Bush-Era Iraq War Architects Emerge To Demand ‘Credit’ For Iraq War ‘Success’
Bush-Era Iraq War Architects Emerge To Demand ‘Credit’ For Iraq War ‘Success’
In April 2006, ThinkProgress produced a report titled “The Architects of War: Where Are They Now?” We wrote at the time, “a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded — not blamed — for their incompetence.” Referencing our report in July 2007, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, “To read that summary is to be awed by the comprehensiveness and generosity of the neocon welfare system.”
Flash forward to today, and the answer to our original question of the Iraq war architects — “where are they now?” — can be answered quite simply: They’re on your TV screens, in your radio, and in your newspapers — shamelessly demanding credit for the work they’ve done.
For example, consider former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith. According to the Pentagon Inspector General’s office, Feith delivered a briefing to the White House in 2002 that “undercut the Intelligence Community” and “did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.” What is he doing now? In an interview with NPR yesterday, he blasted Obama for not properly crediting the “success” of Iraq:
He didn’t say America is more secure. And that’s the kind of statement that could help explain to the American people why we need to persevere and do all the things that he’s pledging to do in the future. … And then he also, in January of 2007, just when the surge was getting underway, proposed legislation that would have ended the war in March of 2008. And had that legislation succeeded, it would have prevented the success that he celebrated in his speech tonight.
Another example: former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, who took blame for allowing President Bush to make the false claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa to build a nuclear weapon. What is he doing now? In an interview with the New York Times, Hadley demanded Bush be given “credit” for Iraq:
“I thought I owed it to the former president that somewhere out there somebody gives him some credit and points out that he’s the one actually that started withdrawing U.S. troops and he’s the one that set up the framework for both a long term relationship with Iraq and a December, 30 2011 end date,” Mr. Hadley said in an interview.
And there’s also former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who conceded the case for invading Iraq was determined based on what could be easily sold to the public. “For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,” he said. In an op-ed in the New York Times this Monday, Wolfowitz was more magnanimous about sharing “credit” with U.S. soldiers, Iraqi forces, and the Iraqi people. Wolfowitz, who incorrectly predicted Iraq’s reconstruction would be paid for with Iraq’s oil, urged Obama to maintain “a long-term commitment, albeit at greatly reduced cost and risk.”
And on your TV sets, you’ll frequently see Ari Fleischer — the prominent pre-war mouthpiece who said Iraq would “shoulder much of the burden” for reconstruction, who said the Iraqis would “rejoice,” and who claimed that there was no chance “of losing the peace.” On both CNN and MSNBC over the last 24 hours, Fleischer has bemoaned that Bush isn’t being given enough credit for ending the war in Iraq. Watch it:
- Comments
- 153
Kristol: Obama ‘Should Signal’ That ‘He’s Open’ To Keeping U.S. Troops In Iraq Indefinitely
Kristol: Obama ‘Should Signal’ That ‘He’s Open’ To Keeping U.S. Troops In Iraq Indefinitely
On Saturday, President Obama formally announced the end of the combat mission in Iraq. “On Tuesday, after more than seven years, the United States of America will end its combat mission in Iraq and take an important step forward in responsibly ending the Iraq war,” Obama said. “But the bottom line is this,” he added, “The war is ending. … And by the end of next year, all of our troops will be home.”
In 2008, President Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqis to pull out all U.S. troops by 2012. Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Iraq war cheerleader Bill Kristol said that he wants Obama to announce that the U.S. will stay after 2011, with a permanent occupation force:
CHRIS WALLACE: Where does Iraq stand?
KRISTOL: Well, a lot depends on what we do in Iraq, as it depended on what we did in 1953 in Korea. Eisenhower said, “I’ll get — we’ll get out of Korea. We’ll end the war.” He did. Republicans were bitterly critical of Truman’s conduct in the war in Korea.
He didn’t then pull all our troops out and wash his hands of it and say, “Well, this is up to the Koreans to resolve their future.” He left enough troops there. … If you talk privately to Bush people and to Obama people, they said that could be renegotiated. If the Iraqi government wants to renegotiate that over the next year once they get their government set up in the next month, the President, I think, should signal that he would be open to that.
