Op-Ed
On Newsweek's website you can flip through a short PDF slideshow of a presentation produced by the Pentagon in 2002. The presentation purports to show that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were working together and had been for years. Not only was this a presentation of intelligence at odds with what the legitimate intelligence community was saying, but the first slide in the presentation provides reasons why the intelligence community had it wrong. This hardly looks like the product of an office doing only policy work, rather than intelligence.
But that is what the Pentagon is claiming in a 53-page public rebuttal to a classified report by the Pentagon's Inspector General on the work of Doug Feith and the Office of Special Plans.
The sort of work that office did has long been known thanks to numerous sources, including Karen Kwiatkowski.
But that is what the Pentagon is claiming in a 53-page public rebuttal to a classified report by the Pentagon's Inspector General on the work of Doug Feith and the Office of Special Plans.
The sort of work that office did has long been known thanks to numerous sources, including Karen Kwiatkowski.
This MyDD blog entry and this Politico article describe this PDF showing the results of a poll of all 100 U.S. Senators. It asks how they voted on the war in 2002, whether they regret that vote, whether they support escalating the war, and whether they support ending the war by a certain date. This fairly well cuts through the courageous debate over whether to have a debate over whether to meaninglessly dissent from Bush's escalation plans for a war that most Americans want ended.
The first thing that stands out is that Senators Byrd and Cardin, rather than saying that Yes they support ending the occupation by a certain date, both wrote in the word "Immediate." That's 2 Senators for ending the thing. 98 to go.
The first thing that stands out is that Senators Byrd and Cardin, rather than saying that Yes they support ending the occupation by a certain date, both wrote in the word "Immediate." That's 2 Senators for ending the thing. 98 to go.
Democrats on Capitol Hill see the world through bureaucratic shades and have been circulating this self-congratulatory Email:
"Over the last four years,the Republican Congress failed to conduct oversight on the Iraq war and failed to hold the Administration accountable for the conduct of the war. In contrast to this dismal record, in the last five weeks, the new Democratic-led Congress is already exercising vigorous oversight and demanding accountability from the Administration on the Iraq war. Attached is a list of 52 House and Senate hearings that have already occurred on issues related to the Iraq war. There will be numerous other hearings by both House and Senate committees on issues related to the Iraq war over the next several months."
"Over the last four years,the Republican Congress failed to conduct oversight on the Iraq war and failed to hold the Administration accountable for the conduct of the war. In contrast to this dismal record, in the last five weeks, the new Democratic-led Congress is already exercising vigorous oversight and demanding accountability from the Administration on the Iraq war. Attached is a list of 52 House and Senate hearings that have already occurred on issues related to the Iraq war. There will be numerous other hearings by both House and Senate committees on issues related to the Iraq war over the next several months."
At the House Judiciary Committee hearings on Bush's use of signing statements on Wednesday, two exchanges at the end were quite revealing. Four hours into a hearing interrupted by several votes (thanks, Nancy!) the corporate media had all departed. Broadcast media never showed in the first place. Only a few bloggers and a bunch of citizens and staffers hung behind. Most of the Congress Members had left for good.
Through most of the hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Elwood and Associate Professor of Law at Georgetown Nicholas Rosenkranz had maintained that Bush's signing statements were mere words and that Bush has obeyed to the letter each law he has signed, even if he's added a "signing statement" maintaining his right not to obey sections of that law. Elwood even claimed that if the President were to act contrary to the original law, he would notify Congress that he was doing so.
Through most of the hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Elwood and Associate Professor of Law at Georgetown Nicholas Rosenkranz had maintained that Bush's signing statements were mere words and that Bush has obeyed to the letter each law he has signed, even if he's added a "signing statement" maintaining his right not to obey sections of that law. Elwood even claimed that if the President were to act contrary to the original law, he would notify Congress that he was doing so.
This is what it's come to. The local newspaper in my town in Virginia today ran an op-ed by rightwinger Cal Thomas attacking Hillary Clinton for her past support for the war. Thomas began by criticizing Clinton for pretending she had never supported the war, but the bulk of his column blamed her simply for supporting it and for falling for the lies that Bush had used to sell it:
"One wonders what took such a smart woman until January 2007 in Iowa to conclude that she had been duped. And, one wonders: If she can be misled by so many people in whom she has confidence, how will she be able to see clearly as president?"
Along with this column, the paper printed a cartoon from the San Antonio Express News that shows Hillary with a "Hillary 08" button thinking "He's not the only one I wish would go away." She's reading an article about Obama, and walking up behind her is another Hillary labeled "Pro-War Hillary."
"One wonders what took such a smart woman until January 2007 in Iowa to conclude that she had been duped. And, one wonders: If she can be misled by so many people in whom she has confidence, how will she be able to see clearly as president?"
Along with this column, the paper printed a cartoon from the San Antonio Express News that shows Hillary with a "Hillary 08" button thinking "He's not the only one I wish would go away." She's reading an article about Obama, and walking up behind her is another Hillary labeled "Pro-War Hillary."
Peace is a chant, a vibration, a leap of the human spirit into the 21st century and beyond. It's also HR 808 - radical common sense crafted into a bill and introduced this week into the new Congress by Dennis Kucinich.
