My Letter to My Congressman

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Bush's criminal and murderous adventures in Iraq should never be forgotten. It was this combination of crookedness and incompetence that very nearly destroyed our nation. And we are not yet out of the woods! One wonders, where is Bush Jr these days? Where does he hide?

At the height of the Iraq debacle, I wrote a letter to my congressman. He replied --such as it was! I replied to his letter and refuted him point-by-point:

          John Culberson
          Member of Congress
          7th District

          Honorable Member of Congress:
         Thank you for your reply to my concerns about the Bush administration's case for War in Iraq. I           have considered your points –in blockquotes –followed by my reply:

I believe that the Bush administration made the correct decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power and liberate Iraq after Saddam continue to disobey numerous United Nations resolutions and refuse diplomatic offers.

No one disagrees that Saddam was a "bad man". With all due respect, that is not the issue. The world is full of "bad men" and, in most cases, the United States does not invade and occupy their countries. One wonders: what is the compelling difference in Iraq? That it has oil?

Secondly, it is unclear and most certainly not proven by anything available in the public record that Saddam was not in compliance with United Nations resolutions when he was attacked and invaded. U.N. inspectors had, in fact, asked for a reasonable amount of time in which to complete their tasks.
Only if they had been allowed to complete their responsibilities could it have been known conclusively whether or not Saddam was or was not in compliance with specific U.N. Resolutions. Moreover, U.N. resolution 1441 orders Iraq to comply with said resolutions but does not sanction the use of force by the United States –specifically invasion of a sovereign nation and occupation of same by U.S. Forces.

Lacking the "cover" of International law or sanction, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is a violation of the Nuremberg Principles. [Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal,]

Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people many times, and since the end of hostilities dozens of mass graves and torture rooms have been discovered.

Saddam's use of chemical weapons "...on his own people" is a reference to a well-publicized gassing of Kurds in 1988 –some 15 years ago. Persian Gulf I was fought since that time and the U.N.'s Hans Blix has raised the credible possibility that Hussein's weapons were destroyed either by the Persian Gulf War itself or voluntarily by Saddam in its wake –or both! In any case, no weapons have been found since U.S. troops have occupied Iraq.

Moreover, former CIA analyst Stephen Pelletiere has argued persuasively that Saddam's alleged gassing of Kurds in the waning months of the Iran-Iraq war may have been perpetrated by Iran, not Iraq! If that is the case, then none of the argument with regard to Saddam's alleged gassing of the Kurds is relevant.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Saddam indeed used gas some 15 years ago! At that time, the Saddam regime was nothing more than a U.S. puppet regime. What was the source of his weapons if not the United States? That question has not been answered by either our elected officials or the mass media.

References to the "gassing" incident in the Bush case for war is really this subtle argument: because Saddam used gas on his own people, if he should obtain nuclear weapons, he will use them. However, Saddam had many opportunities to use poison gas and biological agents on the Coalition forces and Israel during the Persian Gulf I” but not even Bush partisans have alleged that he did so.
UN arms inspectors later found warheads capable of delivering these weapons that could have been used by Iraq but were not!

More recently, it was widely reported and speculated in the Bush administration's run up to war that in the event, Saddam Hussein was most likely to use biochemical weapons if he felt under mortal threat. He was most certainly under mortal threat –yet there is no evidence that he used such weapons –either on his own people who were expected to rise in up revolt against Saddam and in support of the invading U.S. army or against U.S. troops. Most speculation about why he did not involves complex violations of Occam's Razor and other logical legerdemain. The simplest explanation for Hussein's failure to use such weapons is that he, in fact, did not have any.

He never offered any evidence that he had ceased his chemical, biological, and nuclear programs.

But Bush never offered proof or evidence that Saddam every had chemical, biological or nuclear programs. By that time, the burden of proof was on Bush to prove his assertions. Those who assert must prove. This is true in any legitimate courtroom; it is true in 'debate'; it should be true of propaganda but that it is not is a defining characteristic of propaganda! Negatives cannot be proven. It's an old but dirty trick.

Nevertheless U.N. inspectors had been and were doing their jobs in Iraq, even as Colin Powell made his presentation to the United Nations. The mechanism by which Saddam's claims could have been proven or disproved was in place. Clearly – the Bush administration had nothing to gain by allowing the truth to be discovered and heard!

But the search for WMD continues as it had before the invasion but now the American people are picking up a huge tab. The cost of the war and the occupation must be added to the cost of a weapons search. The U.N. inspectors could have been allowed to complete their jobs at much less cost. It is increasingly difficult to see what has been gained.

We have learnt from September 11 that we cannot afford to ignore those who hate us and are willing to use weapons of mass destruction.

Our current policies –if continued –are guaranteed to multiply the number of people who hate us.

The search team led by Dr. David Kay has already discovered troubling evidence about Saddam's intentions.

Here is the thesis sentence from Dr. David Kay's report which I have read in its entirety: “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.” David Kay also cautioned: “It is far too early to reach any definitive conclusions and, in some areas, we may never reach that goal.”
Nevertheless, George Bush and Colin Powell most certainly reached definite and firm conclusions however baseless. Nevertheless, these “conclusions” made up their case for war and Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of ten year old, black and white satellite photos.

Again –with all due respect: the American people were not "sold" war with Iraq on the basis of Saddam's intentions; we were told repeatedly that Saddam –in fact –HAD weapons of mass destruction not that he was merely intending to develop them or that he had merely a "programme". This focus on "intent" is new to administration rhetoric and nothing less than an ex post facto case for war! But it was not the case that Bush and Colin Powell made in the run up to war or the case that Colin Powell had made to the United Nations.

