Presidential Candidate Romney would bring Bush's NeoCon's back into power for more of their abysmally failing policies

In a speech on Friday Oct 7, 2011, Romney made a promise which should cause many to reject him for seeking to re-establish the utterly abysmal policy failures of the Bush43 administration.  Most news coverage didn't comment on on the meaning of the promise, but fortunately Rachel Maddow not only noticed this but opened her show that evening with awesome discussion of that promise (see video below).  What was the promise?  It was that he would lead the country into what he called “an American Century.”

The speech was his foreign policy vision, was delivered at The Citadel, and was on the 10th anniversary of the start of the Afghanistan war.  The speech called for strengthening the military and economy, which is expected rhetoric from a Republican.  What stands out is the phrase “an American Century,” the history of that phrase (Project For A New American Century), that he has hired a dozen or so PNAC Neocon's to be foreign policy advisors, and how the rhetoric strongly refers back to the PNAC Neocon policies that fueled the utter abysmal failures of the Bush43 years.

Sounds nice and benign doesn't it?  Calling for a stronger military and economy is expected from Republicans.  The phrase "An American Century" surely sounds nice to a country accustomed to being the strongest/richest country of this era.  To understand the significance of “an American Century” we have to revisit the Bush43 years, and think over what happened, so that by remembering our history we can avoid committing the same failures again.

His words connect directly with The Project for a New American Century, an infamous Neocon think-tank from the 90's that concocted the whole nightmare plan of "Let's Invade Iraq To Establish Moderate Friendly Democracy In The Middle East To Sway The Middle East To Be Friendly To Us".

The Invade-Iraq-To-Sway-The-Middle-East plan originated in the mid-90's in position papers published by the PNAC.  PNAC members used those position papers in political rabble rousing, congressional testimony, etc, and eventually many PNAC members came into power when Bush43 was elected.  Then the 9/11 attack happened and you may recall the perpetrators had been living in Afghanistan but were primarily Saudi nationals.  And that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.  And the Bush43 administration lied and connived things to make it look like Iraq was a horrible evil threat that had to be extinguished, never mind that the threat came from Afghanistan and that the threat-mongers were getting away scott-free.  The illegal war against Iraq was launched because of how the Bush43 administration twisted facts around the 9/11 attack to justify attacking Iraq.

Hence the PNAC Neocons originated the Invade-Iraq plan in the 90's, they came into power with Bush43, then used their first opportunity to twist American policy into committing the U.S. to a war to topple the Iraqi government.

But let's get back to Romney - because his actions are more profound than a simple statement in a speech.  He has hired a dozen or more former Bush43 Administration staffers, as foreign policy advisors, who had played key roles in creating the policies just outlined, and were of the PNAC Neocon crowd.  When Romney promised us “an American Century,” then, he can only have been referring to the Project For A New American Century.

Especially given the rhetoric from the speech that's directly out of the PNAC talking points:

“In an American Century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world.  In an American Century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world.”

“If America is the undisputed leader of the world, it reduces our need to police a more chaotic world.  But know this: While America should work with other nations, we always reserve the right to act alone to protect our vital national interest.”

“full spectrum of hard and soft power to influence events before they erupt into conflict.”

These statements come directly out of the PNAC mythology.  That America must assert a Pax Americana upon the world because we are the strongest country, the sole remaining superpower, and that it's our duty as a moral and strong country to force other countries to behave correctly.  Or something like that.

The last statement eerily harkens of Bush43's pre-emptive war doctrine.  That it is correct to stomp on countries we knew are going to commit evil before they did so.  And that we have the right to "act alone," presumably flouting international law just as the Bush43 administration did.

What actually happened under the Bush43 administration was wholesale flouting of International law, repeated treasonous acts by  administration officials, lies to Congress, lies to the UN (The "case" for War), lies to the American people, the launching of an illegal stupid war against Iraq (Background material for the second Gulf "War", Is the Gulf War II Impeachable?, Powell Rebuts criticism, Next: Iran?, It's Official - No WMD Found, The Man who Knew: More about the Lies, Perle admits invasion was illegal: Say what?, Review: Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq …, Review: Will they trust us again?, How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelli…, US Invasion of Iraq officially FRAUD, An utter and abysmal failure) that has caused tremendous pain and suffering throughout the Middle East, and much more.

As Maddow noted in the segment visible below, Romney also announced his national security advisory team.  That team of 22 people included 15 from the Bush43 administration, 6 of whom had been part of the Project for a New American Century crowd.  These are the people who advised the Bush43 administration into doing all the stupid things perpetrated in those years.

Hence, it's fair game to assume his plan is to reincarnate the Bush43 years.  Lest we want to live through that nightmare story again, this is a presidential candidate that must be defeated.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In Foreign Policy Speech, Romney Calls for an ‘American Century’

Mitt Romney calls for century of American dominance: Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential frontrunner, has called for a century of American dominance and greater defence spending, in his first major venture into US foreign policy.

Romney Gives Bush Neocons Another Chance

And for more on PNAC, here's Source Watch's site on them -- Project for the New American Century.

Review: The End of America (Naomi Wolf)

Remember the mid-2000's when President Bush really was running roughshod over the laws of the United States of America, and working real hard to establish the basis for a real fascist regime over the United States? Maybe you did not know about this, but I'd written a bunch of posts on this which you can access via the category tags at the top of this post. The End of America is a 2008 movie by journalist Naomi Wolf which was at the time a strident urgent warning against the illegal excesses and overreach of the Bush II administration. Today, with Obama being slimed right and left as a 'Fascist' it's worth watching this movie as a reminder of our recent past.

The movie is structured around 10 steps Ms. Wolf has identified which dictatorial governments around the world use to put their population under autocratic rule. To explain each of the steps, Naomi uses examples of Bush II Administration actions that implement the steps.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Treat all political dissidents as traitors.
10. Suspend the rule of law.

Today, it would be a useful yardstick to compare the Bush II Administration excesses with the actions of the Obama Administration, to determine just how close Obama is to being an actual proto-Fascist as people are claiming.

The thing that I've noticed about the right wing blowhard Republicans is they tend to accuse others of the things they themselves are doing. Accusing Obama of Fascism would be par for the course, given the sort of autocratic tendencies the Republicans have followed since the Bush II years.
It's also true that the overreach by the Bush II Administration established principles of Presidential Behavior which the Obama Administration could be making use of. As one of the speakers in The End of America said, lost freedoms are like sand slipping between your fingers. The freedoms lost under the Bush Administration won't be automatically returned to we the people, instead we the people must fight to regain them.

