappier. I don't think they ever even produced any of it at large scale.

                The US binary GB (used in artillery shells) was apparently pretty stable (and of course it didn't mix until it was already in the air on the way to the target).

                The binary VX used in the Bigeye bomb, though, apparently caused lots of trouble, and would often produce pressures high enough to rip open the bomb. I don't think they ever solved those problems before the whole thing got cancelled.

    •  AND (7+ / 0-)

      what was the goddamned hurry when the United Nations investigation was no where near completion? Many of us forget there was a competent investigation already on the ground in Iraq that Bushies called back before it really got started.
      If they ever really cared if their were WsMD, they would have let the investigation run its course. They couldn't risk having the disinformation they were preparing to foist on the world debunked before it could be delivered.


      Gosh, why isn't Rush ashamed of any of that?!?

      I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

      by Gentle Giant on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 02:11:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes. Someone should be accountable for Benghazi. (12+ / 0-)

    Start with the Republicans who cut funding for embassy security.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 01:39:44 PM PST

  •  F You McCain (8+ / 0-)

    Everyone cares that 4 Americans died. The fact of the matter is that they were going to die whether or not the mob was spontaneous, organized, or terrorists led by the risen zombie corpse of bin laden himself.

    If anything, perhaps additional funding for embassy security might have prevented their deaths. You know, McAsshole, the funding YOUR party refused to provide from Congress.

  •  Gee, I hate to miss any opportunity to (9+ / 0-)

    ...mention the war criminal, Colin Powell. The criminal conspiracy of Iraq never seems complete without him.

    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 01:47:37 PM PST

  •  Hillary was a part of it too (7+ / 0-)

    She was trying to show how much of a hawk she was.

    •  Had to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, Ishmaelbychoice

      She wanted to run for President, and it's not enough to be a smart, competent, experienced woman.  Women have to prove that they're capable of being just as vicious, just as evil as any man to be taken seriously as national leaders by Americans.  Men, oddly, don't have to prove their sadistic bona fides, though most of them are happy to do so anyway.

      "And the President of the United States - would be seated right here. I would be here. And he would be here. I would turn - and there he’d be. I could pet ‘im." - Lewis Black

      by libdevil on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 02:56:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bulletproof. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eps62, apimomfan2
    So much for Rumsfeld's 2002 claim that the case for such links was "bulletproof."
    It depends on what your definition of "is" is, or in this case "was".

    As the connections were fabricated from lies and therefore did not exist, they were bulletproof in the sense that bullets can't hit what doesn't exist.

    Yes, I know, that was not the implied meaning of bulletproof, but contextual meaning was never an issue with that administration, nor for its party. So it could be said, technically, that Rumsfeld was speaking accurately.

    For, what good is Truth to a politician if it can not be molded to his/her benefit?

    I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

    by Gentle Giant on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 01:58:16 PM PST

  •  btw . . . . . (7+ / 0-)
    That U.S. catastrophe cost over 4,400 American lives, wounded over 30,000 and led to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. Ten years and over $1 trillion later, no one was held accountable.
    That was us.  Our side did that.  Our side had the opportunity to investigate whoever they wanted and hold whoever they wanted accountable--not just for the war, but for a whole big long string of illegal actions for the past 8 years.

    Our side chose not to do that.  Our side decided to hold nobody accountable.  "Looking forward", and all that . . . .

  •  Don't call it dumb, don't call it hubris... (8+ / 0-)

    It wasn't a TRAGEDY, it was a CRIME!
    One example.  When the military is tasked to 'conquer' another country, they have a book of detailed plans for the aftermath:  how to keep the civil peace, how to protect vital infrastructure, how to set up a banking system to pay all of the thousands who will be employed by the new American interrim government, and an accounting system for every aspect of this.  Under whose order were these plans scrapped?  That person allowed the civil disorder which gave breathing room to the Sadam forces to recover. That person allowed the civil disorder to degenerate into civil war between the religious factions.  This is just ONE coverup that is still covered up.  Compared to this, Benghazi is nothing.  

    •  Ideology (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein, Pluto, Eric Nelson, Ender

      They wanted to hand it over to privatized profiteers as fast as they could.  Everything you list is big government (necessary big government, if you're going to be in the business of committing the crime of aggressive war, but big government nonetheless).  They preferred to hand it over to ideologically pure interns and other unqualified hacks.  Basically the Michael Brown FEMA disaster, but inflicted on a country we'd just blown to bits, so doubly despicable.

      "And the President of the United States - would be seated right here. I would be here. And he would be here. I would turn - and there he’d be. I could pet ‘im." - Lewis Black

      by libdevil on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 02:59:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe that would be L Paul Bremer (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, Eric Nelson

      whom President Bush appointed U.S. Presidential Envoy and Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

      He had plenipotentiary power over the entire nation, following the invasion of Iraq.

      Wiki has a detailed write-up, which you can read here.

      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

      by Angie in WA State on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:02:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Correction (8+ / 0-)

    That U.S. catastrophe cost over 4,400 American lives, wounded over 30,000 and led to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians of an extimated 110,000 (Fed CYA team) to over 600,000 (Lancet Medical Journal).