It has uncovered papers showing Saddam recently attempted to purchase missile parts from North Korea.

That's hardly surprising but it does point up the hypocritical differences in the way Bush treats North Korea –a nation which openly pursues the development of Nuclear Weaponry –and Iraq. It also raises the question of whether or not U.S. rhetoric has impelled other nations to seek not only missile parts but also "yellow cake". Besides –Iraq was cheated. According to the Washington Post, North Korea never made good on the deal and refused to refund some $10 million to Iraq.

Investigators have also discovered new research on biological agents and unmanned aerial vehicles that could disperse chemical or biological weapons. The team has repeatedly found evidence of deception, from burned computers to recently scrubbed missile trailers.

Intentions! If Bush and Powell had made only this case, how deep would have been the support for war?

Two Iraqi weapons scientists cooperating with Dr. Kay were shot to prevent them from telling what they know.

Every media report that I have read concerning this incident has attributed it to solely to Dr. Kay. There is, so far, no independent corroboration of motive. Secondly, the fact that two scientists who were most probably involved in a weapons program of some sort does not prove that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction at the time of the U.S. invasion and occupation. Nor does it change the fact that there is no authorization under International Law for the U.S. attack. There is always the real possibility that the two scientists were, rather, shot to prevent their revealing the lack of WMD in Iraq.

Iraq is roughly the size of California, and Dr. Kay noted that the yet unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction could be stored in a space the size of a two car garage.

We are paying a high price in lives and dollars if the U.S. case for war has been reduced to a search for a two-car garage –a search that might have been conducted less expensively and more efficiently under the cover of International Law by U.N. inspectors.

Additionally, it is ludicrous to assert that because WMD were “unaccounted” for that they, in fact, existed. The term “unaccounted for” implies that there is a mysterious inventory somewhere against which existing reports are measured. Where is that inventory, who compiled it and how?

Until those questions are answered, any statement about “unaccounted” weapons is meaningless. Furthermore –Kay's report made no claim that Hussein had actual weapons of mass destruction although, selectively, Bush read a passage from the report that indicated that Saddam was determined to get them. That was to be expected but it hardly justifies a war of aggression. Significantly, a different tact is taken in the case of North Korea, and perhaps in the cases of other nations that have escaped the glare of administration assisted publicity. I am not sure what this proves other than an uneven, inconsistent, and impractical policy of pre-emption, a program that cannot possibly form the cornerstone of a viable foreign policy in a civilized and rational nation.

At last, there is no compelling reason to believe that Dr. Kay, however professional he may be, will find weapons when in fact there is dubious probable cause that they ever existed.
There is nothing in the Kay report that supports Bush's original case for war. The Kay report, however, was expertly used to divert attention from Bush's original case best summed up by Sen. Robert Byrd: "We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they have not been seen."

We were told that the throngs of Iraqi's would welcome our troops with flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared.

We were led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but no evidence has ever been produced.

We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy "yellow cake" from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has turned into empty air.

We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned out to be only vapors of the mind.

We were told that major combat was over but 101 [as of October 17] Americans have died in combat since that proclamation from the deck of an aircraft carrier by our very own Emperor in his new clothes.Most notably, Bush himself had stated that Saddam had tried to buy “yellow cake” in Niger. That this statement may have lead to “leaks” which imperiled the CIA's search for WMD world wide is reason enough in and of itself for Congress to investigate the entire case for war, how the case was presented, how intelligence and evidence contrary to the Bush case were handled.

Still, in your letter to me, Congressman Culberson, you repeat the same discredited lies and line:

America is safer now that Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, and I support building a stable and prosperous Iraqi democracy that can lead by example in the Middle East.

 Congressman Culberson, letter to me

Everyone supports a stable and prosperous Iraq. The question is this: is invading and occupying a sovereign nation in violation of the Nuremberg principles a prudent way to accomplish that aim? I don't think it is and, I daresay, intelligent people agree with me. It is easy enough to assert that America is safer –but unless and until WMD are found in Iraq, it is simply fallacious to credit the Bush administration with having created or nurturing that “safety”. My neighbor may sprinkle salt on his lawn to keep elephants out of his front yard; but the fact that there are no elephants within 5,000 miles of his house hardly proves that it works. A more compelling case can be made that the world is much less safe because of the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes.

Clearly, Bush has made no "aggressive" attempts to disarm nuclear powers Pakistan and India. North Korea, meanwhile, clearly seems to have accelerated its nuclear program as a direct result of the perceived "Bush" threat.

Furthermore, there is documentary evidence from the FBI (published by the Brookings Institution) that as Ronald Reagan waged a similar “war on terrorism” with similar rhetoric (“...you can run but you can't hide”) terrorist attacks on the United States increased. There were, in fact, three times as many attacks during the Reagan years as during the Clinton years. I doubt seriously that America, indeed, the world, is safer under the Bush regime.
I sincerely hope that you would give my views serious consideration. At a time when most Americans have become convinced that politicians of both parties are merely pawns of big money, big lobbies, and/or the Military/Industrial complex, it would signal a triumph for Democracy itself if a political issues might be won – just once – upon the verifiable facts and the merits of the argument itself as opposed to the various transparent and/or stupid labels and slogans that are attached to it.

Sincerely
Len Hart

---

---

The Brutal, 'Iraqi' Education That Awaits John McCain

McCain was and remains on the wrong side of the unwinnable war against Iraq. He will and deserves to lose a race against any opposition and, most certainly, that of Barack Obama. McCain, typically, states a false dilemma --not unusual for the GOP, a party that has made its 'living' spreading lies, fallacies and propaganda.