One thing I'm wondering from watching this movie is to what extent it acted to inspire the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party people are activisting for a return to Constitutional Rule, and The End of America closes with a call for a return to Constitutional Rule. I suspect that the Tea Party people may have a different idea of Constitutional than does Naomi Wolf.

Interview - Naomi Wolf - Give Me Liberty - is a video interview of Ms. Wolf in 2008 discussing the movie, the book, the above stuff, etc

The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot

In a stunning indictment of the Bush administration and Congress, best-selling author Naomi Wolf lays out her case for saving American democracy. In authoritative research and documentation Wolf explains how events of the last six years parallel steps taken in the early years of the 20th century‚'s worst dictatorships such as Germany, Russia, China, and Chile.

The book cuts across political parties and ideologies and speaks directly to those among us who are concerned about the ever-tightening noose being placed around our liberties.

In this timely call to arms, Naomi Wolf compels us to face the way our free America is under assault. She warns us‚-with the straight-to-fellow-citizens urgency of one of Thomas Paine‚'s revolutionary pamphlets‚-that we have little time to lose if our children are to live in real freedom.

The End of America: Director's Cut

This two-disc director's cut is jam packed with never-before-seen bonus material, including: an exclusive interview with Anthony Romero, president of the ACLU; a detailed interview with Daniel Ellsberg, former military analyst; a featurette with New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof, and much more. Along with the rest of America, best-selling author and feminist Naomi Wolf was overwhelmed by the swell of conflicting information and the sudden march to war after 9/11. Wolf looked to history to help her understand the dramatic changes she believed she was witnessing, and discovered the disturbing similarities between post-9/11 US policy and that of historically fascist regimes such as Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. Wolf authored her next book, THE END OF AMERICA, which demonstrated that the United States was on a remarkably certain path toward ending democracy. Taking the thesis of her book to the streets, Wolf set out on a national tour to discuss the evolution of America from a functional democracy into a closed, fear-driven society with a terrifying absence of due process. In this profound and eye-opening film, Award-winning veteran documentarians Ricki Stern and Annie Sundberg (THE DEVIL CAME ON HORSEBACK, THE TRIALS OF DARRYL HUNT) accompany Wolf as she discusses America's dangerous passage towards becoming a society of fear and surveillance, and expresses her plea to restore our nation's most cherished values.

PushmePullyouism with Iran

There's a lot of will-he-or-won't-he going on in terms of whether or not the U.S. and/or the world is being prepared to attack Iran. Here's two extremes ...

Why Bush won't attack Iran describes some of the inner dance going around the Administration -- and describes that Condoleeza Rice's job is to develop a third alternative between the bomb-or-do-not-bomb-Iran pair of options. Rather, that's what she has been doing, but the time has run out.

The article references a report by Joe Klein of a December 2006 meeting where they deeply discussed the possibility of successfully attacking Iran. The results showed it being very unsuccessful and that led them to begin covert actions to attempt destabilization Iran. Given the U.S. track record of destablizing countries I suppose we could expect a coup or revolt in Iran sooner or later.

On the other hand Bush setting America up for war with Iran describes how the Pentagon has drawn up lists of 2000+ targets in Iran and is making war plans.

Hmm... who to believe???

Article Reference: 

Bush setting America up for war with Iran

Why Bush won't attack Iran

extvideo: 

Rushing into war with Iran?

The threat of war in Iran is looming even larger than ever. For example, France warning of war with Iran is very interesting considering France's opposition role leading up to the Iraq invasion.

Bush setting America up for war with Iran ... in a way this is "DUH" because for well over a year the same script used on Iraq has been used on Iran. And don't forget that the Neocon plan cooked up in the 1990's was to take over the world starting by toppling the government in Iraq and then to move on to either Iran or Syria depending on the way things go.

...Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran....In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories....Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces....Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon....The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites...

Nukes?? And just what were they complaining about Iraq's possession of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" for if these jerks want to use nukes?? And also, nowhere in the article does it mention as justification the war on terrorism. Um, wait a minute, the war we're fighting is supposed to be about smashing the terrorist threat, right? So shouldn't that be what this is about? Or has the administration given up on hiding their true motives behind propping up the terrorism threat?

Rogue regulator or smooth operator? .. Drift into war with Iran out of control, says UN .. An Indispensable Irritant to Iran and Its Foes .. French-kissing the war on Iran .. Mohammed elBaradei, the chief of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently reminded "the world" that it's the United Nations who authorizes the use of force: "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons," ElBaradei said.

His statements a couple days ago raised strange ire among Washington officialdom. But he is playing the same role he played leading to the invasion of Iraq. In both Iraq and Iran the powers that be are stretching the truth, or perhaps lying, and acting in violation of International Law.

Links: 

Bush setting America up for war with Iran

External Media

StopIranWar.org

The Neocons who talked us into the Iraq war with their lies and deceit are preparing us for a war with Iran. The fools.

http://www.stopiranwar.com/ is about stopping this incipient war.

All Americans want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and interfering on the ground inside Iraq. Yet President Bush’s saber rattling gives the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerates a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.

Whatever the pace of Iran’s nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administration’s rhetoric and accusations, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict.

Cannot the world’s most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn’t it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions?

Pentagon unit defied CIA advice to justify Iraq war

An "alternative intelligence" unit operating at the Pentagon in the run-up to the war on Iraq was dedicated to establishing a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, even though the CIA was unconvinced of such a connection, the US Senate was told yesterday.

..."The office of the under-secretary of defence for policy developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community, to senior decision-makers," the report says.

..."They arrived at an alternative interpretation of the Iraq/al-Qaida relationship that was much stronger than that assessed by the intelligence community and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the administration," Mr Levin told the committee.

Article Reference: 

Pentagon unit defied CIA advice to justify Iraq war

So begins the war against Iran...?

In Background material for the second Gulf "War" and Is Syria (or Iran) next? and Next: Iran? and Er... What's this about threatening Syria? I long ago noted that the launch of the Iraq invasion was exactly in line with the strategy outlined by the Project for a New American Century way back in the mid 1990's. All through the invasion of Iraq the administration has been demonizing both Syria and Iran, making not-so-idle threats, etc. The pattern of the administration in the past has, before launching a war, to demonize the designated target so that by the time you're ready to launch the war your populace already has a dim view of the target.

This: US to target anti-Iraq activity: "US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that the US will take action against countries destabilising Iraq." ..and.. War With Syria and Iran = Peace With Iraq?