    Some other US war crimes:

    Iraqis Displaced Inside Iraq, by Iraq War, as of May 2007 - 2,255,000

    Iraqi Refugees in Syria & Jordan - 2.1 million to 2.25 million

    Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 28% in June 2007

    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 02:08:04 PM PST

  •  Tip'd, Rec'd and Tweeted - and my favorite (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, Eric Nelson

    diary of any year.

    "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

    by Angie in WA State on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 02:09:43 PM PST

  •  Feigned outrage (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gentle Giant, Johnny Wendell

    As usual, more conservatives feigning outrage at something based on their perspective.  Typically conservative principles on any subject are derived from how  it may affect them or their ilk in the moment, not based on any true higher standards.

  •  Apples and Oranges (0+ / 0-)

    Call me crazy but this article is utter non-sense. The iraq war, as tragic as it was/is cannot be compared to what happened in Benghazi. It would be refreshing to see some transparency on what really happened, who the decision makers were and why they made those decisions. I imagine it was like watching a slow train crash. As each moment passed, it became clearer what was really happening then it became too late to do anything. Give us some honesty not obfuscation. This goes for ALL politicians. There is no honor anymore.

    •  Apples and Oranges for sure (2+ / 0-)

      I own every volume of Mickolus's chronologies of terrorism.  Benghazi is like many of the situations there:  fast-moving craziness that occurred in real time with real time responses. Why this incident deserves study while almost none of them got to the level of anyone's attention at all is a political question that isn't hard to answer.

      Iraq was not just a war of choice, but was an answer in search of a question.  The Bush Administration considered 9/11 an opportunity to remove Saddam Hussein by the afternoon of 9/11.  I haven't seen the Obama Administration using Benghazi as an opportunity to invade Syria or the like.  This is only an issue because no one has the guts to tell John McCain to shut his pie hole.

    •  Here's what I'd like to know (0+ / 0-)

      And based on your question, perhaps you have an answer: What decisions could have been made that might have made for a better outcome, and without too much risk of making for a worse outcome?

      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

      by Nowhere Man on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 05:13:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Almost any... (0+ / 0-)

        Buzz them with some jets. Show the appearance that reinforcements are on the way.

        •  Uhhh... (0+ / 0-)

          Perhaps you've heard of Iraq? Tripoli? Syria? It takes a lot more than buzzing a city with jets to break up a mob -- let alone a quasi-organized band of bona fide terrorists.

          Seriously, if this is all you've got, then you've got nothing.

          Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

          by Nowhere Man on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 08:39:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  And by the way (0+ / 0-)

          As the person who wrote this...

          It too is funny how nutty ultra-progressives believe that an omniscient federal government can be the arbiter of what is in the best interest of the individual.
          I'd like to ask: When did you start believing that the federal government really is omniscient? 'Cause apparently it was sometime between Feb. 2 and today.

          Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

          by Nowhere Man on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 08:48:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The Senate Benghazi kabuki is easy to (5+ / 0-)

    ...understand when you realize that there WAS no US Consulate in Benghazi -- and both sides know that and neither side can say it publicly.

    None of the official U.S. government websites refers to an actual U.S. “consulate” in Benghazi. Consulates are Foreign Service posts that issue visas and passports, provide other American citizen services such as diplomatic representation.

    There was no such facility in Benghazi.

    Chris Stevens was in for the day to meet with a Turkish official on matters widely believed/rumored to be the transfer of weapons from Libya to Syria. Neither side can talk about that, but they all know what he was doing there.

    There was no protest outside the CIA compound "mission" where Stevens died when it came under attack from mortar fire.

    McCain and Graham knew the admin could not defend itself with facts, hence the Senate hearing kabuki to titillate the wingnut base.

    IMHO, of course. YMMV.

    BTW:  Only one word was changed in the CIA talking points Rice was using -- the world "mission" was changed to "consulate."

    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 02:26:54 PM PST

  •  And because of Condoleeza's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, apimomfan2

    "smoking gun" bullshit I tune all the rest of it completely out. Benghgazi, China hacks, Afghanistan politics-all bullshit to me. My government operate on a totally different plane and agenda than I. And frankly, no, I don't give a shit about 4 alleged dead Americans in Benghazi because as far as I'm concerned it never happened.


    The child of an NRA gun nut slaughtered the children.

    by plok on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 02:48:26 PM PST

  •  John McCain is a Douchebag (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, Eric Nelson
    "Do you care whether four Americans died?...Shouldn't people be held accountable for the fact that four Americans died?"
    Yes, John.  Those people are called Libyan terrorists.  

    You know.

    The country whose former dictator, Quadaffi, you cozied up to a few years ago?

  •  The Bush regime created it's own Intel Agency (6+ / 0-)

    One thing that's not often mentioned is that because Cheney & Co didn't like the intel coming out of the CIA and other intel agencies, it created it's own named the Office of Special Plans to cherry-pick information that it wanted.  Most of the nefarious information and illegal actions came directly out of that office.  

    The Office of Special Plans was like the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld version of the Gestapo.  Any investigations should start there.