In the wake of Scott McClellan's scathing indictment of the Bush regime's sprint to war, some administration pundits argue that to continue to debate why and how our country went to war some five years ago is a distraction from the more crucial issues at hand. The details and minutia of the complex decision to invade Iraq is better left to the historians to untangle. Rather, we should concentrate our efforts and attention on how best to capitalize upon the more recent "successes" of the "new" military strategy in Iraq.

Even were such optimism regarding the surge warranted, however, what these pundits fail to realize, is that military success and improved strategy does not of itself afford a moral and legal basis for continuing the occupation. Understanding how and why we invaded Iraq is relevant not only to ensure the accuracy of the historical record but, more importantly, to decide whether to continue the occupation in the hope or achieving a yet to be defined "victory," or in the words of John McCain, to "surrender," accept defeat and withdraw.

--Whether to Achieve Victory in Iraq or "Surrender"

The war is already lost and the GOP would not recognize victory if they saw it. They most certainly cannot define it.

There is NO 'victory' to be had when wars are waged upon lies and deceptions. Will 'lies' suddenly become true? Not a war but a crime, Iraq, like Viet Nam, was characterized by the lack of battlefields or fronts. It will be forever associated with quagmire and a 'resistance' that simply refused to line up and be shot like little tin soldiers. Apparently --nothing was learned in Viet Nam. The endless repetition of failed strategies is typical of both idiocy and insanity.

This 'war' was lost before it was begun. Secondly, there is simply no yardstick or standard now or ever by which victory is determined or even recognized. Does victory consist of killing every Iraqi who disagrees with the naked aggression against his country? Does victory consist of brainwashing Iraqis into believing the same pack of lies that were, until recently, believed by brainwashed Americans? Does victory consist of Halliburton getting all the oil it wants, raising the price of oil to every American still dependent upon fossil fuel vehicles? Does victory consist of a 'peace' (read: occupation) that an American presence is required for 100, perhaps, as McCain has suggested, 10,000 years? I don't think so, McCain!

If McCain should think so, then I suggest he get his ass to Iraq now. He has a very, very long education of some 10,000 years ahead of him.

Victory in Iraq? Forget about it! There is not now nor will there ever be victory in Iraq short of a decree by God himself that what Bush did in Iraq was right! As long as anyone lives to denounce the crimes and genocide and murder perpetrated by one George W. Bush, that war is lost to the US and lost forever to history.

---

---

America's Fate Depends Upon Whether Gen. Petraeus is an Honest Man

Having swept both houses in the mid-terms, the party of donkeys may be about to fall off a cliff into the trap set for them by the GOP. Some background: even though, it was Richard Nixon who escalated the Viet Nam war beyond anything previous administrations had dared think about, it was Democrats who paid the price. The GOP convinced the nation that Democrats were weak on defense. The strategy worked to set up Reagan's historic victory. An era of trickle down economics followed and the trend continues to this day: the rich get richer and everyone else falls into an economic black hole.

The GOP had help along the way. Iran undoubtedly cut a deal to delay the release of US hostages until Ronald Reagan was sworn in, It reinforced the "weakness" that stuck on Carter like taffy.

As Eleanor Clift points out, the GOP has pulled out and dusted off a typical GOP strategem, a tired tactic that has, nevertheless, worked miracles for them in the past. Bush, says Clift, will keep just enough troops in Iraq "...to provide a surface illusion of progress." Bush will leave it to the Democrats to pull out and cut off support for whatever regime is in place. It will not matter to the GOP that it will fall because it will never have been legitimate. The GOP will blame "weak-kneed, weak on defense" Democrats for the inevitable fall of an illegitimate puppet regime.

Viet Nam redux! Democrats paid dearly for having "...pulled funding from the South Vietnamese government." Wouldn't it be interesting, however, if Gen. Petraeus should be the one to explode the GOP strategy in their faces, in "full view of the world"?

This scenario was suggested to me by Ernest Evans, a professor of political science at the Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kans. Several hundred of his former students are currently serving in Iraq. In a recent e-mail outlining his views, he wrote, “I do not believe a single serious student of unconventional war believes that the surge will help the US win in Iraq. The purpose of the surge is not to provide ‘space’ for Iraq’s politicians but rather to provide ‘cover’ for DC’s politicians.”

There is one other thing to keep in mind, he wrote, and that is the extent to which Petraeus, a serious scholar and student of history, might be influenced by Vietnam. Nobody knows what he will say or how Gillespie and the White House will massage the message. The expectation is that he will fall into line, but he could surprise everyone by giving an unvarnished assessment of how truly bleak the US options are in Iraq. The argument for why he may be the one to drop the horse’s head on Bush’s bed: the late Gen. William Westmoreland will always be remembered for the optimistic report he gave to Congress in late 1967, only to have the Tet Offensive occur shortly after, destroying the public’s confidence that the war was winnable. In Iraq, the holy Muslim holiday Ramadan could bring heightened violence reminiscent of Tet. Petraeus has his reputation to protect, and being remembered as the William Westmoreland of the Iraq War is something no Army officer wants.

Eleanor Clift, Marketing the War

Finger-pointing is always to be expected near the ends of lost wars. And Iraq, make no mistake, is a lost war. Too many writers have blamed Bush for not defining victory. In fact, victory could not be defined and there was never any way to win.

Much has already been written about a growing rift between Bush and the uniformed military command. Much of the blame has leveled at Bush and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Other deserving targets are Vice President Dick Cheney, General Tommy Franks, the former commander of US Central Command, Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy secretary of defense, and L. Paul Bremer, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority. All but two are already out office. Bush is now on a second defense secretary, a third CIA director and the third commanding general in Iraq. None of the suffling has changed a thing. A lost war got even worse over time. This suggests that "personalities" had nothing to do with the very source of the problem back at the White House.