Paired with: U.S. forces raid Iranian office in Iraq ..and.. Iranians detained in raid on consulate in Iraq ..and.. U.S.-Led Forces Detain 6 Iranian Workers

Well, that makes for a dangerous combination. Attacking a consulate? Don't consulates get diplomatic immunity? In any case this warning shot of smacking at Iranian presence in Iraq, while on the same day raising the threats against Iran even further, just strikes me as being the opening salvo to a full attack or war against Iran.

Don’t Get Too Excited about the President’s Warning to Iran and Syria has Andrew McCarthy saying don't worry, "he"'s not saying we're getting ready to attack Iran for real. It's only about shoring up the territorial integrity of Iraq.

Hmmmph... Maybe so, but this administration has proved over and over that their statements have hidden agenda's drawn from the NeoCon plan proposed during the 1990's. The essence of the plan was to reestablish western supremacy over the Middle East and to do so by "installing" moderate democracies beginning with Iraq. Phase two was to be an invasion of either Iran or Syria. The supposed plan was that the effect of moderate democracies in the middle of the Middle East would influence neighboring countries away from radical Islamic thinking.

But we've seen so far in Iraq that it's done the opposite. That our very presence there has led the people to rise up against the intruders, namely us, filling the ranks of the forces that are fighting against the West. The war we launched to squash this movement towards radical Islam has turned into the biggest recruiting tool for those radical Islamic forces.

Cut and Run? Withdraw? Redeploy? Stay the Course?

The Democratic win in the 2006 elections has changed the discussion about the war in Iraq. Part of the mandate won by the Democrats was to change, radically, the direction we, the U.S.A., will approach the situation in Iraq. Clearly I believe we should have not gone into Iraq in the first place, but we are there and it's a very interesting question what should be done given the situation that exists today.

There are echo's of Vietnam and other U.S. failures of the recent years. Some of the Republican talking points have, for decades, been about renewing America's honor, honor that we've lost from "losing" the Vietnam war and having had to withdraw from other conflicts. The Bush Administration has been playing this card, in saying we must stay the course. Now, the phrase "stay the course" can mean to keep at a given strategy even though it's clearly failing, or it can mean staying focussed on a goal and shifting strategies and ideas until you reach the goal.

Which raises the question of just what the heck is the goal, anyway?

For example, the goal we were given in 2002 and 2003, used to justify the war, was the Iraqi connection to the September 11, 2001 attack, the connections between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda, the danger of Iraq gaining weapons of mass destruction up to and including nuclear weapons. My earlier article, The "case" for war, goes over the claims made by Colin Powell in the Feb 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council. By the summer of 2003 I was able to show all their claims at that time were poppycock. So just what the heck is the goal, anyway?

The Bush Administration has changed tactics and now says the goal is the introduction of Democracy. That just harkens back to the plans concocted by the Project For a New American Century, which I wrote about in Background material for the second Gulf "War". Basically the PNAC is a think tank run by the Neocons who are now in positions of high power all through the Bush Administration. Their plans for the Middle East was to make a wave of change by "introducing" moderate democracies in the center of the middle east, which would then influence neighboring countries to moderate democracy.

Sounds nice in a way, but there are several flies in the ointment. For example how can you "introduce" democracy? Isn't that a choice that a population makes for themselves? In particular how can you force a country to become democratic when you're pointing guns at them? Especially when the culture in question has a long non-democratic history? So just what the heck is the goal, anyway?

I happen to think it's about the Oil. GW Bush may as well have had a sign in his campaign headquarters reading "It's about the Oil, stupid". Iraq has the second highest reserves of Oil in the world, and Iran, one of the targets of the PNAC plan for reshaping the Middle East, has significant oil reserves as well. Further, Venezuela, another country which the U.S. has been targeting, against which the U.S. launched a Coup a couple years ago, they have significant oil reserves as well, especially if you count their tar-sands oil reserves.

The November 17, 2006 episode of On The Media has an interesting discussion of the way this debate is spinning in the news media. Somehow the word "Withdraw" has been made to equate with "Cut And Run" which the Republicans have successfully made out to be cowardice. As a political tactic it makes anyone talking of Withdrawal out to be a Coward, who can then be Swift-Boat'ed to death.

For that matter one of the troubling considerations is, would a withdrawal send Iraq into a tailspin of violence between the various factions. It would create a power vacuum, which might well cause the various parties to struggle among each other to be the top dog. But can we really foretell the future well enough to say for certainty that's what would happen?

Since this whole mess is based on preventative war .. the idea that you can foretell that a given country is planning on attacking another country, so therefore you have the right to attack the first country to prevent their attack on the second country .. well, to continue fighting the war in Iraq means you are continuing this preventative war strategy, and in this case it's about preempting a civil war.

Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do ...a letter from Michael Moore .. well, it's about his explanation why "Cut And Run" is exactly what we should do, and that it probably won't result in the horror story we've been fed. An interesting factoid to consider is that we have now been in Iraq fighting this war for longer than U.S. forces were fighting in World War II. Yup, beginning in 1942 we built up an armaments industry, trained a large army, went to war, and defeated Japan, Italy and Germany, sweeping enemy forces from North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the Pacific. And that took the U.S. less time than the time we have spent mired in Iraq.

Something is wrong with this picture.

He points out that a country can successfully be liberated only when the populace themselves rises up in some form. It hearkens back to the U.S. Revolutionary war, or the non-violent uprising in India, etc. The Iraqi's did not do so against Saddam Hussein, he claims. Except that, after the first Gulf War, President Bush (the other one, not the current one) told the Shia and Kurds to rise up and we will support you, but when they did our "support" did not come through, and the Hussein government crushed their rebellion. Somehow Michael Moore fails to mention this.

But it does given an interesting spin with which to interpret the current mess. To an extent the fighting in Iraq is against U.S. forces, because they want US to be GONE. Michael Moore does quote some polling statistics showing heavy Iraqi support for insurgency against U.S. forces. And that does make it look very bad for the U.S. plan in that if the population you're supposedly liberating wants nothing to do with the liberators, then how can the liberators hope to be of any use?

There are many who are saying we should send in more troops. I suppose the idea is that to "win" you must "crush" opposition, and that if a given number of troops hasn't been successful in crushing the opposition then more troops is what's needed. Hmm...

If the will of the people is strong enough, is there any number of troops that are enough?