  •  What About Those Pallets (5+ / 0-)

    of shrink wrapped hundred dollar bills delivered to Baghdad?  Where did the cash go, Senators?  

    There's a cover up for you.


  •  Voting for Rice (0+ / 0-)

    Biden and Clinton and Obama should have and could have objected - except there was a pretty good chance that Bush would pick someone worse if they rejected her.

    by chloris creator on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:06:04 PM PST

  •  Very true. Right-wing in America never makes... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...mistakes. According to their psychopathic view of the world.
    The Benghazi crap is deliberately blown out of proportion in an effort by the GOP to make Democrats and Hillary look bad. The NeoCons and the Bush Cabal are the worst people to come into existence on this Earth. May we be spared from all of their insanity that looks to have infected them all by the looks of McCain and his hillbilly buddies.
    It is not working. Americans are FED UP, to use Rick Perry's own words, and likely more progressive candidates will be elected in the coming election cycles.

  •  When David Gregory (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    sits in the United States Senate, and is charged with the responsibility of advising and concenting to the President's picks for cabinet posts, then and only then it might be appropriate to ask him:

    "Do you care whether four Americans died?...Shouldn't people be held accountable for the fact that four Americans died?"
    Until then Senator McCain is the person who should be answering, not asking, the questions.  Senator McCain is the accountable party here, not David Gregory.

    It seems pretty obvious, though, that John McCain does not care.

    "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

    by Orinoco on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 04:46:51 PM PST

  •  And not a one sits in a prison cell today (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, Eric Nelson

    for doing what many Nazi and Imperial Japanese leaders were hanged by the United States for doing.

    What unregulated markets really do: Make you justify your existence to the rich.

    by Troubadour on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 05:04:09 PM PST

  •  For a little perspective (0+ / 0-)

    In 2002, the Iraqi Air Force had at most 10 flyable aircraft on any given day due to parts shortages.

    On a typical day they might have launched 3 training sorties.

    If they were really feeling frisky they would send 1 (count 'em) MiG-25 up towards the No-Fly zone just to see if we were paying attention.

    And yet I was to believe that this country was a threat to not only their neighbors but the entire world?

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 05:19:28 PM PST

  •  Bush & Co. conned themselves by scant evidence, (0+ / 0-)

    ... then conned Congress and the public and the international community by insisting they had enough, then kept on even as no more new or fresh evidence was forthcoming ... and for the years since then, they cannot express repentance because of the enormity of their self-inflicted disaster!


    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 05:29:32 PM PST

  •  In Canada (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    many were surprised that Bush didn't prove the Iraqi WMD claim by showing copies of invoices to Saddam from the US military.

  •  Lincoln and the 14th Amendment (0+ / 0-)

    OK, so many Hollywood has embellished the truth. but isn't it obvious in the movie Lincoln, that Honest Abe deliberately mislead congress on the South's intentions for peace in order to get the 14th Amendment passed.

    I'm not a historian, but it rings true.

    If so, Lincoln did the country an immense favor both for the people of his time and for all time to come. You could even argue that by delaying the end of the war, many many Americans died needlessly. But without it, it is unlikely we would have gotten the 14th Amendment, hallmark of the equality promised in the Declaration of Independence.

    But Benghazi?


    The GOP has been rabid waiting for some misstep by Obama to use to try to bring him down.

    2014 is going to be an uphill fight. But we must do everything we can to decimate the GOP as much as possible so they can do as little harm as possible.

    Besides, there's the sequester coming up, and all they can talk about is Benghazi?

    I understand Obama is transforming OFA to be a public advocacy organization. We must do everything possible to help.

    What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

    by equern on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 05:31:01 PM PST

  •  RW radio ignore-ance critical for iraq & benghazi (0+ / 0-)

    they couldn't have done/used either without 1000 coordinated radio stations and all that nationwide repetition to 50 mil a week being ignored by the left. yes, ignored.

    those iraq protests i and millions of other went to should have included the local RW radio stations where blowhard chickenhawks used giant megaphones with our university team logos all over them to spread and 'popularize' those lies.

    the benghazi event was another perfect eg of RW radio being used successfully to distort, swiftboat, and create a constituency to enable sycophant twits in the GOP to obstruct and delay.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 05:33:46 PM PST

  •  This was an easy call at the time... (0+ / 0-)

    (And I only have a rudimentary knowledge of the Middle East).

    Saddam had nothing to do with AQ.  Why would he want that trouble within his borders?  It's not a coincidence their training bases were relegated to some of the most barren and inhospitable places on earth (yes, worse than the Iraq desert).

    Saddam was many things, but he was not stupid.  He was not allies with AQ, and he needed to act big and bad at all times to keep Iran at bay.  Iran's not so easy to deal with, are they?  They are a dangerous and royal pain in the ass, and we are finding that out for ourselves, and we are now fucking stuck with them.

    How could anyone with a modicum of intelligence, NOT predict the rise of Iran in the aftermath of Saddam's defeat?

    We defeated the enemy of our true enemies, in an epic pathetic blunderous move of idiocy and deceit:  criminal in its ignorance, if nothing more.

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH 1, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:16:47 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site