Was Petraeus put into his position to be a yes man? The future of the US comes down to whether or not Gen. Petraeus is an honest man or Bush's man, a real patriot or compromised GOP puppet.

In an internal assessment given to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, a senior intelligence analyst and a military planner for the US command in Baghdad call for shifting US strategy in Iraq away from counterinsurgency and toward peace enforcement, and they suggest that the Shiite-led ruling coalition is involved in the country's "low-grade civil war."

The Aug. 15 briefing, titled "Resolving the Conflict in Iraq: An Alternative Peacemaking Strategy," offers an unusual glimpse into the intellectual debate within the US military over the way forward in Iraq, and it comes just days before Petraeus, the top US commander there, is scheduled to testify before Congress on the progress of President Bush's war strategy.

--Washington Post, New Strategy Urged in Briefing to Petraeus

Much has been written on this blog and others about long term reforms that might make this a better country in Bush's wake. All are dreams until Bush and the GOP leadership that conspired with him is brought to justice.

They deceived the country into the Iraq War by abusing the intelligence gathering process and telling us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, leading us to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks and was a direct threat to the United States. We now know that none of that was true and we continue to learn more about the ugly and dishonest process that took this Nation to War. I cannot conceive of a more significant reason to impeach a President and Vice President than brazenly misusing the capabilities of this government to start a War. That War has cost the entire world dearly. The price we are paying continues to grow. The country of Iraq has been destroyed along with over half a million Iraqi people dead. Our Nation has lost the lives of thousands of young men and women, seen many more come back wounded or disabled and disrupted the careers and family lives of our National Guard troops - the suffering and damage is beyond comprehension, and yet it goes on and grows. And beyond that, we have spent billions upon billions of dollars that have mostly been borrowed from future generations. Consider for a moment what those billions could have accomplished if they had not been wasted. And all of this for what? I am outraged by every part of the decision to start this war and the way that they have carried it out. And I ask you, are you outraged? I ask you, given this picture must Bush and Cheney be held accountable?

I am outraged that here in this country, they listened to phone conversations, intercepted emails and spied electronically on Americans with a program that was so clearly a violation of the law that even Bush’s own attorney general, John Ashcroft, refused to certify it as in compliance with law. I ask you, must Bush and Cheney be held accountable?

In this country, at Guantanamo and around the world, they illegally captured and detained people without appropriate hearings and safeguards in a way that was determined by the Supreme Court to be a violation of the Constitution. Just Friday, the Supreme Court took the very unusual step of re-opening its consideration of an appeal from Guantanamo. I ask you, must Bush and Cheney be held accountable?

They used torture and sent prisoners to other countries where they would be tortured even more severely -and the Vice President was one of the chief architects of the torture program. I ask you, must Bush and Cheney be held accountable?

And we see even more reasons to impeach - the blatant disregard for the rule of law is rampant in this Administration. President Bush uses signing statements to announce which portions of laws passed by Congress he will not obey or enforce. The Administration refuses to cooperate with legitimate Congressional inquiries or to comply with subpoenas. And then there is the secrecy and the covering up - the refusal to comply with Federal law about preserving secret information, setting up a separate secret email system and then deleting thousands of emails, the order to the Secret Service to destroy all logs of visitors to the President and Vice President. I can only imagine how many more grounds for impeachment there would be if we knew all they are hiding.

But, outrage and anger are not enough. We have a job to do and that job is to hold this Administration accountable and take this country back. The power to change history is on our hands. We share a positive vision that we can help our Nation change for the better. We are the ones that we’ve been waiting for. There in no one else who will do our job. But our job is not easy. As we’ve called for impeachment, we’ve heard many objections - even from those who believe that there has been serious wrongdoing.

--Impeachment: We’ve Got a Job to Do, John Kaminski, Chair of the Maine Lawyers for Democracy, at the Citizens Summit for Impeachment

Why Bush Must be Stopped!

Why Bush Must Be Stopped Before He Nukes Iran!

Additional Resources

• Meet Jerome Hauer, 9/11 Suspect Awaiting Indictment
• Why did the World Trade Centers create so much powdered concrete?
• America at War
• Global Executions on Rise

The Cowboy's Shared News Items

The Existentialist Cowboy

Conservative Lies
Indict Bush
Why Conservatives Hate America
GOP Crime Syndicate
Iraq

Spread the word:

The War Racket: How Americans Pay for Bush's War Crimes at the Bank, the Pump, the Shop & the Graveside

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Bush had hoped to pull off a quick victory cheap. But nothing worked out as hoped or planned. The American people are stuck with the tab, paying for the war with high hidden taxes, higher prices and American lives. The cost of Bush's war crime has tripled since Bush declared the end of major combat operations. The American people are not safer for having sacrificed the lives of loved ones. The war on terrorism is either a criminal fraud or a miserable failure and I challenge my critics at the Heritage Foundation to debate me on that issue.

War is a racket fought by the masses for privileged elites, big corporations, and venal politicians like Bush. Bush's quagmire is fought for the benefit of no-bid contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater and financed by America's working poor and middle classes who pay for the war —with their lives abroad and with their jobs, their retirement prospects, and their access to health care at home. Bush's base —the nation's elite, his corporate sponsors, and the so-called defense industry —have paid nothing, risked nothing! Rather —they feed at the trough. The upper one percent of the population has gotten several tax cuts while the big oil companies report record profits rising concurrently with higher prices at the pump.