And, consider that we have zero justification to be there in the first place. The proof? The rebellion against our presence should be enough proof. But if you go back to the discussion I laid out above, both of the stories we've been told justifying this war have been proved to be false. WMD? Al Qaeda? All false. The hope for democracy? A ridiculous quest in the first place, and fading quickly anyway.

Michael Moore does present an interesting argument.

If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn’t much you can do ‘til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.

And he goes on to point out the Soviet Union was able to withdraw from Afghanistan in 36 weeks, relatively painlessly.

But is there any hope of this happening? The Republicans will fight this tooth and nail. Their whole reputation is based on succeeding at this war. They are not about to admit defeat, and offering atonement is very foreign to them since they are bound to see it as defeatist.

It will remain to be seen what will come from the Democrats versus the Republicans in this regard. One thing that's clear is the power has shifted dramatically in Washington.

The last thing I want to point to is: Howard Zinn on The Uses of History and the War on Terrorism. This is a speech he gave in Madison Wisconsin, and rebroadcast on Democracy Now on November 24, 2006.

It is a long speech full of ideas. I think the thrust of it is that for any country the political leadership is not of the people of that country. Even the U.S. where we have government By The People and For The People. Instead political leadership is this insular group who sees their role as convincing the population to following agenda's decided by the political leadership.

He tells of an interview of Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg trials. He was asked how the Nazi's were able to convince their people to do those horrendous things.

Göring said, “Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same way in any country.”

It works the same in any country. In the U.S. the Republicans have been telling us for years this same story line. The Terrorists are coming to get us, and anybody who argues against this obvious truth gets demonized and shouted down for lack of patriotism.

It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. But should that be the way things occur? In this country Of the People and By the People and For the People, who should be determining the agenda? The leaders or the people? And what about when the leaders are so completely isolated from the people, as are our leaders?

Iran Nuclear threat a hoax? Or not?

Iran. Nuclear weapons. Sigh. Iran is part of the so-called axis of evil, which included Iraq and North Korea. North Korea has been pronounced to be a threat, they recently set off a small nuclear weapon of some kind, and this week Pres. George W. Bush was reported to have repeated the statement that growth of nuclear capabilities in North Korea is a major problem. Ditto the growth of nuclear capabilities in Iran.

Yet, the same week Congress finally voted approval for a deal Pres. Bush made with India to provide them with some nuclear technology. It's funny how India has nuclear weapons, is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaties, and the U.S. is providing them with nuclear technology. It's especially funny how Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaties, has not yet created nuclear weapons, yet the U.S. is threatening to invade Iran. Oh, and Pakistan, the country that was the worst proliferator of nuclear technology, without whom North Korea would not have gotten anywhere, is a partner to the U.S.

Very strange.

The process with Iran is seemingly the same as it was for Iraq leading up to the 2003 invasion of that country. There are shady exile groups making bold claims against the Iranian leadership, just as there were for Iraqi leadership. There are pronouncements and demonization by the U.S. leadership, just as there was for Iraq. etc. Yet we learned later that the whole story spun about Iraq was a total fabrication, and that seemingly the U.S. leadership knew they were lying while they were spinning their web of lies. The question is, how truthful are they being about Iran, or is this story just another big web of lies?

Hersh: CIA Analysis Finds Iran Not Developing Nuclear Weapons Reports that a classified CIA document finds there is no developing nuclear threat in Iran. Further, the Bush Administration realized before the election that it's likely they would lose, and that Cheney threatened that their loss "would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran" that "the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions" preventing Congress from getting in their way.

Hurm.. sounds like a constitutional crisis brewing here.

The system of checks and balances are supposed to keep one branch of U.S. government from riding roughshod over the others. But the last few years we've had a Congress that rubber stamped everything the administration told them to do. And among those things were suspensions or deletions of some of the checks and balances.

The Next Act is a New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh that was used as the source for the above article.

35-nations meet on denying Iran nuclear assistance "A push by Western nations to deny Iran technical help in building a plutonium-producing reactor has gathered enough support to be approved by the 35-nation board of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, diplomats said. Still, differences both within the Western camp and more broadly among different factions on the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on how harshly to punish Iran for its nuclear defiance persisted on the eve of the opening meeting Monday, the diplomats said. "

IAEA likely to block Iran atom aid at meeting "The U.N. nuclear watchdog is likely at a politically charged meeting this week to put on ice Iran's request for help with a heavy-water plant due to fears it could yield plutonium for atom bombs, diplomats say. The International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation governing board urged Iran in February to "reconsider" the Arak reactor project. But Tehran vows to complete it and applied for IAEA technical expertise to ensure the plant meets safety standards. Although IAEA approval of such requests is usually routine, Western board members say the Arak case must be rejected given Iran's record of evading IAEA non-proliferation inspections and its defiance of U.N. demands to stop enriching uranium. "

Re: Neo Culpa

Neo Culpa is a Vanity Fair article giving voice to some "neoconservatives" who are having regrets about this illegal and stupid misadventure (war) in Iraq. It is by David Rose, having had several weeks of conversation with these people, who is reporting that many of them regret the nature of their involvement, and are pointing the finger of blame at the Bush Administration.

One said he assumed that the "most competent national security administration since the Truman administration" would be able to pull this off. But instead they were unable to work together and did the most incompetent job imaginable. Another said the issue is GW Bush was not a decision maker (despite his recent declaration that he's the "Decider"), and instead the government machinery he supposedly ran was really running him.

Hurm.

Secret CIA Prisons in Your Backyard

The CIA is running secret prisons around the world where they are sending prisoners for torture. These prisons are not new, the infrastructure for these prisons have been under construction since the 1970's. Secret CIA Prisons in Your Backyard is an interview of two journalists who have been researching the story. They have published Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights to document the results of their research.

The CIA have set up shell corporations who own airplanes. The airplanes are flown under contract from the CIA shuttling people and equipment around the world in secret flights. However since these are civilian owned airplanes, they are required to file flight plans and leave other bits of paper trail. That paper trail is trackable by individuals.

Beginning in 2002 flight watchers began noticing this series of flights that would, for example, start at Andrews Air Force base, stop somewhere and end up in Afghanistan.

Speaking as an average American citizen I am not in support of our government torturing people, and violating normal legal procedures. Secret prisons are completely in violation of the habeas corpus legal precedent, where the government is required to show the body when they are holding someone. Holding people in secret is in violation of that legal precedent, which is a core value of American Justice. How dare our government leaders violate this.