Kristol then went back to his old refrain. “We won the war,” he said. But just seconds later, he attacked Obama for allegedly saying the same thing. “And this rhetoric of ‘the war is over, it’s now up to the Iraqis’ is a mistake. … It’s irresponsible,” Kristol said. Watch it:
While Obama never said “the war is over,” he did say this weekend that “all” U.S. troops will withdraw from Iraq by 2012. And Gen. Ray Odierno — the commanding general in Iraq — did suggest that a small U.S. military presence “could” be possible, but nothing that amounts to what Kristol wants. “If the government of Iraq requests some technical assistance in fielding systems that allow them to continue to protect themselves, some external threats, we could be here,” he said.
But as Kristol once said before, only “sober, serious” people want tens of thousands of U.S. troops to stay in Iraq, even if it means putting more and more strain on the military, servicemembers and their families, and on the mission in Afghanistan. So even though “we won the war,” as Kristol says, the U.S. needs a large troop presence there indefinitely.
Department of Defense can’t account for 96 percent of money administered in Iraq reconstruction fund.
Department of Defense can’t account for 96 percent of money administered in Iraq reconstruction fund.
Yesterday, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) released its findings on how the money was spent from a special Iraq reconstruction fund set up by the Department of Defense (DOD) between 2003-2007. The account used Iraqi oil money to fund the reconstruction of Iraq. SIGIR concluded that 96 percent of the $9.1 billion the reconstruction program cannot be accounted for by the DOD:
A US federal watchdog has criticised the US military for failing to account properly for billions of dollars it received to help rebuild Iraq. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction says the US Department of Defence is unable to account properly for 96% of the money. Out of just over $9bn (£5.8bn), $8.7bn is unaccounted for, the inspector says. [...]
The funds in question were administered by the US Department of Defence between 2004 and 2007, and were earmarked for reconstruction projects. But, the report says, a lack of proper accounting makes it impossible to say exactly what happened to most of the money.
SIGIR also notes that the “U.S. military continues to hold at least $34.3 million of the fund, even though it was required to return it to the Iraqi government in December 2007.” The “Department of Defense comptroller promised to report back to the inspector general’s office by November on progress made.”
McCain On The Iraq War: ‘We Already Won That One’
McCain On The Iraq War: ‘We Already Won That One’
Earlier this month, law professor Marjorie Cohn and Iraq Veterans Against the War board chairman Geoff Millard attended a reception to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the normalization of relations between the U.S. and Vietnam and spoke with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). When Millard introduced himself to the Arizona senator, Cohn reports that McCain dismissed the relevance of Millard’s organization:
When Geoff introduced himself as chairman of the board of Iraq Veterans against the War, McCain retorted, “You’re too late. We already won that one.”
McCain is now the second U.S. official to declare “mission accomplished” in a war that continues to ravage the people and land of Iraq.
From the run-up to the war through to his 2008 presidential campaign and up to now, McCain has regularly displayed a lack of understanding and shear incompetence about the war he fought so hard to start and continues to defend. Despite the misgivings of his “hero” Gen. David Petraeus, McCain has been quick to declare “victory” in Iraq or say the U.S is “succeeding” or “winning” the war. Just last March, McCain claimed there had not been “a single” American casualty in Iraq in the three months prior despite the fact that 12 U.S. servicemembers had died there and and least 93 wounded.
And in case McCain hasn’t checked, there’s still a war going on in Iraq. Last month, 216 Iraqi civilians died in attacks across the country. And just weeks prior to McCain’s most recent statement, two Americans were killed in an IED attack in Diyala, Iraq and just six days after his comment, 1st Lt. Michael Runyan was killed by an IED. One wonders whether the families of these U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians would consider the war there to be over.
But regardless of the level of violence in Iraq and even long after every last American servicemember withdraws, declaring the debacle that is President Bush’s war in Iraq can never be considered a “victory.” Juan Cole noted last month:
[I]t would be a huge mistake to see Iraq either as a success story or as stable. It is the scene of an ongoing civil war between Sunnis and Shiites that is killing roughly 300 civilians a month. It can’t form a government months after the March 7 elections. … The political vacuum has proved an opening for Sunni Arab insurgents, who have mounted effective bombing campaigns and more recently are targeting the banks.
“Let’s understand,” the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss has written, “there is no plausible scenario in which the decision to invade Iraq can or will ever be vindicated. In the best case, we will have simply averted disaster.”
New study claims increases in infant mortality and cancer in Fallujah greater than in Hiroshima.
New study claims increases in infant mortality and cancer in Fallujah greater than in Hiroshima.
A new study in the International Journal of Environmental Studies and Public Health conducted by British researchers has found a startling increase in the number of infant mortality and cancer cases in the Iraqi city of Fallujah since the 2004 U.S.-led bombardment of the area. The Independent reports that the cases “exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki”:
Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study. [...]
Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that “to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened.”
Among the researchers’ findings was a “a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia.”
Dan Senor Says It’s ‘Legitimate’ To Argue That The Iraq War Has Not Made The U.S. Safer
Dan Senor Says It’s ‘Legitimate’ To Argue That The Iraq War Has Not Made The U.S. Safer
Prominent conservatives and Republicans in Congress have been attacking RNC chair Michael Steele and calling for his ouster after Steele’s recent comments that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won. Today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, conservative Pat Buchanan complained about the right’s reaction. “What bothers me is the effort here I think to force a position on the Republican Party before they’ve gone through their primary process,” Buchanan said, and addressed former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor about the foolish right-wing charge to wage war in Iraq:
BUCHANAN: What I’m saying is, don’t start purging a guy because he said something different. [...] You guys were wrong on Iraq and you got us into that. … You had all that intel on WMD and got us into an unnecessary war.
Time’s Mark Halperin came to Senor’s defense, asking, “Why aren’t you asking him if we’re safer with Saddam Hussein gone?” “Yeah, thank you, Mark,” Senor said, then asking Buchanan, “Would we have been safer if Saddam Hussein were in power?” Surprisingly, when Buchanan offered a suggestion as to why the U.S. is perhaps not safer, Senor called his argument “legitimate”:
BUCHANAN: We would be safer if we had those 4,000 guys back alive and the 35,000 wounded weren’t wounded.
SENOR: That is a real discussion and a very legitimate point and we should have it.
Watch it:
Without much evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq, war supporters now claim that the entire adventure — hundreds of billions spent, tens of thousands killed or wounded, and distracted resources from Afghanistan — was worth it just to have Saddam Hussein out of power. Indeed, a report from CAP’s Matt Duss, Peter Juul, and Brian Katulis recently noted the flaw in this argument:
[T]he end of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime represents a considerable global good, and a nascent democratic Iraqi republic allied with the United States could potentially yield benefits in the future.
But when weighing those possible benefits against the costs of the Iraq intervention, there is simply no conceivable calculus by which Operation Iraqi Freedom can be judged to have been a successful or worthwhile policy. The war was intended to show the extent of America’s power. It succeeded only in showing its limits.
It’s nice to see Senor finally recognize that perhaps that the war he fervently supported may not have made the U.S. safer.
Tony Blair awarded the 2010 Liberty Medal.
Tony Blair awarded the 2010 Liberty Medal.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has won the 2010 Liberty Medal, “the prestigious prize awarded annually in Philadelphia to champions of freedom around the world”:
Blair was named shortly after 9 Wednesday morning in ceremonies at the National Constitution Center, across Independence Mall from the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall.
Speakers, including Mayor Nutter, praised Blair for helping end the conflict in Northern Ireland, working for peace in the Middle East, and establishing the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which supports international charity work while opposing religious extremism. [...]
The first Liberty Medal was awarded in 1989 to Lech Walesa, the labor leader who bravely pushed for reforms in Poland.
President Bush also awarded Blair the Medal of Freedom in 2009 for his “efforts to promote democracy,” which in Bush’s book, most likely included supporting the U.S.-led invasion into Iraq in 2003. During his time in office, Britons derided Blair as “Bush’s poodle” for his steadfast support for all U.S. priorities. The Inquirer notes that of the 21 previous recipients of the Liberty Medal, six went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. (HT: Atrios)
Van Susteren: ‘I Would Never Make The Mistake Of Debating Military Policy And Strategy’ With McCain
Van Susteren: ‘I Would Never Make The Mistake Of Debating Military Policy And Strategy’ With McCain
This week on Fox News, host Greta Van Susteren challenged Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) argument that Iraq should serve as a model for how the U.S. should stabilize Afghanistan. “But in Iraq, they at least had some form of government, you know, that was not so remotely dissimilar from our own,” Van Susteren asserted. “Afghanistan is a tribal area, where they have different tribes and different families. It’s a different — can we do that?” But McCain wouldn’t back down, suggesting that Afghanistan might be easier to pacify because violence was worse in Iraq at the height of the war there than it currently is in Afghanistan.
Last night talking with Newt Gingrich, Van Susteren scolded herself for disagreeing with McCain:
VAN SUSTEREN: Senator McCain said that I was wrong. And far be it for me to disagree with military policy and strategy with someone like Senator McCain, so I backed off. But they seem to have very different histories to me. [...]