Just two days after 9/11, I learned from Congressional staffers that Republicans on Capitol Hill were already exploiting the atrocity, trying to use it to push through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. ... We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited. The story of the latest terror plot makes the administration’s fecklessness and cynicism on terrorism clearer than ever.

—Hoping for Fear, by Paul Krugman, Using Fear Commentary, NY Times

There are big profits in the death business. Go to Texas and ask the CEO at DynCorp.

The war in Iraq has boosted DynCorp's revenues, responsible for about $400 million of the company's nearly $2 billion in sales. And while the company didn't specify how much the effort has added to profits, there has certainly been an upside, Lagana said, although he added that profit margins are lower than in other private industry -- often below 10 percent.

For government contractors and other US-based businesses that are doing work in Iraq, the war there has continued to provide opportunity and benefits, although experts and companies alike say they are difficult to quantify. To be sure, security businesses, oil producers and defense contractors are among the biggest winners. Those who manufacture key products, from bulletproof vests to bullets themselves, and, more recently, those involved in reconstruction, have reaped the benefits, too.

--Businesses find benefits, costs in war work

Over the longer term, however, the effects of Bush's war against the people of Iraq war are only temporary, benefiting the entire economy only for a short period of time, the period of time in which the pump is primed. On the whole, the effect is minimal. Average Americans have not benefited from mass murder, torture, and other atrocities perpetrated by the "state". As Economic Policy Institute economist Jared Bernstein noted, whatever economic stimulus war might have provided becomes increasingly less significant over time. Defense spending had a big effect on job growth in 2004, but its effect since that time is relatively small. Wealth, however ill-gotten does not trickle down.

The number of US troops in Iraq, put at 145,000, does not include more than 126,000 private contractors. Author Jeremy Schahill calls it “the world’s most powerful mercenary army.” But that is polite. They are, in fact, hired hit men financed, enabled and paid by the people of the United States whether they want to or not. Under Bush, the US taxpayer no longer has a say in how his/her money is spent.

Scahill and filmmaker Robert Greenwald have told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee that these so-called "contract workers", these hired killers murder with impunity and undermine the better efforts of US command and control.

...contract workers have been involved in — but not punished for — numerous scandals during the Iraq war, the pair claimed. These contractors were among the interrogators and translators who tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, Greenwald said.

In one short period, senior military personnel documented 12 instances in which contract workers shot at Iraqi civilians, killing six, Scahill said, but no contractors were charged with crimes.

Contract employees were granted immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law by Paul Bremmer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority that ruled Iraq in 2003 and 2004, Scahill said. And they were not subject to US military law.

Truck drivers working for Halliburton routinely drove empty trucks across Iraq because the company is paid by the number of trips, not by the amount of cargo a truck carries, Greenwald said.

-- US House Panel Puts Iraq Contractor Abuse Claims ‘On the Record’

One of the more insidious falsehoods about Iraq has turned out to have been Bushco estimates of its cost. In 2002, George W. Bush himself predicted the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion —tops! To be expected —Bush was dead wrong. A report by the Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee now estimates that Bush's war of aggression in Iraq could cost the US $646 billion by 2015 —depending on the scope and duration of operations. Nobel prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University, estimates the cost of the war from one trillion to two trillion dollars!

Ongoing operations in Iraq were estimated at $5.6 billion per month in 2005. And costs have surely risen since then as the intensity of fighing increases accompanied by significant losses of materiel and maintenance.

The Bill So Far: Congress has already approved four spending bills for Iraq with funds totaling $204.4 billion and is in the process of approving a “bridge fund” for $45.3 billion to cover operations until another supplemental spending package can be passed, most likely slated for Spring 2006. Broken down per person in the United States, the cost so far is $727, making the Iraq War the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years.

Long-term Impact on US Economy: In August 2005, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next ten years. According to current estimates, during that time the cost of the Iraq War could exceed $700 billion.

Economic Impact on Military Families: Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 210,000 of the National Guard’s 330,000 soldiers have been called up, with an average mobilization of 460 days. Government studies show that about half of all reservists and Guard members report a loss of income when they go on active duty—typically more than $4,000 a year. About 30,000 small business owners alone have been called to service and are especially likely to fall victim to the adverse economic effects of military deployment.

—The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops, Institute for Policy Studies

The Bush administration has been able to keep the precise cost of the war a matter of guess work and estimates. But however much is wasted killing civilians in Iraq that is money that is not being spent educating Americans, providing for health care, fixing Social Security, rebuilding a deteriorating infrastructure, or addressing real threats to our environment.

However much has blown up in Iraq, it is lost forever to the victims of Bush's incompetence in the face of Katrina. It is lost forever to those millions losing retirements to corporate mismanagement and greed. It is lost forever to those unable to pay the high costs of health care, education, transportation, housing, and getting enough to eat each day.

US Budget and Social Programs: The Administration’s FY 2006 budget, which does not include any funding for the Iraq War, takes a hard line with domestic spending— slashing or eliminating more than 150 federal programs. The $204.4 billion appropriated thus far for the war in Iraq could have purchased any of the following desperately needed services in our country: 46,458,805 uninsured people receiving health care or 3,545,016 elementary school teachers or 27,093,473 Head Start places for children or 1,841,833 affordable housing units or 24,072 new elementary schools or 39,665,748 scholarships for university students or 3,204,265 port container inspectors.

Social Costs to the Military/Troop Morale: As of May 2005, stop-loss orders are affecting 14,082 soldiers—almost 10 percent of the entire forces serving in Iraq with no end date set for the use of these orders. Long deployments and high levels of soldier’s stress extend to family life. In 2004, 3,325 Army officer’s marriages ended in divorce—up 78 percent from 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion and more than 3.5 times the number in 2000.