Let me describe for you, as best I can in this brief space, the heave of emotion this piece of legislation and the campaign to support it have set off in me the past few days. For this I thank and blame the Peace Alliance, which held a conference in D.C. over the weekend in support of the bill - well, it was half conference, fact-dense and nitty-gritty, brimming with info on bullying and suicide and war; and half revival, alive with music and global religion, full of God and Buddha and the spirit of the Founding Fathers and Gandhi and Martin Luther King and Jane Addams and Susan B. Anthony and many others.
Let me describe for you, as best I can in this brief space, the heave of emotion this piece of legislation and the campaign to support it have set off in me the past few days. For this I thank and blame the Peace Alliance, which held a conference in D.C. over the weekend in support of the bill - well, it was half conference, fact-dense and nitty-gritty, brimming with info on bullying and suicide and war; and half revival, alive with music and global religion, full of God and Buddha and the spirit of the Founding Fathers and Gandhi and Martin Luther King and Jane Addams and Susan B. Anthony and many others.
It's an honor to be part of this obviously growing movement for peace and justice. Our president took us into war before Congress gave its so-called authorization. He did so without telling Congress or the American people and without Congress appropriating any funds for the purpose. In the summer of 2002, Bush took $2.5 billion – according to the Congressional Research Service – away from other projects, including Afghanistan, and used it to build airfields in Qatar and to begin bombing Iraq in preparation for the full-scale invasion.
That is a crime.
In fact, it's what the founders of this country would have called a high crime and misdemeanor.
And what do we do about high crimes and misdemeanors?
That is a crime.
In fact, it's what the founders of this country would have called a high crime and misdemeanor.
And what do we do about high crimes and misdemeanors?
Open this article for blogging, beginning at 10:15 a.m. ET.
10:13 a.m. I'm in the room, but you can view a live webcast here. I've just been handed hardcopies of the upcoming witness statements. If you can find them online anywhere, please post a link beneath this article.
10:15 a.m. Witness list: John Elwood, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice
Hon. Mickey Edwards, former member of Congress, Aspen Institute
Karen J. Mathis, President, American Bar Association
Professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Assoc. Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Professor Charles Ogletree, Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
10:13 a.m. I'm in the room, but you can view a live webcast here. I've just been handed hardcopies of the upcoming witness statements. If you can find them online anywhere, please post a link beneath this article.
10:15 a.m. Witness list: John Elwood, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice
Hon. Mickey Edwards, former member of Congress, Aspen Institute
Karen J. Mathis, President, American Bar Association
Professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Assoc. Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Professor Charles Ogletree, Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Half a million people marching against the war seem to be cursed to have their numbers reported as "tens of thousands" in the mainstream media for reasons that strike me as similar to the reeling U.S. auto industry's ongoing reliance on monster SUV sales (and didn't Ford make headlines by hemorrhaging almost $13 billion last year?).
That is, the human race has slipped, developmentally, from the grasp of the institutions that attempt to contain and define it. What a muddle. We're flowing instinctively toward survival - toward a sustainable, global society, as free of war and dehumanized enemies as it is of reliance on fossil fuels - but those in power can't bear it, can't understand it, and keep selling us the past.
How else do you explain the sort of zombie life George Bush's war on terror enjoys in the corridors of official thought - where, for instance, the insanity of "troop surge" is given polite, respectful deference - well after its lifeblood of public support has bled into the sand?
That is, the human race has slipped, developmentally, from the grasp of the institutions that attempt to contain and define it. What a muddle. We're flowing instinctively toward survival - toward a sustainable, global society, as free of war and dehumanized enemies as it is of reliance on fossil fuels - but those in power can't bear it, can't understand it, and keep selling us the past.
How else do you explain the sort of zombie life George Bush's war on terror enjoys in the corridors of official thought - where, for instance, the insanity of "troop surge" is given polite, respectful deference - well after its lifeblood of public support has bled into the sand?
Molly Ivins is gone, and her words will never grace these pages again -- for this, we will mourn. But Molly wasn't the type of woman who would want us to grieve. More likely, she'd say something like, "Hang in there, keep fightin' for freedom, raise more hell, and don't forget to laugh, too."
If there was one thing Molly wanted us to understand, it's that the world of politics is absurd. Since we can't cry, we might as well laugh. And in case we ever forgot, Molly would remind us, several times a week, in her own unique style.
Shortly after becoming editor of Molly Ivins' syndicated column, I learned one of my most important jobs was to tell her newspaper clients that, yes, Molly meant to write it that way. We called her linguistic peculiarities "Molly-isms." Administration officials were "Bushies," government was in fact spelled "guvment," business was "bidness." And if someone was "madder than a peach orchard boar," well, he was quite mad indeed.
If there was one thing Molly wanted us to understand, it's that the world of politics is absurd. Since we can't cry, we might as well laugh. And in case we ever forgot, Molly would remind us, several times a week, in her own unique style.
Shortly after becoming editor of Molly Ivins' syndicated column, I learned one of my most important jobs was to tell her newspaper clients that, yes, Molly meant to write it that way. We called her linguistic peculiarities "Molly-isms." Administration officials were "Bushies," government was in fact spelled "guvment," business was "bidness." And if someone was "madder than a peach orchard boar," well, he was quite mad indeed.