Well, with Senator McCain’s distinguished military career and history, you know, the other option, too, is that my question was inartfully posed and that I didn’t make myself clear because I — you know, I don’t — I would never make the mistake of debating military policy and strategy with Senator McCain.
Watch it:
Van Susteren shouldn’t be so hard on herself. Although McCain appears to view an Iraq-like “surge” as a solution to every military problem, it is not entirely analogous to the current situation in Afghanistan. Indeed, as one administration official said when the White House was debating its new strategy, “We spent a lot of time discussing the fact that the only thing Iraq and Afghanistan have in common is a lot of sand.” And as the New York Times noted:
The Iraq surge worked in large part because there was powerful support in Anbar Province from the so-called Awakening. [...] But a series of intelligence reports supplied to Mr. Obama since September found no evidence in Afghanistan of anything on the scale of the Iraqi Awakening movement. What’s more, in Afghanistan the extremists, the Taliban, are natives.
Military commanders, experts, and even other conservatives have noted the “considerable” differences between pre-surge Iraq and Afghanistan today. Even Gingrich told Van Susteren last night, “Afghanistan must be probably 20 times more complex than Iraq.” “Using the Iraq strategy, may be one that may not be exactly applicable,” Charles Krauthammer said yesterday.
Given how wrong McCain has been on matters of foreign policy and national security in recent years, Van Susteren should have more faith in her ability to challenge him — and any other other lawmaker — on his views.
Thune Says GOP Now Wants To Make Sure Spending For Iraq And Afghanistan Wars Is Offset
Thune Says GOP Now Wants To Make Sure Spending For Iraq And Afghanistan Wars Is Offset
Since the Republicans lost control of Congress and the White House, they have conveniently decided it’s time to rein in spending after helping President Bush bequeath the current administration with a more than $1 trillion deficit.
Part of that campaign has been to target the once sacrosanct emergency war funding. Republicans made a fuss last year because the war funding bill contained money for the IMF. Last month, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said war funding needs to be paid for. Today on ABC’s Top Line, Sen. John Thune (R-ND) indicated that most Republicans are starting to hold this view:
THUNE: Republicans are increasingly, I think, dug in on the issue of making sure that new spending is offset. … Frankly, I think that there is even a growing consensus among Republicans that we need to start budgeting for this, we need to start figuring out how to pay for it. And I think that’s kind of the majority view among Republicans now.
Watch it:
The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim has noted the obvious hypocrisy here:
The indecision on the vote from Coburn’s colleagues is a stark contrast from the wars’ early years, when President Bush’s war supplementals flew through GOP-controlled Congresses and any opposition was portrayed as unpatriotic. Cries of “Support The Troops!” met any lawmaker who questioned the direction or the purpose of either the Iraq or Afghanistan war.
Indeed, during the spend-with-no-consequence Bush administration days, Thune praised Congress whenever it passed non-offset emergency war funding. “This critical supplemental funding gives our troops and diplomats the important tools they need to spread freedom abroad and strengthen our security at home,” Thune said in 2005. Thune even cheered an emergency supplemental with unrelated funding for drought assistance in 2007.
On Top Line, Thune seemed to recognize the contradiction and justified the previous GOP support for emergency war funding. “Republicans in the past have viewed Iraq and Afghanistan and the war effort as something that truly is an emergency,” he said, adding, “although it’s hard to say now that we don’t know what these costs are gonna be.”
In Oct. 2003, DNI Nominee James Clapper Said It Was ‘Unquestionably’ True That Iraq Moved WMD To Syria
In Oct. 2003, DNI Nominee James Clapper Said It Was ‘Unquestionably’ True That Iraq Moved WMD To Syria
On Saturday, President Obama announced that he will be nominating Defense Department intelligence chief James Clapper to be the new Director of National Intelligence (DNI). If confirmed, Clapper will take over the office held by Obama’s first DNI, Dennis Blair, who was fired last month.
Clapper has held a variety of military positions in his long career, including being an assistant chief of staff for intelligence at the Air Force headquarters in Washington from 1990-1991 and being director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency from 2001-2006. Perhaps his strongest advocate is Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who told reporters that Clapper has “the temperament, experience and chemistry with leaders in the intelligence community to succeed as the nation’s top intelligence officer.” Gates even went as far as to joke that “when the president first asked me about this, I kind of winced with pain because the idea of losing Jim at the Defense Department is a real loss for us.”