Costs to Veteran Health Care: The Veterans Affairs department projected that 23,553 veterans would return from Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005 and seek medical care. But in June 2005, the VA Secretary, Jim Nicholson, revised this number to 103,000. The miscalculation has led to a shortfall of $273 million in the VA budget for 2005 and may result in a loss of $2.6 billion in 2006.

Mental Health Costs: In July 2005 the Army’s surgeon general reported that 30 percent of US troops have developed stress-related mental health problems three to four months after coming home from the Iraq War. Because about 1 million American troops have served so far in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan some experts predict that the number eventually requiring mental health treatment could exceed 100,000.

—The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops, Institute for Policy Studies

Many delusions were promoted in order to commit this nation to aggressive war. In the short months after 9/11, Bush erected a strawman upon which to direct American frustration, anger, and vengeance —an “axis of evil” consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. His intentions were made clear at the time. This "Axis of Evil" was responsible for world terrorism in general and our nation would wage war against it. Bush's speech was most notable, however, for what he did not say. Bush did not tell the American people that he had no intention of paying for the war. He would leave the deficit to future administrations and generations. Rather than expect his privileged base to pony up, he would reward their loyalty with several tax cuts. Nor are sons of daughters of that base required to serve their nation militarily. Bush's base gets a free ride as the rest of the nation bears the cost of war —in both lives and dollars.

If wars are not paid for upfront, they are paid for in the form of higher interest rates, prices, and lives. Wealth does not trickle down. But the effects of a falling dollar is felt by everyone. The exponential rise of wage and income inequality began with a vengeance in the Reagan 80's, most closely associated with the Reagan tax cut of 1982. Only the top 20 percent of the population benefited. Wage/income disparities have increased since then with only a short respite during Clinton's second term. The current trend began before a great wave of technical change and a computer revolution —none of which has benefited working Americans. Indeed, if you work for a living you have paid and continue to pay for Bush's war of aggression while Bush's base gets preferential treatment!

It is no coincidence that as prices increase, so, too, the national deficit. American credit abroad is dodgy. As the dollar continues to slide on world exchanges, not only gasoline prices increase but also prices of imported goods. Bush had said that he favors a strong dollar but, in fact, his administration has let the dollar slide, a cynical ploy designed to finance the Iraq folly upon the backs of working Americans. That it provides a moderate relief to US exporters is a bad trade off. What —other than death, torture and destruction —do we export these days?

Like Bush's mythical "Axis of Evil" the idea that a nation can wage a free war is an evil GOP fairy tale. Wars are always paid for, if not now, later, and in ways you won't like.

An update:

A pipeline shuts down in Alaska. Equipment failures disrupt air travel in Los Angeles. Electricity runs short at a spy agency in Maryland.

None of these recent events resulted from a natural disaster or terrorist attack, but they may as well have, some homeland security experts say. They worry that too little attention is paid to how fast the country's basic operating systems are deteriorating.

"When I see events like these, I become concerned that we've lost focus on the core operational functionality of the nation's infrastructure and are becoming a fragile nation, which is just as bad — if not worse — as being an insecure nation," said Christian Beckner, a Washington analyst who runs the respected Web site Homeland Security Watch (www.christianbeckner.com).

The American Society of Civil Engineers last year graded the nation "D" for its overall infrastructure conditions, estimating that it would take $1.6 trillion over five years to fix the problem.

"I thought [Hurricane] Katrina was a hell of a wake-up call, but people are missing the alarm," said Casey Dinges, the society's managing director of external affairs.

British oil company BP announced this month that severe corrosion would close its Alaska pipelines for extensive repairs. Analysts say this may sideline some 200,000 barrels a day of production for several months.

Then an instrument landing system that guides arriving planes onto a runway at Los Angeles International Airport failed for the second time in a week, delaying flights.

Those incidents followed reports that the National Security Agency (NSA), the intelligence world's electronic eavesdropping arm, is consuming so much electricity at its headquarters outside Washington that it is in danger of exceeding its power supply.

"If a terrorist group were able to knock the NSA offline, or disrupt one of the nation's busiest airports, or shut down the most important oil pipeline in the nation, the impact would be perceived as devastating," Beckner said. "And yet we've essentially let these things happen — or almost happen — to ourselves."

The Commission on Public Infrastructure at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, said in a recent report that facilities are deteriorating "at an alarming rate." ...

--Chuck McCutcheon, Newhouse News Service, Experts warn US is coming apart at the seams; becoming third world

Bush Plans Dictatorship

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

George W. Bush

Bush uttered those very unfunny words on December 18, 2000. On that day the president-elect went to capitol hill to meet with Congressional leaders and emerged from the meeting flipping them and the American people this rhetorical bird.

The president is making good on those words and there hasn't been a peep out of Congress or the press. In a document released on May 9, 2007 entitled "National Continuity Policy," Bush makes good on his sick fantasy. In case of “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function” Bush will control the entire US government, not just the federal branch.

It isn't really surprising. Bush decides who is an enemy combatant, a person without legal rights, and who should be spied upon.

If ever there was a moment for conspiracy theories, this is it. Will there be a phony terror attack, or a declaration of war against Iran? We don't know what the trigger will be but it is time to be afraid.

Actually it is time for impeachment. Bush's unpopularity makes him particularly dangerous. So does the acquiescence of the media and the silence of the Democrats. State legislatures have the right to begin the impeachment process but they have been smacked down by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

We are screwed. The phrase may be inelegant, but it says it all. Maybe we will all end up in Guantanamo. Who knows? The National Continuity Policy contains "classified continuity annexes." WTF!? As I said, we are screwed.

Indeed, Bush has arrogated unto himself the power to interpret the Constitution. I suppose he can now just dismiss the Supreme Court. Already he claims the authority to re-write laws passed by Congress and denies Congress the authority to subpoena witnesses

It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency

And this just in from Bluebloggin'.

US Department of Interior Investigates Bush

Posted by nytexan on July 27th, 2007

How many investigations can one administration have? I suppose if you’re Bush and Cheney and you completely ignore laws, you could technically be investigated every month. Well this time it’s the US Department of Interior going after them for the Endangered Species Act.

Mother Jones

• Two government entities are investigating the Bush administration over the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Christian Science Monitor reports the US Interior Department is reviewing the scientific integrity of decisions made by a political appointee, Julie MacDonald, who recently resigned under fire. Fish and Wildlife Service employees complained that MacDonald bullied, insulted, and harassed the professional staff to alter their biological reporting. The inspector noted that although she has no formal educational background in biology, she nevertheless labored long and hard editing, commenting on, and reshaping the endangered species program’s scientific reports from the field. Last week Fish and Wildlife announced that eight decisions MacDonald made under the ESA would be examined for scientific and legal discrepancies.

Legal discrepancies seem to be the standard operating procedure for the Bush administration.

Bush has a habit of putting incompetent people to oversee and bully scientist. This is exactly what Bush did with the national weather scientist so global warming would be watered down.

• Meanwhile Congress is investigating evidence that Vice President Dick Cheney interfered with decisions involving water in California and Oregon resulting in a mass kill of Klamath River salmon, including threatened species. As the CSM reports, both episodes illustrate the Bush administration’s resistance to the law. Earlier, the Washington Post ran the story of Cheney’s personal interference in the water decision that killed the salmon in 2002:

• In Oregon, a battleground state that the Bush-Cheney ticket had lost by less than half of 1 percent, drought-stricken farmers and ranchers were about to be cut off from the irrigation water that kept their cropland and pastures green. Federal biologists said the Endangered Species Act left the government no choice: The survival of two imperiled species of fish was at stake. Law and science seemed to be on the side of the fish. Then the vice president stepped in. First Cheney looked for a way around the law, aides said. Next he set in motion a process to challenge the science protecting the fish, according to a former Oregon congressman who lobbied for the farmers.

An update on Bush's transparent attempts to undermine US obligations with regard to the Geneva Convention.

To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections.
The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm's way. Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously "interpret" key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness. Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are "war crimes" for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.

--P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner, War Crimes and the White House

Tipped off by Fuzzflash, I post the following video experience. Just as it is impossible to make meaningful statements about a syntax from within a syntax, we may find it impossible to make statements about our own culture. Perhaps the Ancient Mayans have shown us a non-verbal truth from outside our paradigm. The "text" is by William Borroughs but the video was produced and added by one who uses the label, Karma, who writes"

This is a tribute to both William Burroughs and Hiroshima. Its a video I have been wanting to put together for some time now and release on the day of concern.

61 Years ago to day Hiroshima felt the atom split in anger. Today lets remember both Hiroshima Nagasaki which followed on the 9th August 1945. Lets hope the lion never rages again. 

---

---

Bush's Quagmire Under Scrutiny in New Movie: No End in Sight

It's been over four years since Bush, in an "augmented" outfit that looked more at home among the Village People than an aircraft carrier, declared "Mission Accomplished". What mission? What accomplishment? A new movie to be released this month is now the topic of a PBS Now documentary that asks: how did it come to this? I have a Carvellian quick response: we fell for it! The movie to look for at theaters is called, appropriately --No End in Sight.

This week, NOW's David Brancaccio speaks with two very different, but unforgettable men who allege that US bungling in Iraq created and fueled the deadly insurgency. Paul Hughes, a retired Army colonel, was part of the transition team after the US invasion of Iraq. He says key decisions were made that ignored the realities of Iraq. Omar Fekeiki was a Washington Post reporter and translator who risked his life to help US journalists.

"No End in Sight" was trumpeted as an expose of critical errors, denial and incompetence. That's all well and good and I applaud the effort. I've been screaming bloody murder about all those issues from the get go. [See: Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes, also: The Decline and Fall of the American Empire] What I have yet to hear is the unvarnished truth: This war is an immoral war, a crime, punishable by death under US criminal codes! This "so-called "President" should be frog marched out of the Oval Office and locked up before he can kill again!

What's worse, I despair for the American people. I fear the consequences if what is said is true that a people get the kind of government it deserves! I long ago gave up on "goppers" --for whom there is no hope of redemption, incipient psychotics for whom truth is whatever lie they can get away with. I had hoped reason might prevail! This time! Guess I was wrong. Lunatics rule the roost and there is, indeed, no end in sight!

As for the PBS Documentary, Brancaccio always does a good job. But I am losing patience with the endless fusillade of verbosity, apologies, and tortured explanations. "Errors, denial, and incompetence" are easily said in retrospect. Where was the moral leadership when some 90 percent of Americans tasted blood?

The Lancet update puts Iraqi casualties at one million dead though we were told we were at war with al Qaeda.[See: Is the US Responsible for the Deaths of Nearly a Million Iraqis?] There is no reason to believe that the US has ever, in any way, been at war with al Qaeda, a "phantom menace" that Bush's utterly failed and incompetent administration has never defined, located, or, worse, connected to the events of 911. As I recall, the first person to link al Qaeda to 911 was Colin Powell, the liar to took the WMD fraud to the UN. NOW's Coverage of the Documentary "No End in Sight" Part 1:

NOW's Coverage of the Documentary "No End in Sight" Part 2

Additional Resources

• The Redirection
• Terrorism: Worsening Factors

The Existentialist Cowboy

Conservative Lies
Indict Bush
Why Conservatives Hate America
GOP Crime Syndicate
Bush

Spread the word:

BBC Debates: John Bolton, "Who do you think you're fooling?"