Iraq For Sale, a movie about war profiteering

Mercenary soldiers and other kinds of military "contractors" have been with us for centuries. Mercenaries are rarely well thought of, and are widely regarded as without loyalties. One aspect of this War on Terror is the outsourcing of so much to corporate interests. The most obvious is the "no-bid contracts" awarded to Halliburton, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Iraq For Sale is a new documentary by Robert Greenwald about this situation. In it he covers the major companies contracting military services in the current War on Terror, and he dives into some of the stories of atrocities coming from these contractors. The thrust of the movie is a matter of loyalty. Supposedly military personell who have sworn oaths of allegience to the country have loyalty to the U.S. while contractors working for a corporation have loyalty to that corporation. The two loyalties produce very different results, with the corporation not being incentivized to provide services which would end the war, but instead being incentivized to make sure conditions keep happening which keep the war going. If the war were to stop then these military contractor corporations would see their contracts dry up.

The is hauntingly like Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the American People and the discussion of it in the recent movie, "Why we Fight". Like Why we Fight I suggest you simply must see Iraq For Sale. I got to attend a premeire screening last week at which Robert Greenwald was present and took questions afterward.

It is a horrific story that Robert Greenwald is telling. My question coming out was if the conduct of this war is compatible with what America stands for? Is this a country by the people, of the people, and for the people, or is it for the corporations? If we want America to return to being for the people, then we need to free our government from corporate control.

America has strayed from our purpose, and the conduct of this war is example of that misalignment between America's purpose and what we're currently doing.

How it works is ... In the early 1990's Cheney, as Defense Secretary, awarded a contract to Kellog-Brown-Root (KBR) to study whether it was a good idea to award military contracts to contractors. KBR said, that's a great idea. Cheney then went to work as Halliburton's CEO, oversaw the merger with KBR, and KBR was awarded hundreds of contracts during the 1990's. Then Cheney becomes Vice President, does not get rid of his Halliburton stock, and Halliburton and KBR are awarded over $15 Billion in contracts (most on a no-bid basis) during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Hmm...

The services? It ranges from food service, to water purification, to building housing, all the way to military services such as interrogating prisoners or protecting political leaders.

What was horrendous in this story is the conduct of military interrogations. If you remember the Abu Ghraib story, it involved horrendous treatment of prisoners by U.S. forces. A few low level soldiers were accused and have gone to trial over the situation. But a minor part of the story, which was covered but not very prominently, was the presence of military contractors as part of the interrogation system.

Some of the interrogation has been outsourced to private contractors. Private contractors are not subject to the military code of justice, they do not have the same military law training, they are not clearly loyal to the country, and it seems in many cases they simply were not American citizens at all. Because they did not have military training, they did not have drilled into them the limits of legal treatment of prisoners and the conduct of war.

The movie Iraq For Sale claims that in prisoner interrogations, these private contractors are sometimes calling the shots, and the horrendous abuses may have been instigated by these private contractors. In some cases these private contractors are "linguists" whose job is translating questions and answers in the interrogation. One would hope these people are highly trained in the languages, and would have high ethics standards in searching for truth. But the movie claims these contractors are instead cutting corners, hiring unqualified people, who then are unable to help the investigators, and are often making up stories or misinterpreting what the prisoners say. The result is then that the U.S. military goes out in the field to arrest people based on bogus information gotten from these interrogations.

It's not just interrogators and food service, the story goes on and on. Another example covered at length is the truck drivers delivering supplies across Iraq. Instead of these deliveries being done by military personell, it's being done by private contractors. The contractors often are going out with little protection through dangerous zones, and the truck drivers are being killed etc. The case covered in the movie happened on April 4, 2004, the one-year anniversary of the fall of the Iraq government. A convoy was sent out unprotected on a day the military knew was extremely dangerous, through a zone marked Red, which the military knew was extremely "hot" with a firefight and into which civilians were not supposed to be sent. But they sent a convoy of private military contractors through that zone, truck drivers really, and their trucks were shot up, several died, others were wounded.

The system is corrupt. The contractors do not have any incentive to keep costs low. The contracts are primarily on a cost-plus basis, meaning the government gets billed for the cost plus a gauranteed profit. This means the contractors routinely buy the most expensive stuff, or mistreat their equipment, or buy the wrong equipment, etc, so they will be reimbursed under the cost-plus contract.

Another effect is the truck drivers will often make runs of empty trucks driving up and down the highway, the military has to spend their resources protecting these empty trucks, and because the contractors ran their trucks down the highway it fulfilled the contract and they get paid some money.

Here are some videos:

Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers - Trailer

Halliburton lies about 'Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers'

'Iraq for Sale' bonus scene: Soldiers outsourced to KBR

What is The PMC(Private Military Company)s ? (warning: the voices are in Japanese)

'Iraq for Sale' bonus scene: Blackwater

(TheBlueState.com) Military contractors shoot civilians

How The Military Industrial Complex Makes Money Off 9/11

Washington Insider says Powell's Speech was a Hoax

February 2003 and Colin Powell appears before the United Nations to lay the case for the subsequent invasion of Iraq. A big multimedia presentation purporting to show secret evidence that Iraq's government was full of bad people, and that counter to United Nations resolutions and embargo's Iraq had managed to collect several forms of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear, biological, chemical, rockets, unmanned aircraft, etc. The problem is that it was all a lie. A lie which has not received much official attention.

The following video allows Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's senior aide at the time, to speak out about this. He feels like he was part of a hoax played upon America, the International Community, and the United Nations.


I've covered this story before:

The "case" for War: was written in the summer of 2003. I took each point Powell laid before the United Nations and showed that, near as I could tell, every single one of them was known to be false. Further that the administration knew at the time that these points were false. But they put Powell up on the international stage and had him say those things.

Now, if I, an individual with a busy life, can discover in 2003 that everything Powell said was false -- why the heck hasn't the media figured this out ??? Why hasn't the media made a big stink about this???

Is the Gulf War II Impeachable?: Consider the previous President. He was hounded by the press, and eventually impeached for lying about sex. Consider this President, being given carte blance while he commits high crimes and misdeameanors of hugely greater scope and magnitude than lying about sex.

The Man who Knew: More about the Lies: I wrote in October 2003, "The steps to create a war are ones which ought to be taken carefully, because people will be dieing as a result of your decision. Thousands of people have died since the decision to launch this war. I would wish that the claims he made that day were true, and that I did not have to be writing this. I would rather know that those people had died in a just cause, not a misbegotten lie."

Would we be safer if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq?

The Bush Administration keeps crying about the dissenters who want the U.S. to pull out of Iraq. They say, if we pull out now the job won't be finished, and it will only embolden the Terrorists who will think the U.S. is weak and they'll just launch more attacks inside the U.S.

Hmm..

The Missing Links offers an interesting opposing view.

The fighting in Iraq "has little if anything to do with al-Qaeda or the global jihad" instead "it involves rival Muslim sects killing each other and, all too often, American troops caught in the middle." Rather than being a way for American forces to kill off the Terrorists but instead it is an incubator for terrorists "both because the occupation arouses anti-American sentiment among many Muslims and because the current lawless violence makes for a perfect training ground in terror tactics."

Hence, wouldn't the U.S. be safer if we just let the Iraqi's make their own way in the world? It would give the fighting less reason to exist, and whatnot.

As tempting as that may be I'd be real nervous about pulling out of Iraq now. To be clear, I am totally against this war. As the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said, this is an illegal war that the U.S. is waging in Iraq. It is morally indefensible, because there was zero truth to the allegations used to launch the war. It is completely stupid, because it is distracting from the real problem, namely the terrorists who did launch the attacks in September 2001, and who were able to get away when they were rousted from Afghanistan.

So pulling out of Iraq makes some amount of sense. If we have little moral or legal or rational right to have launched the war, then why continue it?

Well, there is the question of the chaos and the lack of a strong Iraqi government. At the moment it is the American forces who are maintaining any semblance of law and order. If the U.S. forces were to withrdraw today, it seems to me the fighting between factions would only escalate into a full scale civil war. The country would fall even further into lawlessness and it's hard to imagine anything remotely good even coming from that.

It's a tough situation believing that America is wrong to have launched this war, but to have to follow it through to the end regardless of its illegality.

Rumsfeld's attack on American Dissent

The Neocons badly need something to bolster the popularity of their failed war on terror. The war is without moral merit and is going extremely badly. They are failing at achieving the first goal, flipping Iraq to become a moderate Democracy, while at the same time the schedule dicttates they enter into an expensive and foolish war against Iran. The idiots are steering the world into believing Iran is an utterly evil and dangerous state which needs to be destroyed, just like four years ago they steered the world into believing Iraq was an utterly evil and dangerous state needing to be destroyed.

But we since learned that Iraq was a feeble state who had nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks. Yet it was the spectre of that attack, and the spectre of mushroom clouds, which fogged the wisdom of the American people and led the U.S. into this folly of a war.

And, in this setting we have Secretary of State Rumsfeld insulting the Americans who disagree with his policies, calling us Nazi Appeasers. In Address at the 88th Annual American Legion National Convention: As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Salt Lake City, Utah, Tuesday, August 29, 2006 he talked to the American Legion about Mom and Apple Pie type issues, and in the middle of the speech he invoked memories of World War II saying:

It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else's problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator's reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:

“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!”

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons.

So, um, let's see if I get this straight. We're not allowed to practice dissent? If we practice dissent then we're appeasers of the ilk who allowed Hitler to become strong, who allowed England to become weak in the face of a growing military strength in Germany?

Well, gosh, I think it's dissent which makes this country strong. Especially when you have government leaders as inept as the ilk of Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush, who have lied to us at every turn, and who have totally mismanaged this war they foisted on us. Not only did they lead us into an illegal war, lying to us the whole way, their mismanagement of the war has cost untold grief and excess suffering of the Iraqi people. Further that excess suffering has only served the cause of the Islamic Militants, turning the people of Iraq against the U.S. because the people of Iraq see us as occupiers. What is the national duty of anybody who loves their country? To fight and drive out occupiers!

In any case, let me offer you a very potent critique of Rumsfeld (transcript youtube.com):

Rumsfeld's speech is simply part of a larger effort by the Administration to focus attention on the danger of "Islamic Fascism".

Republicans target 'Islamic fascism': Gives an interesting overview of various statements by political leaders about the danger of Islamic Fascism.

It's interesting to read some of these statements and ponder how they apply to the speaker just as strongly as it presumably does to these Islamic Fascists.

"The key is that all of this violence and all of the threats are part of one single ideological struggle, a struggle between the forces of freedom and moderation, and the forces of tyranny and extremism," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters traveling with Bush aboard Air Force One.

Uh... Let me see, the Bush Administration has been routinely tromping on the Freedom of the American people. How? Warrantless wiretapping, in violation of U.S. law for a start. And there's the increasingly invasive searches at airports, and in all other aspects of our lives.

Moderation? This administration is anything but moderate! They are more at the extreme conservative edge of American political life. They are the very definition of extremism, of the Christian Fundamentalist variety.

I think what we're facing is a war between two sorts of Fundamentalist religions. Namely, Islamic Fundamentalism and Christian Fundamentalism. Both seem to think they have a monopoly on The Truth, and that their religion and practices are clearly superior to everybody elses.

Discussing the emotional impact and strength of using the word Fascist, the article says this:

"It helps dramatize what we're up against. They are not just some ragtag terrorists. They are people with a plan to take over the world and eliminate everybody except them," Black said.

Uh... Let me see, the Neocons (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc) had published a plan in the 1990's through The Project for a New American Century. That plan? Well, their stated aim was that as the Worlds Primary Superpower, the United States had a moral obligation to create peace in the world. The form of that peace? It was to begin with the Middle of the Middle East, and reshape the Middle East to have Moderate Democracies rather than the extremism which has been growing popular there. They would, uh, begin with Iraq, and topple the government of Iraq. Then after being greeted with open arms and showers of flowers by the greatful Iraqi's, and after establishing a moderate Democracy in Iraq, they would move on to either Syria or Iran. The establishment of a moderate democracy in Iraq would prove enticing to the other countries in the Middle East, and between toppling governments and the allure of moderate democracy, the other governments of the Middle East would too join the ranks of moderate democracies.

Seems to me that is a plan to take over the world and to eliminate every ideology except their own.

And just who was it who concocted that plan? It was the Neocons, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.

The new GOP buzzword: Fascism

Tyrrell: The Rumsfeld Horripilation

Democrats raise Rumsfeld attacks to put GOP on defensive

UPDATE (Sep 4, 2006): Frank Rich, a columnist with the NY Times, wrote another scathing rebuttal along the same lines. (NY Times Select, Mother Jones reprint)

It's interesting, he notes, how Rumsfeld hit the nail on the head contrasting Neville Chamberlain versus Winston Churchill and how it relates to the current era. Neville Chamberlain pretty much ignored the rise of the German war machine, and prevented Great Britain from arming itself in response. Chamberlain wanted to appease Germany hoping that would prevent later wars. At the same time Churchill was a hawk, calling for Great Britain to prepare itself for war, etc. History showed Churchill to be more prescient.

Rumsfeld, in his speech, wants to place himself and the others in the administration in the role of Churchill. He wants to claim their position as being prescient, warning against this danger from Islamo-Fascism. He wants to call the rest of us appeasers who will allow the Islamo-Fascists to eventually destroy us.

But, as Frank Rich reminds ... there is an interesting juxtaposition to consider. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain was famously photographed warmly shaking Hitlers hand in Munich. In 1983 Donald Rumsfeld was famously photographed warmly shaking Saddam Hussein's hand in Baghdad. In both cases the governments in question knew very well the evildoings of the person in question, it being very well known that Saddam Hussein was a very nasty ruler with a lot of nasty deeds to his credit even at the time Rumsfeld met him. But did Rumsfeld do anything about those nasty deeds? No, Rumsfeld was there on a mission to reestablish diplomatic relations between Iraq and the U.S. so that Iraq would be aided in its disastrous war against Iran.

Who is the appeaser?

How can we trust the guys we have leading our country?

Fearism moves to keep U.S. citizens in sheep-like trance

In How Hitler Became a Dictator we learn how Adolf Hitler was able to rise to absolute power over Germany, even though his party had a minority of votes. In 1932 Hitlers party stood for a couple elections, and won only 30% of the vote, meaning they were rejected by 70% of the voters. To gain power they staged a series of murders and other violent actions which might be called Terrorism today. This built a climate of fear leading the people to vote for Hitlers party, which then quickly moved to grab control over the government. Once in control over the government, they staged a fire at the Reichstag (Germany's equivalent to the U.S. Capital building) which was blamed on Communists and used to engender even more fear in the population.

That history is instructive today. Hitler's rise to absolute power was based on lies and deceit and manipulating the German public through fearism. It's understood that a political movement can control a population through fearism, and it was the German propoganda masters who honed this to a fine art. One stages an event that causes the people to be afraid. Then, as the political leader, one steps onto the public stage and offers the people a solution to the event which is meant to calm their fear. But, in the fearful state, the people become more pliable, more willing to do anything you tell them must be done.

For example would we be willing to essentially disrobe before boarding airplanes? After the Sep 11, 2001 attack, and after the "shoe bomber", we are willing to do so. But before those two events would we have stood still for such invasive searches?

Following are a series of recent speeches and other events which illustrate the principle in action. It seems obvious to me that a state of continual fear is being maintained so that the government can manipulate us. Rather, so that the neocons can manipulate us into supporting their continued control over government.

For example, take the 2006 State of the Union speech. This clip was constructed from every fear-word spoke by President Bush during that speech. Now, what is the intended message of a speech so filled with with fear-words? Is such a speech meant to calm our fears or to build them?

And it's not just the government figures. Here's Jon Stewart (the Comedy Show) commenting on a recent bit of fearmongering about airplane travel. In mid-August 2006 there was a revealed plot that would have had "terrorists" bringing bomb-making materials onto airplanes, mixing chemicals during the flight, and then supposedly detonating them during the flight. But what it's meant is air travelers are now prevented from carrying a whole range of potentially dangerous things on airplane flights.

In the 2004 Republican National Convention they repeatedly invoked September 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein, and the threat of global terrorism. Over and over.

During the 2004 election cycle an announcement was made of vague threats where al Qaeda would possibly disrupt the election. There was even consideration of whether the election should be delayed until the threat of disruption was over. Here is Jon Stewart's analysis.

GOP Senator Burns: 'Faceless' terrorists 'drive taxi cabs in the daytime and kill at night': At a fundraiser dinner featuring First Lady Laura Bush, Senator Burns claimed that "faceless terrorists" drive taxicabs during the day, and plot to blow up our society at night.

Was it a terror sting or entrapment?: A terrorist cell was captured and is being charged for plotting terror attacks. However, the people making the plot had no connection to al Qaeda or any other terror organization. Instead they were contacted by FBI agents, who posed as al Qaeda plotters, and it was these FBI agents who supplied all the money and material with which these plotters were planning to launch their attack. Yup, some terrorist plotters were fooled by FBI agents into thinking they were working for al Qaeda, when they were actually working for the FBI. And, for this "crime" they are under threat of prison sentences for plotting attacks the FBI told them to plot.

Bush setting up next terror speech: Discusses a series of new speeches to be given by Bush that are meant to prop up support for the War On Terror.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff strongly backed a program Wednesday that would ease airport security for passengers who pass voluntary background checks to show they aren't terrorists.: Ah, so we're presumed guilty until we prove our innocence? Is this the state of terror the U.S. citizens are in, that such a proposal can be made with a straight face and not get laughed off immediately?

Oh, and this plan is said to be proposed directly as a follow-on to the liquids-as-bombs plot that was "prevented" in mid-August 2006. In that plot supposed terrorists in the UK were planning to hide bomb-making materials in innocent looking bottles of sports drinks or hair gels or the like. Once on the airplane they were expecting to mix the chemicals and make their bomb. A big scene was made about this plot, dozens of people arrested, and the public made to dump vast quantities of personal care products or drinks under the guise of their potential for danger.

And, now, in the state of fear created by that event, the Department of Homeland Security is proposing that all of us who travel in airplanes be registered and have to endure background checks. Okay, that is, those of us who travel and wish to avoid enduring ridiculous searches and treatment under great suspicion, that if we want to travel in ease then we would be required to give up some freedoms and privacy. For what? Under a propped up false sense of insecurity?

Hmm, this makes me think of the book 1984 where double-speak would have meant the Department of Homeland Security is really about creating Insecurity among the population.

Lie by Lie: Chronicle of a War Foretold: August 1990 to March 2003

URL: 

Lie by Lie: Chronicle of a War Foretold: August 1990 to March 2003

Description: 

This is a detailed history of the lies by the Bush Administration and other Neocons beginning in August 1990. These lies circle around the plan to launch the war in Iraq, and other moves by the Neocons to reshape the world.

If it ain't broke, don't privatize it. Social Security, that is

If you haven't noticed, President Bush decided to touch the "third rail" of American Politics. He's been talking about privatizing Social Security. Except he's using every term but "privatizing", preferring the term "private accounts". But what it boils down to is to toss our retirement dollars into the stock market and gamble, but if the last four years hasn't taught us to be careful about the stock market, then what else would?

Recycled rhetoric Bush's huge gamble on dismantling the cornerstone of the New Deal will fail. And if the Democrats remain disciplined, his defeat will be profound. (By Sidney Blumenthal, SALON.COM, March 3, 2005)

First we have a history lesson. It seems that the "Social Security is unworkable and fundamentally flawed" claim is not new at all. Instead the claim has been circling around the Republican Party since 1936, and has been repeated by several Republican Party figures through the years. It's no doubt the failure of those prior claims that has led us to regard Social Security as the third rail of American Politics, because several generations of Republican leaders have killed their political careers over this issue.

But when Reagan became president he jettisoned his denunciation of Social Security. In 1983, he signed a bipartisan tax and benefits bill extending its solvency until 2060. The ultimate conservative had used anti-Social Security rhetoric to galvanize his conservative base to gain office, but as president he joined his Republican predecessors in supporting the system. With that, he took the issue off the table for years. In 1996, Sen. Bob Dole never mentioned a word against Social Security, proud of having been a co-sponsor of the 1983 bill Reagan had signed.

...Bush's impending defeat on Social Security is no minor affair. He has made this the centerpiece of domestic policy of his second term. It is the decades-long culmination of the conservative wing's hostility against Social Security and the Democratic Party. Projecting images of Roosevelt and Kennedy cannot distract from Bush's intent to undermine the accomplishments of Democratic presidents. The repudiation of Bush on Social Security will be fundamental and profound and will shake the foundations of conservative Republicanism. Bush's agony is only beginning, if the Democrats in the Senate can maintain their discipline.

While it's delicious to consider Bush dying in a self-made immolation ...

Let us turn to ten myths about Social Security. It's published by The Social Security Network, an informational resource about the Social Security program operated by The Century Fund.

What they've done is collect all the Republican claims that the Social Security system is due to collapse, and refuted every one.

They've also published a list of 12 reasons why privatizing Social Security is a bad idea.

We also have to consider how accurate are the claims made by the Bush administration. Apparently to justify the claim that the system will fall apart in 2042, they have to assume horrible U.S. economic performance in terms of GDP growth rate. How bad? It would be the worst economic performance since the 1930's, that is how bad. So, if our economy were to be that bad wouldn't a privatized account whose growth depends on the stock market also perform badly?

I gathered all this from a Flash animation titled "If it ain't broke, don't privatize it!", which won MoveOn's contest to make an animation explaining why the Social Security proposals are just plain bad.

The most interesting point from the animation is the cap. Social Security is taxed at a fixed rate on your income, for up to $90,000 of your income. If you make more than $90,000 income, you pay a maximum of around $5800 in Social Security. Even if you make $zillions per year, all you are taxed for Social Security is the $5800.

The simplest way to "fix" Social Security is to simply raise the cap.

Bush/Blair planned Iraq invasion in July 2002

It was obvious to me all through 2002 that Bush had already made up his mind to invade Iraq. He kept claiming no plan was set, and that merely he was doing hardball negotiations with Saddam Hussein. But it always looked to me as if he was predetermined to invade, and was simply building a case to the public. It became especially obvious once materials, equipment, and troops started being moved into the area.

Yet, Bush has so far gotten away with this and the other lies that were told to justify the war.

Iraq leak puts pressure on Blair (Sunday, May 1, 2005 CNN.COM)

The secret Downing Street memo (The Sunday Times - Britain, May 01, 2005)

At issue is a British document leaked during the recent elections in the U.K. The document concerns IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

...The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

To decode this a little ...

"C" is most likely Sir Richard Dearlove, Britain's "spy chief" who had just returned from visiting the U.S. for talks.

We have him clearly reporting that the U.S. leadership, in July 2002, was already planning to invade Iraq. While the evidence was recognized to be slim, they were planning a public relations campaign to cause the public to ignore the slim evidence and support the war anyway.

Britains Attorney General pointed out the only legal route to launching an invasion of Iraq is to get UN Security Council approval. And that using the UN Security Council Resolution number 1205 provided slim grounds. But that the U.S. leadership was unwilling to go to the UN Security Council.

See here for resolution 1205: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1998/scres98.htm

Related blog posts:

The British Election and the Iraq War

Proof: How America was deceived.

Proof Bush Fixed The Facts

Iraqgate?

Iraq: The Fix was on in July, 2002

Secret U.S. Plans for Iraqi Oil

Greg Palast is at it again, finding (somehow) secret documents of enormous significance. In this case the documents relate to plans for disposition of the Iraqi oil after the U.S. invasion of that country.

You may remember that our dear President GW Bush promised on a stack of bibles that the invasion of Iraq was for pure motives. That it had nothing to do with the oil. Nope, no way.

At the same time he laid out a pack of lies claiming Iraq had involvement with the Terrorists and that therefore Iraq was culpable for the September 11, 2001 attack. But that's a bunch of crap, because Iraq and al Qaeda were bitter enemies. So, something else was the cause for invading Iraq, and clearly the cause is the black liquid stored beneath Iraq's ground. (hint: Oil)

This is where Greg Palast's latest bombshell revelation comes in.

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil. Two years ago today – when President George Bush announced U.S., British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad – protestors claimed the U.S. had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered. BBC's Newsnight reveals that, in fact, there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and U.S. State Department "pragmatists."

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the U.S. State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants. Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S.

An important point to remember around the decision to invade Iraq is the statements, reported by Richard Clarke, made on September 11, 2001. Richard Clarke was the chief of counterterrorism in the National Security Agency, and was the point man in the White House handling reaction to the "9/11" attack. In his book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, he discusses how Vice President Cheney and others bluntly told him, on September 11, 2001 and again on September 12, 2001, to prove that Iraq did that attack, and to begin plans for hitting back at Iraq. This despite clear evidence immediately that it was al Qaeda operatives who performed the attack.

This has always been a curious point. It shows that Cheney and others in positions of power, the NeoCon's, were predisposed to attacking Iraq. As I discussed in Background Material (March 30, 2003), members of the thinktank Project for a New American Century have been pushing, for years, to launch a series of wars in the Middle East. The intent of these wars was to "install" moderate democracies in the Middle East, starting with Iraq because it is the middle of the Middle East. By starting in the "middle" they intend to foster the spread of moderate democracy through some kind of osmosis. So, who are these "brilliant" megalomaniacal strategists? Why, none other than Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and others who are now holding positions of power in the Bush administration.

To say that they were predisposed to attacking Iraq is an understatement.

This whole war is nonsense ... how can you "install" democracy? Democracy is something a country chooses of its own free will! It's been obvious all along that this was about something else, and that it's about the oil.