However, the Wall Street Journal reports, “the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, which is responsible for confirming him, have both publicly opposed his appointment, favoring a civilian for the role.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who is the top Democrat, has concerns that Clapper may be “beholden to the Pentagon’s interests.” Meanwhile, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has complained that Clapper has been “evasive and slow to respond to questions and letters from members of the committee.”
Liberal critics are pointing out that Clapper, while serving as the head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, helped assist the Bush administration lie that Iraq possessed illegal weapons of mass destruction. Speaking to reporters in October 2003, Clapper suggested that the illicit weapons had “unquestionably” been moved to Syria:
The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material “unquestionably” had been moved out of Iraq. [...]
He said he was providing a personal assessment. But he said “the obvious conclusion one draws” was that there “may have been people leaving the scene, fleeing Iraq, and unquestionably, I am sure, material.” A spokesman for General Clapper’s agency, David Burpee, said he could not provide further evidence to support the general’s statement.
Former Bush adviser Karl Rove cites Clapper’s theory in his book Courage and Consequence to defend claims by the Bush administration that it believed Iraq posed an imminent security threat to the United States.
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reports that the White House had asked Clapper to step down from his current Pentagon role before being nominated to ease concerns about his military background. Clapper refused because he “does not want to be out of a job if his confirmation hearing doesn’t go well.”
Another KBR employee says she was raped while working for the military contractor in Iraq.
Another KBR employee says she was raped while working for the military contractor in Iraq.
In 2007, former Halliburton/KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones revealed that she had been gang-raped by her co-workers while working in Baghdad, and then left by the company in a “shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water.” Jones sued the company and won. KBR has petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling. Since Jones went public, several more female KBR employees have come forward with allegations of rape. ABC News reports today that “another female ex-employee of KBR has come forward to claim that she was raped while working for the military contracting company in Iraq”:
According to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Houston Wednesday, Anna Mayo was working at KBR’s facility in Balad in November 2009 when she was assaulted by an unnamed rapist who worked for KBR. She charges that she was choked unconscious with a rope, beaten and raped. The suit seeks damages from KBR and from KBR subsidiary Service Employees International Inc., the contractor that employed Mayo from 2008 to 2009.
Without releasing the name of the victim, an Army spokesman confirmed that the military has investigated an alleged sexual assault that occurred at the time and place specified in Mayo’s suit.
Mayo’s attorney, Todd Kelly, also represents Jones and says that “up to 20 women have contacted his office alleging sexual harassment or assault while working for the contractor or at KBR installations overseas.” “There does not appear to be any change in how KBR treats these victims or disciplines their employees,” Kelly told ABC. A KBR spokeswoman told ABC that “a thorough investigation is underway” and that KBR “maintains strong and effective sexual harassment prevention and reporting programs.”
Former Argentine president says Bush told him ‘the best way to revitalize the economy is war.’
Former Argentine president says Bush told him ‘the best way to revitalize the economy is war.’
Oliver Stone’s new documentary South of the Border, which interviews several left-wing leaders of Latin American countries, has unearthed a startling new allegation from Argentina’s former president Néstor Kirchner. During his interview with Stone, Kirchner said he once discussed global economic problems with former President George W. Bush. The former Argentine president says that when he suggested a new Marshall Plan, referring to the WW II-era European reconstruction plan, Bush “got angry” and suggested that “the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats.” Instead, Kirchner says, Bush suggested that “the best way to revitalize the economy is war”:
KIRCHNER: I said that a solution for the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he got angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war.
STONE: War, he said that?
KIRCHNER: He said that. Those were his exact words.
STONE: Is he suggesting that South America go to war?
KIRCHNER: Well, he was talking about the United States: ‘The Democrats had been wrong. All of the economic growth of the United States has been encouraged by wars.’ He said it very clearly.
Watch it:
It is worth noting that despite the prosecution of two major wars, there was very minimal net job growth during Bush’s tenure as president. And of course, he bequeathed an economy that suffered massive job losses in his wake.
Grayson introduces ‘War Is Making You Poor Act’ to highlight cost of ongoing wars.
Grayson introduces ‘War Is Making You Poor Act’ to highlight cost of ongoing wars.
Today, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) introduced bipartisan legislation called the “War Is Making You Poor Act,” which aims to call attention to a) how much money is being spent to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and b) how budget gimmicks are used to pay for them. Grayson’s legislation would slash the $159 billion request for supplemental war funding and use that money to deliver a tax break for all Americans. Grayson demands the Pentagon use its currently existing $549 billion defense budget to fight the wars. Speaking on the House floor today, Grayson underscored that the point of his legislation is to highlight the costs of the wars:
GRAYSON: So I believe that the thing we need to do is to take that $159 billion that the President has set aside – we’re not saying he has to stop the war, we’re not giving a cut-off date for the war – we’re simply saying you need to fund that out of the base budget of $549 billion. And we take 90 percent of that and give it back to the American people.
And I think most people would be surprised to learn that that is so much money that we’ve been spending on the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq that every single taxpayer in America will be get his first or her first $35,000 of income completely tax free.
Watch it:
Grayson’s bill, which is currently being co-sponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-NC), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) Barbara Lee (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), would also cut the federal deficit by $15.9 billion. “There is no longer any need to go beyond the exorbitant base defense budget,” Grayson said. “It is not necessary. Enough is enough.”
Is The U.S. Military Covering Up A 2007 Killing Of Reporters And Civilians In Baghdad?
Is The U.S. Military Covering Up A 2007 Killing Of Reporters And Civilians In Baghdad?
In 2007, two Reuters employees — photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh — were killed by a U.S. helicopter strike in Baghdad. The U.S. military’s official response to the killings argued that the attack occurred after security forces came under fire from men accompanying the reporters, and that the rules of engagement were followed in returning fire. Skeptical of the military’s claim, Reuters filed a Freedom of Information Act request for video of the killings, but was unable to get the videos from the military, despite warnings from the Pentagon’s inspector general that future shootings were “likely to reoccur” if the event was not closely examined.
During an event this morning at the National Press Club, whistleblower website Wikileaks unveiled that it has a video, obtained from unnamed military sources, from one of the Apache helicopters involved in the attack. The video, which has now been uploaded to YouTube and placed on a Wikileaks website dedicated to the incident, appears to show that the military’s helicopters attacked the Reuters employees unprovoked, apparently mistaking their cameras and tripods for weapons. The video does not show the victims firing on U.S. military personnel, nor does it show that they were any apparent threat. Watch it (warning — contains violent imagery):
If the video is indeed an accurate portrayal of events, it would appear that the military’s official response to the events is inaccurate and that it has not been telling the truth when it claims that the Apache attack “occurred after security forces came under fire.” Additionally, it would appear that the Apache pilots in question violated the 2007 U.S. Rules of Engagement for Iraq, which permit the use of “deadly force” only against individuals who “pose a threat to Coalition Forces by committing a hostile act or demonstrating hostile intent.”
The Wikileaks’ revelation strengthens the case for a thorough and transparent investigation into the events that led to the killing of the Reuters employees and Iraqi civilians.
McCain falsely claims no American servicemembers have been killed or wounded in Iraq in the past three months.
McCain falsely claims no American servicemembers have been killed or wounded in Iraq in the past three months.
At a town hall meeting on March 13 in Nashua, NH, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) talked about the war in Iraq, celebrating the fact that “there has not been a single American service member killed or wounded in Iraq”:
There’s a lot of other issues that I, we’d like to [inaudible], but I’d just wanted to say again because our veterans are here, that I’m happy to tell you that elections in Iraq went okay. Look, democracy is a hard thing, but it was a contested election and there’s no other country in the Middle East besides Israel where there’s a contested election. And the most importantly than that, now for three months, there has not been a single American servicemember killed or wounded in Iraq.
Watch it:
As BarbinMD at DailyKos points out, 12 U.S. servicemembers had died in Iraq in 2010 as of March 13, and at least 93 had been wounded. Since that time, there have been four more deaths and six more people wounded.
Seven years of war in Iraq.
Seven years of war in Iraq.
Seven years ago today, President Bush launched the Iraq war. In a televised address to the nation, Bush told the American people “at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” Over the last several years, ThinkProgress has been keeping a Timeline of the Iraq War, marking the key events in the U.S. invasion, occupation, and now ongoing withdrawal from the country. Among the most significant events of the last year were:
JUNE 30, 2009: Jubilation as U.S. Combat Troops Withdraw From Cities. Six years and three months after the March 2003 invasion, the United States has withdrawn its remaining combat troops from Iraq’s cities and is turning over security to Iraqi police and soldiers. While more than 130,000 U.S. troops remain in the country, patrols by heavily armed soldiers in hulking vehicles have largely disappeared from Baghdad, Mosul and Iraq’s other urban centers. Iraqis danced in the streets and set off fireworks overnight in impromptu celebrations of a pivotal moment in their nation’s troubled history. The government staged a military parade to mark the new national holiday of “National Sovereignty Day,” and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki made a triumphant, nationally televised address. [Washington Post, 6/30/09]
AUGUST 11, 2009: Massive Bombings In Northern Iraq and Baghdad. Two truck bombings in northern Iraq and attacks targeting day laborers in western Baghdad killed at least 51 people and wounded scores early Monday, Iraqi authorities said. The attacks underscored the Sunni insurgency’s continued ability to inflict mass casualties as the country’s Shiite-led government tries to demonstrate it can handle security with minimal assistance from the U.S. military. [Washington Post, 8/11/09]
JANUARY 7, 2010: Iraq bars 15 political parties with Baathist ties from upcoming elections. At least 15 parties will be banned from upcoming parliamentary elections because they have been linked to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party or have promoted Baathist ideals, Iraqi officials said Thursday. The decision by the Justice and Accountability Commission, in charge of cleansing high-level Baathists from the ranks of the government and security forces, seemed to be an attempt to purge candidates with links to the old political order, many of whom are popular among secular nationalist voters. The move is a blow to hopes of bringing opposition figures — who turned to violent resistance over the past seven years — into the political fold, part of the U.S. strategy to bolster the government. [Washington Post, 1/8/10]
On March 7, Iraqis braved terrorist attacks to go to the polls in Iraq’s second parliamentary election since the U.S. invasion. Latest returns show that incumbent Prime Minister Nouri Maliki “has strengthened his lead over main rival Iyad Allawi in Iraq’s parliamentary elections, with partial results now in from all 18 provinces.”
GOP Congressmen Say That ‘Everyone’ In Congress ‘Would Agree That Iraq Was A Mistake’
GOP Congressmen Say That ‘Everyone’ In Congress ‘Would Agree That Iraq Was A Mistake’
Yesterday, the libertarian Cato Institute hosted a panel discussion on conservatism and the war in Afghanistan with Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN). When the conversation shifted to the war in Iraq, Rohrabacher said that “once President Bush decided to go into Iraq, I thought it was a mistake because we hadn’t finished the job in Afghanistan,” but that once Bush “decided to go in,” he “felt compelled” to “back him up.” He then added that “the decision to go in, in retrospect, almost all of us think that was a horrible mistake.”
Moderator Grover Norquist then asked Rohrabacher to provide a “guesstimate percentage of Republicans in Congress who would share that view — not that they opposed the President at the time, but today looking back.” Rohrabacher replied that “everybody I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now”:
ROHRABACHER: Well, now that we know that it cost a trillion dollars and all of these years and all of these lives and all of this blood, uh, I don’t know many…
NORQUIST: Looking for a number. Two-thirds? One-third?
ROHRABACHER: I, I can’t. All I can say is the people, everybody I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now.
NORQUIST: That’s 100 percent.
Norquist then turned to McClintock, asking “what percentage”:
NORQUIST: Of Republicans in Congress, who would agree with the general analysis here that it was a mistake and/or we should go in.
MCCLINTOCK: I think everyone would agree Iraq was a mistake.
NORQUIST: Two hundred percents. Ok, we’re going to average these.
MCCLINTOCK: And, you know, again, I think virtually everyone would agree going into Afghanistan the way we did was a mistake. How many share my, my cynicism over this idea of a resolution of force, which I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution. And how many believe that in those rare cases where we go in, we put all of our resources behind our soldiers, I would say certainly more than half of the Republican caucus probably believe that.
Asked for a number by Norquist, Duncan refused to say, but shared an anecdote of how unpopular the war is politically in his conservative military district. Watch it:
McClintock wasn’t in Congress when the Iraq war was authorized. Duncan voted against the authorization of military force while Rohrabacher voted for it.
Rove Falsely Claims Bush Administration Never Said Iraqi Oil Revenue Would Help Pay For War
Rove Falsely Claims Bush Administration Never Said Iraqi Oil Revenue Would Help Pay For War
In his new book and in recent media appearances promoting it, former top Bush aide Karl Rove has been revising the history of the Iraq war, particularly regarding the issue of Saddam Hussien’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, Rove continued with his Iraq war history revision campaign. Noting that the Bush administration had mishandled the management of the war, host Tom Brokaw mentioned that “the cost of the war skyrocketed almost from the beginning. There was not a sharing of the oil revenue that a lot of people had promised.” But Rove flatly denied that the Bush administration said Iraqi oil revenues would help pay for the war:
ROVE: No, no. Tom with all due respect that was not the policy of our government that we were going to go into Iraq and take their resources in order to pay for the cost of the war. … [T]he suggestion that somehow or another the administration had as its policy, “We’re going to go in to Iraq and take their resource and pay for the war” is not accurate.