An Iraqi citizen and Tony Benn combine to speak truth to power -power in the person of US UN Ambassador, John Bolton. The first blow to US spin came from an Iraqi citizen who challenged Bolton: "You lost Saddam back in 1992; he became a pariah, and thats when you decided to go to war". Later, Tony Benn, in his statement directly to Bolton, accused the United States and George W. Bush of committing war crimes in Iraq, crimes no different from those enumerated in the Nuremberg Principles. It was a one, two punch, a must see:

A note on Bolton's reply to Tony Benn. Bolton said that it was too bad that Benn did not understand the American Constitution. I must add: Benn had said absolutely NOTHING that would have indicated that he had misunderstood the US Constitution in any way on any part. Throughout the "debate" a recurring theme --the US invasion of Iraq IS a war crime.

Bolton's excuse these days boils down to I was just following orders. Pressed by his interviewer, Bolton accused him of preferring to live under a dictatorship. In fact, this is a cheap trick taught by GOP media "consultants". In fact, NOTHING said by the interviewer could be so interpreted to mean that he preferred living under a dictator. It is significant, however, that it is John Bolton these days who characterizes the never-ending war in Iraq as a "civil war".

Typically, Bolton tries to blames his victim, the Iraqi people for whom the US attack and invasion of Iraq was and remains a US crime followed by an incompetent and illegal occupation.

It was not Iraqis who sought out a US invasion that would murder some 40,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in operation "Shock and Awe" alone. Since that time, an untold number have been killed, murdered, tortured. It is convenient for the Bush regime that the US did not keep track of Iraqi casualties. No one has bothered to count the hundreds, perhaps thousands, brutally tortured in secret. But this, we are expected to believe, is the fault of the Iraqi people!

Even Democrats, lately, have taken up the absurd position that the on-going chaos in Iraq is the fault of the Iraqi people whom "we" now expect to "step up to the plate" though we have killed thousands and forced millions to flee. We are told that the Iraqi people -faced with the destruction of infrastructure, the apparatus of civil government, and the vicissitudes of an ongoing civil war, insurgency, and ongoing US war crimes -who must make the Middle East safe for Bush's inevitable and cowardly withdrawal.Tragically, there is no easy escape from George Bush's crime scene. There is no absolution. George W. Bush is personally and legally responsible.

At this late date, there is only one conclusion left to be drawn: the United States is morally bankrupt. The GOP is complicit in capital crimes and defends them without conscience or empathy. The Democrats lack the backbone and the moral clarity to force the issue. The American people, meanwhile, wander aimlessly through the wilderness hoping things will get better, wondering why when they never do.

But even Wikipedia, whom I rarely trust completely, has gotten it right when it comes to John Bolton. Wiki calls Bolton a fascist.

John Robert Bolton (born November 20, 1948), a fascist masquerading as an attorney and an American diplomat in several Republican administrations, served as the interim^[1] U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations with the title of ambassador, from August 2005 until December 2006, on a recess appointment. His letter of resignation from the Bush Administration was accepted on December 4, 2006, effective when his recess appointment ended December 9 at the formal adjournment of the 109th Congress. Bolton is now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Labor Party MP, Tony Benn, meanwhile, is absolutely correct when he says that the US invasion, ordered by George. W. Bush, was and continues to be a war crime. Even US CODES: Title 18,2441, makes it a US crime to commit war crimes abroad. Those war crimes which result in death to the victim are capital crimes. Bush is in a lot of trouble when distinguished world leaders join a rising chorus of outraged citizens across the globe. They can now now make the open and shut case that George W. Bush is an international war criminal. Organize now to bring this outlaw to justice.

A interesting theory is making the rounds. And, at a time when it would appear that sectarian violence in Iraq will, in fact, spread and endanger the entire Middle East, it is hard not to conclude that the Bush gang is deliberately "fomenting" chaos and plans to benefit from it. It is a fact, after all, that when Bush ordered the attack and invasion of Iraq, Iraq was destabilized. Every facet of the war since then has been a mistake if not a debacle. Morons could have done better.

It may be prudent, therefore, to ask the tough question: is team Bush deliberately spreading chaos in Iraq? Has team Bush intentionally mucked it all up? Is it all just a part of a wider, nefarious plan? We have always suspected that oil was behind Bush's imperial ambitions. Will chaos in Iraq help Bush deliver to the oil barons an inflamed Middle East? Or has Bush gone too far? Has the ticking time bomb already blown up in his stupid face?

I am impatient with speculation at this point. I no longer give a damn why the resident criminal does what he does. The public record is clear enough; there is enough evidence now to try and convict him of war crimes. This gang of criminals seized the White House with a stolen election. Since then, it has committed treason in order to shut up its critics, most, prominently Ambassador Joe Wilson. This administration has sought to ramrod through Congress tax cuts that rob the poor and benefit the rich and corporate. Fortunately, the GOP effort to embezzle the Social Security trust fund failed. Still, it is difficult to understand how George W. Bush will pay for the murders that he has committed in Iraq without financing that ongoing war crime upon the backs of America's retiring seniors and mortgaging the future of America's youth.

There is a special place in hell...

The Existentialist Cowboy

Conservative Lies
Indict Bush
Why Conservatives Hate America
GOP Crime Syndicate
Bush

Spread the word: