Oh, what a tangled web they weave... For the record:
Halliburton - Barely two weeks ago right-wing pundits were abuzz with condemnation of the "liberal press" for jumping onto the bandwagon of the "so-called Halliburton scandal", after the Pentagon stated that: "they expected soon to receive documents from the Army that Halliburton paid fair prices for fuel brought into Iraq, squashing price-gouging allegations against Vice President Dick Cheney's former company."
Today, things are different: "Halliburton employees have been accused of taking up to $6 million in kickbacks from a Kuwaiti subcontractor that was supplying U.S. soldiers in Iraq... (snip) A Halliburton spokeswoman said the company fired the employees involved and reported the problem to the Pentagon."
Right-wing spinmeisters please take note: "kickbacks" = illegal activity. "fired" = Halliburton believes they did something wrong. Get it? The admission is called "voluntary disclosure" and what it admits most likely constitutes fraud. And, it is just one of three possible crimes allegedly committed by Halliburton (or it's subsidary Kellogg, Root and Brown), the second is still under investigation, involving overcharging for gas to Iraqi civilians. And, as if that were not enough, France has initiated proceedings against Halliburton for alleged bribery in Nigeria, and Dick Cheney may face indictment in the case.
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq - On October 7, 2002, President Bush said: "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
On March 30, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld said: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (View the big list of lies.)
In the January 21, 2004 State of the Union speech, President Bush made the following statement:"Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations."
Yet, on January 23, 2004, David Kay himself stated: "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and those were a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them. I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production, and that's what we're really talking about, is large stockpiles, not the small. Large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the period after '95." Additinally Kay said, regarding the Iraqi nuclear program: "The nuclear program was as we said in the interim report, I think that will be a final conclusion. There had been some restart of activities, but they were rudimentary.... It really wasn't dormant because there were a few little things going on, but it had not resumed in anything meaningful."
In case that isn't clear enough, it was clarified: "Q: You came away from the hunt that you have done believing that they did not have any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the country? A: "That is correct." Could it be any more clear than this? David Kay: "I don't think they existed."
And, for the record, let's not forget the fact that the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace "...accused the Bush administration of 'systematically misrepresenting' the threat posed by 'Iraq's weapons of mass destruction' in a comprehensive report on post-war findings. " (Source)
The Bush White House will continue to spin the reality of no weapons of mass destruction into something different, something ambiguous, such as "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment" all in a misguided, manipulative and deceptive attempt to hide the truth, to obfuscate and to misdirect.
The truth is, as Bush stated in his 2003 State of the Union speech, the threat from Iraq was not imminent at all:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.
The truth is, this is about pre-emptive strikes. The problem for the Bush White House is, even if they wish to invoke the right of the US to "strike first" at Iraq in order to protect US security, if the WMD's are not in Iraq, then, there is no threat. At least, not a threat that isn't equaled by about two dozen other nations in the world, and greatly surpassed by several others, including Russia and China for starters.
The truth is, the Bush White House assertion for engaging in a "first strike" against Iraq requires that some type of threat be determined, not imagined, and not "possible" ten years down the line. The use of "first strike" means the US homeland is in danger. Thus, one would expect to find WMD's in copious numbers or in the least an affective program. Because, ultimately, the use of first strike should be held to a much higher standard than "activities" and "equipment", even if the President doesn't seem to think so (even though we all know he simply isn't told so). And, Dick Cheney can say they are "still looking" which they are, no doubt. He can say "we will find them", which it is clear he (publically) believes, but it still doesn't change the fact that a large number of the search teams are no longer on the scene, nor does it change the fact that the Bush White House appointed David Kay, who, by all accounts a year ago, was a believer like Cheney, but, now beleives there are no WMD's in Iraq. The Bush White House can attempt (via GOP doggy Pat Roberts) to say the Iraq WMD's were shipped to Syria. They can attempt to use that as a pretext to wage war on Syria. But then, that raises an interesting question: If the WMD's are in Iraq as everyone in the Bush White House continues to insist and they knew the WMD's were in Iraq a year ago, but, in actuality the WMD's weren't in Iraq, they were shipped to Syria, were they wrong about WMD's in Iraq? Did we invade when we didn't have to? And, most importantly, if they were wrong/ misinformed/ read the intel wrong etc on WMD's in Iraq, then why should anyone beleive them when they now say the WMD's are in Syria?
What is becoming abundantly clear is: the United Nations sanctions were working. The cause for war was overblown. But, the need for Iraq's oil was not...
Loss of Liberties in the USA due to the Patriot Act: When faced with the ever increasing discomfort many Americans feel regarding the Patriot Act, many right-wing pundits love to respond with: "Name one instance or example of violation of civil rights due to the Patriot Act." So, here are two examples:
Canadian Maher Arar was labeled a terrorist by the US DOJ and shipped off to Syria where he was summarily tortured. Since the White House is apparently considering military actions against Syria, this tact is interesting to say the least. Why send a suspected terrorist to your enemy? The Maher Arar case is unfolding. But, it appears that the practice of sending suspects to nations which practice torture is somewhat common. From the Globe and Mail:
Alan Dershowitz, a prominent Harvard lawyer, believes that the habit of farming out torture is widespread and comes to light only if a suspect reappears in North America. "The United States can maintain deniability, but it sends this guy off to Jordan and Syria, knowing that those are two of the countries that excel in torture," he said after Mr. Arar came back to Canada. "That way we have clean hands and get the benefit of the information; or, if not, at least the guy is taken care of. "What happened with this guy is he came back, and he's appropriately complaining."
Luigi Garafano. Arrested, imprisoned and threatened with deportation and labeled a "terrorist" due to a 1985 drug conviction.
For the record...