Watch it:
Rove’s claim is simply not true. In fact, days after the U.S. invasion, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a congressional panel that Iraqi oil revenues would help pay for reconstructing the country, i.e. a cost of the war. “The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We’re dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon,” he said.
One month before the war, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Iraq “is a rather wealthy country. … And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.”
Since the start of the Iraq war, the U.S. has spent tens of billions of dollars in reconstruction costs.
Even Though Bush Used False WMD Claims To Justify Iraq War, Rove Claims They Dealt With ‘Reality’
Even Though Bush Used False WMD Claims To Justify Iraq War, Rove Claims They Dealt With ‘Reality’
In his book that was released this week, former top Bush aide Karl Rove claimed that President Bush would not have authorized an invasion of Iraq in 2003 if he had known Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. “Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it,” Rove writes. “The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq’s horrendous human rights violations.”
The New York Times’ Peter Baker asked Rove about that comment and noted that Rove still justifies the invasion anyway. “Do you really think the Iraq war was worth it?” Baker asked. “The world is a better place,” Rove said. When Baker asked about other justifications the administration used for war (human rights and spreading democracy) Rove accused the Times reporter of talking about “hypotheticals” and that it was the Bush White House that was dealing with “reality“:
ROVE: You’re talking about hypotheticals. What we were talking about was the practical reality that in the aftermath of 9/11 we had somebody who was refusing to abide by international weapons inspections and live up to the agreement that he made after the first Gulf War. And whom every Western intelligence agency believed had weapons of mass destruction. That was a calculus in the aftermath of 9/11 that we could not tolerate. We had to deal with the world as we knew it, as we thought we knew it.
Except the “reality” was that Saddam Hussein didn’t have WMD. Moreover, in the months before the invasion, Saddam did, in fact, allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq, who, according to a report commissioned by President Bush himself after the war, had disproved intelligence on Iraq’s WMD before the war. Yet, the Bush White House dismissed their findings:
By the time President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein of the deadly weapons he was allegedly trying to build, every piece of fresh evidence had been tested — and disproved — by U.N. inspectors, according to a report commissioned by the president and released Thursday.
The work of the inspectors — who had extraordinary access during their three months in Iraq between November 2002 and March 2003 — was routinely dismissed by the Bush administration and the intelligence community in the run-up to the war, according to the commission led by former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) and retired appellate court judge Laurence H. Silberman.
On NBC yesterday, Rove argued that there was a “worldwide consensus” before the invasion that Iraq had WMD. Apparently, expert weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq did not fall into that category.
Thus it’s unclear what “practical reality” Rove is referring to, seeing the “reality” was that Iraq didn’t have WMD — thus dislodging the main case for war and thereby making the entire effort impractical.
Chris Wallace Calls The Perpetually Wrong Bill Kristol An ‘Expert’ On Iraq
Chris Wallace Calls The Perpetually Wrong Bill Kristol An ‘Expert’ On Iraq
Demonstrating again Fox News’ hilariously low standards, this morning Fox News’ Chris Wallace referred to Bill Kristol as an “expert in [the] area” of Iraq’s elections:
WALLACE: Bill, you certainly are an expert in this area. The two leading candidates seem to be the current prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, and the original prime minister [Ayad] Allawi. From the U.S. point of view, who would we rather see?
KRISTOL: I honestly don’t know. I think — the good news has been the degree of reformist parties and the new leaders who have begun to emerge in the Iraqi political system.
Watch it:
Kristol has spent the last decade proving that he doesn’t know. Here’s a classic example of Kristol’s Iraq “expertise” from 2003:
On this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there’s been a certain amount of, frankly, a kind of pop sociology in America that, you know, somehow the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There’s almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq’s always been very secular.
Months later, Iraq would explode into a civil war driven by competing radical Sunni and Shia militias trying to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime.
Kristol’s propensity for error is so serious that, according to Newsweek’s Eric Margolis, Bill’s late father Irving Kristol sometimes lamented to an old family friend, “My poor son has got it wrong again.” Journalist Eric Alterman wrote in the Nation, “if one looks for a consistent pattern to Kristol’s perpetual wrongness, it’s not hard to discern. For Kristol is less interested in being correct than in advancing his side’s interests. He’s not a journalist; he’s an apparatchik working undercover as a man of the press.”
In other words, the perfect Fox News journalist.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll