Showing posts with label cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cheney. Show all posts

Monday, March 12, 2012

dickhead's Scared of Canadians . . . .

Score one for Our Side!


Cheney deems Canada too dangerous for visit
 
Toronto - Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney canceled a Canadian speaking appearance because of security concerns sparked by demonstrations during a visit he made to Vancouver last fall.
Cheney was scheduled to talk about his experiences in office and the current American political situation at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre on April 24.
 But Ryan Ruppert of Spectre Live Corp. said on Monday that Cheney and his daughter Elizabeth had begged off through their agent.

"After speaking with their security advisers, they changed their mind on coming to the event," Ruppert said. He said they had "decided it was better for their personal safety they stay out of Canada."

Last Sept. 26, Cheney was forced to stay holed up in the Vancouver Club for seven hours before it was deemed safe for him to leave. Demonstrators blocked the entrances and at one point scuffled with police.

Cheney critics accuse him of endorsing the use of water boarding and sleep deprivation against detainees while serving in former President George W. Bush's administration.

Before the Vancouver event, Human Rights Watch urged the federal government to bring criminal charges against Cheney, accusing him of playing a role in the torture of detainees.
It pays to participate, 'cuz occasionally we win one . . . .

Monday, September 26, 2011

dickhead Comes to Vancouver . . . .

dickhead cheney came to The Vancouver Club tonight to promote his book.

Of course I participated to see Vancouverites welcome him in style.

To the best of my knowledge, he signed no autographs for the crowd outside the facility . . . .








Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Cheney's "List"

The revelations that Dick Cheney allegedly ordered the CIA not to report a super-secret Special Access Program (SAP) to congress is... unremarkable. If you didn't believe Cheney was running his own show then you still believe Heinrich Himmler wasn't trying to establish a government within a government with his SS.

The suggestion that the SAP which Cheney was supposedly running was a CIA-operated internationally deployed army of assassination squads has the ring of bullshit to it. While the CIA, in the not-so-distant past was always leery of assassinating public political figures they certainly possessed the mechanisms and the will to assassinate operators and opposition outside the public spotlight. That suggestion is a blind alley leading to blank wall.

The essence of what has been said so far is that Inspectors-General of the various intelligence branches of the US government have reported that Bush's warrantless wiretapping activity was only one aspect of a much wider domestic program. An illegal one, therefore, very, very secret.

Most people, despite their political hue or squeamishness about the idea, would likely accept the concept of CIA-conducted hits on prominent al Qaeda figures. In fact, most have already done it, so to suggest such a program needed to be withheld from Congress to avoid a possible leak is like offering to galvanize a rubber tire to prevent it from rusting.

There was a time when anyone suggesting Cheney was so evil that he would develop lists of personal and political enemies, based on their constitutionally guaranteed right to speak freely and offer an opinion which differed from the direction of Cheney's government, would have been called paranoid. To suggest that those named on such a list were targets for "special treatment" would have earned you a tin-foil hat.

I think Cathie has nailed it.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

dickhead cheney Involved. Quelle Surprise . . . .

When does this guy get his comeuppance, anyway?

Can't he share a room with Bernie Madoff or something?

Today's New York Times has the story:

Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project
By SCOTT SHANE
| July 12, 2009

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.


_______________



Efforts to reach Mr. Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.



Damn.


The past couple of months he's been hard to miss on the cable news networks.


Guess he's gone back to the "undisclosed location" . . . .

(Cross-posed from Moved to Vancouver)

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

The truth won't set Dick Cheney free

For Dick Cheney 9/11 means never having to say you're sorry. His speech last week at the American Enterprise Institute is a masterpiece of self-justification



Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission." Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It's hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors

Now lets just break that paragraph down one bit at time and I'll see if I can translate it for you:

"Over on the left wing (those who oppose me are all communists) of the president's party (no real Republican would object to what we did) there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists (The ends justify the means and torture worked, it saved lives-- no really it did, nevermind all those people who argue otherwise--but our opponents don't care, they are just playing 'gotcha'). The kind of answers they're after (they don't care about the truth, they just want something that would make us look bad) would be heard before a so-called (it wouldn't be the truth) "Truth Commission." Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted (the reverse Nuremberg defense- I'm not responsible for what happened, I was only giving the orders), in effect treating political disagreements (ordering torture and other violations of the law and Constitution are merely partisan politics) as a punishable offense (they are being vicious and vindictive and want to hurt me, help!) , and political opponents (war criminals are merely people with whom the left disagree) as criminals. It's hard to imagine a worse precedent (oh noes! people will be held responsible for their actions), filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse (if we start prosecuting people for torture and war crimes, who knows where this whole 'punishing people for breaking the law' thing could go? My buddies at Haliburton could be next) , than to have an incoming administration criminalize (ordering people to be tortured, some of them to death, was not a crime, it wasn't! its only a crime because the Democrats say it is, despite 200 years of law that says otherwise ) the policy decisions (actual crimes) of its predecessors.

The real reason that the former vice president has been all over the TV and newspapers lately is not so much about securing his place in history as it is securing his place outside of the dock in the Hague.

Look, I don't think anyone will argue that the 9/11 attacks were not a horrible thing. Nearly 3,000 people died and that is pretty goddamn awful. But, rightwing pantspisser pronouncements to the contrary, it didn't change anything. The law is still the law. The worst crimes perpetrated do not allow us to ignore the law when it comes to catching and punishing the perpetrators. The Manson Family murders did not give the police the right to shoot suspected Beatles fans on sight.Just because you're scared shitless doesn't mean you can do anything you want. The notion that "the end does not justify the means" is not just some collegiate philosophy 101 bit of theory, it is pretty much the basis of western law, along with that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing and "habeas corpus" -- but then again, I suppose those were ignored or suspended too during the Cheney regime.

Maybe if Bwana Dick Cheney had thought of the possibility of going to jail a few years ago, the world would be a better place right now, but I suppose given his history in the Nixon and Ford administrations, one can't really expect him to understand that just because the President does it, doesn't mean its not illegal.

Crossposted from the Woodshed

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Why is Dick Cheney on TV and not in prison?

It is interesting to see Cheney running to get in front of the cameras and claim that "torture worked". It doesn't. And even if it did, torture is immoral, illegal and uncivilized - whether it works or not is irrelevant. Arguing about whether or not torture works is like arguing about whether you can get rich making kiddie porn or whether eating live babies cures cancer (or helps wins majority governments).

Sunday, May 03, 2009

The rule of law trumps Cheney's yapping


The Obama administration opens the manacles of the US criminal justice system and accomplishes something the Bush administration couldn't do by wiping its feet on the US constitution.
"Without a doubt, this case is a grim reminder of the seriousness of the threat we as a nation still face," Attorney-General Eric Holder said in a statement.

"But it also reflects what we can achieve when we have faith in our criminal justice system and are unwavering in our commitment to the values upon which the nation was founded, and the rule of law."

Ali al-Marri, who was the last remaining "enemy combatant" held on US soil, faces a maximum of 15 years in jail after admitting he conspired to provide material support to al-Qa'ida. He will be sentenced on July 30. It was not clear how much credit he would be given for time already served.

"He asked for his day in court, and he got his day in court with all the constitutional protections," Marri's lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz, said. "It's all he wanted."

And then listen to Rachel Maddow as she underlines the most significant point of Ali al-Marri's criminal prosecution. (Once the obnoxious little ad is over slide forward to minute 7)

As Michael Isikoff points out, the guilty plea of Ali al-Marri opens the doors for other prosecutions, not through the Bush/Cheney manufactured military commissions, but within the criminal justice system; Not with dubious confessions obtained through torture, but from the testimony of eyewitnesses.

While the volume keeps getting cranked up in some quarters demanding that Obama prosecute members of the Bush administration for knowingly and intentionally engaging in illegal acts, (not to mention immoral at a hundred different levels), everyone needs to be aware that it's probably far too early to go wading in that pool.

Obama is no idiot. As the memos continue to be released and the facts continue to accumulate, Obama will continue to hold off until such a time as the evidence is overwhelming, any defence would be ineffective, and screeching remnants of the Bush cargo culture (Limbaugh, Malkin, et al) have so completely impeached themselves that the demand for prosecution of Bush administration principals will suit both the popular need for cleansing and occur in a favourable political climate.

There will be prosecutions. Just, not now. They will happen when the current cheerleaders of those who perpetrated crimes have no audience, and instead of energetically defending their Bush/Cheney heros they are forced to hang their heads and mutter in their own defence, "We didn't know."


Thursday, December 18, 2008

"Goodbye George" from McClatchy . . . .

McClatchy's Washington Bureau bids an early farewell to george bush today.

Commentary: Bush makes a farewell tour. Good riddance
Joseph L. Galloway | McClatchy Newspapers

December 18, 2008


We've been treated to a real spectacle this week as President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney limped into the home stretch of their Magical History Tour, employing distortions, half-truths and untruths in a final, desperate attempt to pervert or somehow prevent history from judging them accurately.

_______________



The great gray eminence himself, Dick Cheney, of no known address, went on national television pleading guilty to committing a war crime. Yes, Cheney said, he participated in the White House discussions on the use of torture in the interrogations of suspected terrorists. Yes, he said proudly, he approved the use of such outlawed practices as water-boarding, the simulated drowning of bound and helpless prisoners to make them talk. So what?

Photo credit: Kevin Seirs of the Charlotte Observer

_______________


Over in the White House, the president was busy signing a flood of executive orders opening the gates to oil drilling on massive chunks of previously protected public lands in the West; protecting big corporations from lawsuits in state courts when their products harm or kill innocent Americans, and generally giving his fat cat friends one last shot at looting a national Treasury of any remaining table scraps.


The president and his spinmeisters keep talking about how, with the passage of time, historians will come to judge his presidency a huge success, much as history has come to judge the administration of Harry S. Truman.


Balderdash. Or as I much prefer to say in situations like this: Bullshit!


_______________



Bush told his War College audience that of all the things he loved about the job, he was proudest of all of his role as their commander-in-chief.


Why then did he and his minions oppose virtually every attempt to reinforce their numbers and shorten the time they spent in Hell? Why did they oppose virtually every attempt to increase their pay and their benefits, and those of millions of American veterans of these and other wars?


How could so proud a commander sit idly by while soldiers and Marines were sent off to war without the armored vehicles and body armor they so desperately needed in this new kind of war?


How could his administration pinch pennies when it came to funding and manning the military hospitals that treat the thousands of wounded troops flowing home from his wars?


How can this man talk about making the world a safer and freer place by his actions when so much innocent blood has been shed by civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan? When millions have been turned into homeless refugees inside and outside Iraq? When America is left with far fewer friends and allies among the nations of the world?


The only good news left to us this gloomy, cold December is that we only have to put up with this wretched spectacle for another 30 days or so.


George W. Bush should make a hurry-up call to his architect and see if it's not too late to substitute firing slits for the ground floor windows in his new Presidential Library in Dallas.


Good-bye George, and good riddance.

Well done, Mr. Galloway.

Well done . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Congressional Lying . . . .


This should come as no surprise to readers out there in Blogland.

Per McClatchy today:

White House interfered in climate testimony, ex-EPA official says

Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers

July 08, 2008

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney's office and the White House demanded that all mention of how global warming harms human health be cut from testimony to Congress last fall, a former Environmental Protection Agency official who had a key role on climate policy said Tuesday.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., charged that the new information from the former official showed that the White House and Cheney were covering up the dangers of global warming in an attempt to block the EPA from taking action.

_______________


The former EPA official, Jason Burnett, said in a letter to Boxer dated Sunday that the White House Council on Environmental Quality and Cheney's office wanted to cut any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change from testimony to Congress last October by Julie Gerberding, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

_______________


"We now know that this censorship was not haphazard. It was part of a master plan" meant to ensure that the EPA's response to a Supreme Court decision that found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants "would be as weak as possible," Boxer charged.

_______________


In his letter, Burnett said that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson had asked the staff to draft a provisional finding that greenhouse gases do endanger public welfare. Burnett sent the report by e-mail, but the White House has refused to open it. As a result, the finding isn't available to the public.

Boxer said Johnson should release the e-mailed finding and all other documents related to the EPA's conclusions about the dangers of global warming. The agency also should indicate what rules it will impose to reduce the emissions of heat-trapping gases, she said.

"If Mr. Johnson refuses to do these things I'm asking him to do, if he doesn't have the strength to do them, he should resign," Boxer said.


Based on how well the dems are standing up to the lame-duck, unpopular, incompetent jerk occupying the Oval Office on the FISA debacle, hopes of them acting on this bit of news are nil.

One would think that with a majority in both houses of Congress they might be a little more responsive to the will of the people and the rule of law. Whatever happened to three equal branches of government?

This crowd apparently does not have the spine to do the right thing.

There aren't enough Russ Feingolds to go around . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)


Thursday, June 05, 2008

U.S. plans for Iraq


Fortress America in Baghdad : a 21 building embassy on 104 acres with a $1M projected annual budget just for upkeep of the shrubbery.

From today's Independent :
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

"Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

"The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.
The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through."


Immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors?
Over half the Iraqi parliament have signed a letter sent to the US Congress :
"The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq."

Well we've been hearing for weeks about this deal to finally give the US a legal basis for being in Iraq but today the US ambassador to Iraq attempted to quell fears about the permanence of a US military presence in Iraq, denying the bases would be permanent :
"It is not going to be forever," he told reporters at the State Department.

Apparently there is some kind of sliding scale of permanence with 'forever' at one end and 'continuing' at the other.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Running down the clock on Iran



Via Chris Floyd we get a warning that things are definitely coming closer to "the moment" when the Bush administration pulls the pin on Iran.

On Friday, US Vice-President Dick Cheney was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia knocking back lamb and strawberry juice with his good buddies King Abdullah and Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi. The discussions were promoted as being ostensibly about oil, or more precisely, the price of it and how to get it down in a way meaningful enough to calm angry US voters.

There was, however, a shady side to Cheney's visit. (When isn't there a shady side to anything Cheney does?)

Cheney held other discussions. An accompanying aide said, "I can't tell you much about the conversations themselves, these are especially confidential and private conversations."

Especially confidential and private? What are the odds they weren't about the health Abdullah's large stable of horses?

After Cheney's visit the Saudi Sura council suddenly decided that at the top of their agenda should be a discussion about national plans to deal with the radioactive hazards after a possible attack on Iran.
The Saudi Shura council will secretly discuss national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors, media reports said Saturday. The Saudi-based King Abdul-Aziz City for Science and Technology has prepared a proposal that encapsulates the probabilities of leaking nuclear and radiation hazards in case of any unexpected nuclear attacks in Iran, the Okaz Saudi newspaper said.
Experts' warnings?! What experts? Someone from Cheney's entourage or perhaps Cheney himself?

Some dots:

1. Admiral William Fallon, who said Iran would never be attacked while he was the commander US Central Command, "resigned".

2. General David Petraeus makes an announcement that the recent attacks on Baghdad's green zone were the work of Iran. He doesn't produce any evidence. He just says he "knows".

3. Cheney visits the Saudis. Media-shy Cheney lets the words "oil" and "money" dominate the purpose of his talks and then goes into Cheney mode. Whatever was discussed is secret.

4. The Saudis go into session to discuss how best to defend against the radioactive fallout after "experts" warn of an impending attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

5. Republicans are inveterate bombers with less than a year left to lay waste to another country.

Connect them all up.


Hat tip reader Stewart

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Monday, March 10, 2008

Not In That Order, I'll Bet . . . .


The two topics noted in the title of the
Reuter's report will no doubt be reversed:

Cheney to discuss peace and oil on Mideast trip
Mon Mar 10, 2008 - By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
Vice President Dick Cheney leaves on Sunday for the Middle East where he will raise U.S. concerns about record-high oil prices and try to push Israeli-Palestinian peace talks forward, the White House said.

Cheney will visit Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank, Turkey and Oman in a trip expected to last about a week or more, his office said on Monday.

"His goal is to reassure people that the United States is committed to a vision of peace in the Middle East," U.S. President George W. Bush said after meeting with Poland's prime minister at the White House.

Cheney will also take the message "that we fully see the threats facing the Middle East, one such threat is Iran, and that we will continue to bolster our security agreements and relationships with our friends and allies," Bush said.

_______________

Cheney also will meet with Saudi King Abdullah when oil prices are hitting record highs, reaching above $106 a barrel last week.

He was expected to reinforce the message from Bush, who had urged OPEC to increase production during his visit to Saudi Arabia in January. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries decided not to boost output.

_______________

"When the president traveled there in January at every stop Iran was of interest and concern. And so I don't expect that that changed in the last two months since Iran hasn't changed its behavior at all," Perino said.

The United States has led efforts to pressure Iran, and the U.N. Security Council voted last week for a third sanctions resolution against Tehran over its refusal to halt its nuclear program.


References to Iran above were emboldened by moi for obvious reasons.

This crowd has ample time to ramp up the anti-Iranian rhetoric to get that war started before they leave office.

dickhead cheney needs more Halliburton stock options for his retirement, you know . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

The Vote That REALLY Counts . . . .


From Reuters this morning:


Vermont towns vote to arrest Bush and Cheney
Wed Mar 5, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Voters in two Vermont towns on Tuesday approved a measure that would instruct police to arrest President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for "crimes against our Constitution," local media reported.

The nonbinding, symbolic measure, passed in Brattleboro and Marlboro in a state known for taking liberal positions on national issues, instructs town police to "extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them."

Vermont, home to maple syrup and picture-postcard views, is known for its liberal politics.


State lawmakers have passed nonbinding resolutions to end the war in Iraq and impeach Bush and Cheney, and several towns have also passed resolutions of impeachment. None of them have caught on in Washington.

Vermont.

The state the rest of them should look to for leadership . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Darth Vader Meddling Again . . . .


From the Globe and Mail:

Khadr lawyers allege Cheney linked to video release

OMAR EL AKKAD -
Globe and Mail Update - March 3, 2008

OTTAWA — Omar Khadr's defense lawyers will try to find out whether U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's office secretly leaked a video of the detained Canadian to an American media outlet – an allegation that, if proven, would be a clear violation of court orders and further proof that the process by which Mr. Khadr is being tried is a political, not legal one, his military lawyer says.

_______________


In an interview with The Globe and Mail Monday night, Lieutenant Commander Bill Kuebler said he is trying to find out how a highly secret video showing Mr. Khadr in Afghanistan was leaked to the U.S. news program 60 Minutes. The video appears to show Mr. Khadr building a bomb.

The news program aired the footage last November.

_______________


At the meeting, Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler asked the Colonel where he thought the leak may have come from. In response, Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler said, Col. Davis offered the opinion that the Vice-President's office may have been involved.

Col. Davis resigned as chief prosecutor in October of last year, saying political pressure was interfering with his job.

If the allegation that the Vice President's office was involved in the leak is proven to be true, it would be a violation of the protective orders imposed on evidence in the case, Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler said.

But he added that it would also show the length that the government is prepared to go to prejudice the public against the detained Canadian.



dickhead cheney just can't keep his nose out of anything, can he? It appears he is angling for a new title in bushco: "Leaker in Chief" sounds appropriate. Valerie Plame, WMD's, and now this.

Perhaps a qualified plumber should be retained to stem the leaks . . . .


(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Thursday, December 27, 2007

So who exactly benefits from Bhutto's assassination. A lot of people from the look of it.


Newshoggers is keeping up with information surrounding the Bhutto assassination. It is worth a check back from time to time, including something of a friendly debate going on between Cernig and Shamanic as to the possible involvement of Pervez Musharraf.

Two points of interest here. Insiders close to Bhutto are suggesting that Musharraf was either directly or indirectly involved.
A longtime adviser and close friend of assassinated Pakistani ex-prime minister Benazir Bhutto places blame for Bhutto's death squarely on the shoulders of U.S.-supported dictator Pervez Musharraf.

After an October attack on Bhutto's life in Karachi, the ex-prime minister warned "certain individuals in the security establishment [about the threat] and nothing was done," says Husain Haqqani, a confidante of Bhutto's for decades. "There is only one possibility: the security establishment and Musharraf are complicit, either by negligence or design. That is the most important thing. She's not the first political leader killed, since Musharraf took power, by the security forces."

Haqqani notes that Bhutto died of a gunshot wound to the neck. "It's like a hit, not a regular suicide bombing," he says. "It's quite clear that someone who considers himself Pakistan's Godfather has a very different attitude toward human life than you and I do."

The thing is, a lot of political opposition in Pakistan has been eliminated through either execution or "mysterious" deaths. Knocking off the opposition is not uncommon.

However, now we have al-Qaeda claiming responsibility.

While al Qaeda is considered by the U.S. to be a likely suspect in the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Banazir Bhutto, U.S. intelligence officials say they cannot confirm an initial claim of responsibility for the attack, supposedly from an al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan.

An obscure Italian Web site said Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan, told its reporter in a phone call, "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedeen."

It said the decision to assassinate Bhutto was made by al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al Zawahri in October. Before joining Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Zawahri was imprisoned in Egypt for his role in the assassination of then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

That will certainly get some quarters all riled and jumping in with pointing fingers, but there is something else.

U.S. officials monitoring Internet chat rooms known to be used by Islamic militants say several claims of responsibility have been posted, although such postings are notoriously unreliable.
Which makes the al-Qaeda claim a little less significant but not fully discountable.

One thing is slightly puzzling. Given the tenuous situation in Pakistan over the past few months, and given the October attempt on Bhutto's life, for which al Qaeda claimed credit, it would seem that US intelligence would be paying close attention to any activity involving extremist groups.

I'll go one further. It is not in the interest of the Bush administration not to have had al Qaeda carry this assassination off. Yet, US intelligence is issuing a very cautious "maybe" but "we can't confirm it".

There are two points that arise from that.

The US intelligence community is hoisting a middle finger to Cheney once again. As they did with the NIE on Iran, they are steadfastly maintaining their independence by not immediately giving Cheney the words he would like to hear. Cheney is a solid Musharraf supporter. By not immediately confirming al Qaeda's claim, Musharraf lives under a veil of suspicion.

The second point is that there is obvious skepticism among intelligence analysts. Even if al Qaeda's claim is genuine, there is also the possibility of conspiratorial involvement of other parties, particularly the ISI. Musharraf may or may not have had direct involvement, but given the renewed independence of US intelligence agencies and their recent working out from under the thumb of Dick Cheney, they're not going to be pressured into any easy answer. If they believed al Qaeda's claim they could easily have come out and confirmed it. This is only speculation but what's going on now suggests they have different information.

The move to watch is whether Musharraf cancels elections.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Olbermann nukes Bush. NNNN


I know. You don't get the NNNN in the title. It is part of a message format used in both military and civilian direct print radio communications which tells a rather obsolete little processor that the data contained in the contents of a numbered message has ended and there is nothing more to log.

Keith Olbermann lets loose with a full broadside on the worst president the United States of America has ever known.

Crooks and Liars has the video. Transcript below.

There are few choices more terrifying than the one Mr. Bush has left us with tonight.

We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War Three about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole — or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked — at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so — whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed, were still even remotely plausible.

A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency: an unapologetic war-monger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.

After Ms Perino’s announcement from the White House late last night, the timeline is inescapable and clear now.

In August, the President was told by his hand-picked Major Domo of intelligence, Mike McConnell, a flinty, high-strung-looking, worrying-warrior who will always see more clouds than silver linings, that what “everybody thought” about Iran might be, in essence, crap.

Yet on October 17th the President said of Iran and its president, Ahmadinejad:

“I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon.”

And as he said that, Mr. Bush knew that at bare minimum there was a strong chance that his rhetoric was nothing more than words with which to scare the Iranians.

Or was it, sir, to scare the Americans?

Does Iran not really fit into the equation here? Have you just scribbled it into the fill-in-the-blank on the same template you used to scare us about Iraq?

In August, any commander-in-chief still able-minded or uncorrupted or both, sir, would have invoked the quality the job most requires: mental flexibility.

A bright man, or an honest man, would have realized no later than the McConnell briefing that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a president, shooting his mouth off, backed up by only his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience.

Not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr Bush.

The Chicken Little of presidents is the one, sir, that you see in the mirror.

And the mind reels at the thought of a Vice President fully briefed on the revised intel as long as two weeks ago — briefed on the fact that Iran abandoned its pursuit of this imminent threat four years ago — who never bothered to mention it to his boss.

It is nearly forgotten today, but throughout much of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, it was widely believed that he was little more than a front-man for some never-viewed, behind-the-scenes string-puller.

Today, as evidenced by this latest remarkable, historic malfeasance, it is inescapable, that Dick Cheney is either this president’s evil ventriloquist, or he thinks he is.

What servant of any of the 42 previous presidents could possibly withhold information of this urgency and this gravity, and wind up back at his desk the next morning, instead of winding up before a Congressional investigation — or a criminal one?

Mr Bush — if you can still hear us — if you did not previously agree to this scenario in which Dick Cheney is the actual detective and you’re the Remington Steele — you must disenthrall yourself: Mr Cheney has usurped your constitutional powers, cut you out of the information loop, and led you down the path to an unprecedented presidency in which the facts have become optional, the intel is valued less than the hunch, and the assistant runs the store.

The problem is, sir, your assistant is robbing you — and your country — blind.

Not merely in monetary terms, Mr. Bush, but more importantly, robbing you of the traditions and righteousness for which we have stood, at great risk, for centuries: Honesty, Law, Moral Force.

Mr. Cheney has helped, sir, to make your administration into the kind our ancestors saw in the 1860’s and 1870’s and 1880’s — the ones that abandoned Reconstruction, and sent this country marching backwards into the pit of American Apartheid.

Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland…

Presidents who will be remembered only in a blur of failure, Mr. Bush.

Presidents who will be remembered as functions only of those who opposed them — the opponents whom history proved right.

Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland… Bush.

Would that we could let this President off the hook by seeing him only as marionette or moron.

But a study of the mutation of his language about Iran proves that though he may not be very good at it, he is, himself, still a manipulative, Machiavellian, snake-oil salesman.

The Bushian etymology was tracked by Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post’s website.

It is staggering.

March 31st: “Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon…”

June 5th: Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons…”

June 19th: “consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon…”

July 12th: “the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons…”

August 6th: “this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon…”

Notice a pattern?

Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.

Then, sometime between August 6th and August 9th, those terms are suddenly swapped out, so subtly that only in retrospect can we see that somebody has warned the President, not only that he has gone out too far on the limb of terror — but there may not even be a tree there…

McConnell, or someone, must have briefed him then.

August 9th: “They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program…”

August 28th: “Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons…”

October 4th: “you should not have the know-how on how to make a (nuclear) weapon…”

October 17th: “until they suspend and/or make it clear that they, that their statements aren’t real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon.”

Before August 9th, it’s: “Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.”

After August 9th, it’s: “Desire, pursuit, want… knowledge, technology, know-how to enrich uranium.”

And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that the National Intelligence Estimate this week talks of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program in 2003…And you talked of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program on October 17th…

And that term suspending is just a coincidence?

And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that nobody told you any of this until last week?

Your insistence that you were not briefed on the NIE until last week might be legally true — something like “what the definition of ‘is’ is” — but with the subject matter being not interns but the threat of nuclear war.

Legally, it might save you from some war crimes trial… but ethically, it is a lie.

It is indefensible.

You have been yelling threats into a phone for nearly four months, after the guy on the other end had already hung up.

You, Mr. Bush, are a bald-faced liar.

And more over, you must have realized that John Bolton, and Norman Podhoretz, and the Wall Street Journal Editorial board, are also bald-faced liars.

We are to believe that the Intel Community, or maybe the State Department, cooked the raw intelligence about Iran, falsely diminished the Iranian nuclear threat, to make you look bad?

And you proceeded to let them make you look bad?

You not only knew all of this about Iran, in early August, but you also knew it was all accurate.

And instead of sharing this good news with the people you have obviously forgotten you represent, you merely fine-tuned your terrorizing of those people, to legally cover your own backside, while you filled the factual gap with sadistic visions of — as you phrased it on August 28th: a quote “nuclear holocaust” — and, as you phrased it on October 17th, quote: “World War III.”

My comments, Mr. Bush, are often dismissed as simple repetitions of the phrase “George Bush has no business being president.”

Well, guess what?

Tonight: hanged by your own words and convicted by your own deliberate lies…

You, sir, have no business being president.

Good night, and good luck.

Yup. Good luck, indeed.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Of course they're lying. The evidence is in Iran.



The main theme surrounding Bush and the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran seems to centre on whether Bush (and company) are lying about when they came into possession of the information contained in the NIE or whether they, and Bush in particular, are just stupid.

Joe Scarborough, hardly a Republican detractor, ripped into Bush this morning making that same assertion. Bush is either lying or he's stupid.

From the comments on this post yesterday the immediate consensus seems to be that Bush is both stupid and a liar. Certainly Bush seems quite willing to appear stupid rather than admit that, despite his escalating rhetoric, he was aware that Iran's nuclear program had long ago been halted.

Josh Marshall picked up the "tell" in Bush's 17 October press conference, where Bush changes the imperative from stopping Iran's weapons development to preventing Iran from possessing the knowledge to develop nuclear weapons. That provided a means of cover.

Cheney too, was manipulating the rhetoric. In his 21 October speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy this line is also a "tell":
And now, of course, we have the inescapable reality of Iran's nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons.
He didn't say it was being used. Why? Because Cheney was in full possession of the facts. The inconvenient truth for Cheney, who was leading the charge to bomb Iran, was that Tehran was not developing nuclear weapons - just that they could . The same could be said for Boliva, Ghana or Jamaica for all the weight it carried.

However, there is another piece of evidence which proves Bush and Cheney are lying about when they were aware of the contents of the NIE, and that is in Iran itself.

The 2005 NIE on Iran stated with high confidence that Iran was engaged in a nuclear program to enrich uranium to build a bomb. With that estimate in hand, Cheney had everything he needed to formulate and execute a bombing campaign. Given his disdain for world opinion of his policies, he might well have proceeded except for one thing. The March 2005 presidential commission on Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction issued a scathing assessment of the way intelligence and raw data was refined to form conclusions. The 2005 NIE, put together by many of the same people who had produced the highly flawed NIE on Iraq's WMD, was placed under review. This time there were new people working on the case.

But Cheney still had that 2005 NIE and an overwhelming desire to bomb Iran. (That goes back to the 1979 hostage-taking.) With that NIE and enough of an obvious push-back by Iran on facility inspections, Cheney could have had Bush order a naval air strike by late 2006 or early 2007. Certainly, the required naval strike forces had been assembled in the Persian Gulf in preparation for just that kind of attack.

Two things got in the way.

Iraq went off the rails and required much more attention. The insurgency was taking the lives of US troops at an unacceptable level. In order to combat the insurgency a troop escalation would be necessary and it would have been impossible to sell an Iraq-fatigued American public on the idea of increasing forces and operational tempo in Iraq plus a whole new theatre of operations in Iran. So, Cheney was forced to accept that Iraq would have to be dealt with first. The only bright side, from his point of view, was that Iran could be used as a point of blame for the insurgency in Iraq, whether Tehran had anything to do with it or not.

The second thing was the review of the 2005 NIE. By 2006, the initial assessments would have been available and, at the very least, the emphasis of at least some of the sixteen intelligence agencies working on the new NIE would have indicated a different direction - Iran's nuclear program had been halted.

Here's where Iran provides the evidence that Bush and Cheney, despite their rhetoric, knew well before last Wednesday Iran had halted their nuclear program and are lying about it now. It wasn't seven days ago they learned of it. It was more like seven months or even seventeen months. Because if they had not known the true high confidence estimate Iran would already have smoking holes in the ground.

If the progress on the draft 2007 NIE had not been generating new and very different information Cheney would have felt confident to instruct Bush to order the carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf to proceed with an air assault.

The new NIE however, prevented Cheney from acting. If he attacked Iran, based on the 2005 NIE and the information in the new NIE was made public after the fact, it would be Iraq all over again. It quite possibly could have sparked a revolt at home as the American public watched a second betrayal of their trust and a second act of leading them into a war based on lies.

If Bush and Cheney had not known some considerable time ago what was contained or going to be contained in the 2007 NIE, Iran would already have a landscape pocked with bomb craters.

That's why the rhetoric in Bush's 17 October press conference and Cheney's 21 October speech contain parlance such as "knowledge necessary to produce nuclear weapons" and "could be used to produce nuclear weapons".

Well aware that Iran poses no immediate threat, Bush and Cheney are trying to lower the bar and make "potential" a reason for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

So, the landscape of Iran is how we know both of them are lying about how long ago they knew Tehran had halted its nuclear program. If they hadn't known, Iran would have a few more scars today.

And, yes, Bush remains stupid along with being a liar.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

So, what's it going to be, George?


Bush is either the dumbest president in US history or he's an incredible liar. The White House press conference this morning contained some interesting stuff. On one hand we have Bush telling everyone that he wasn't aware of the contents of the NIE on Iran until last Tuesday.
At a press briefing this morning, President Bush said he was told by his Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell “in August” that “we have some new information” regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But Bush asserted “he didn’t tell me what the information was”:

BUSH: I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was John — Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze.

Later, when a reporter followed-up on this statement, Bush asserted no one ever told him to stop ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran:

REPORTER: Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as World War III was making it into conversation — at no point, nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, Maybe you want to back it down a little bit?

BUSH: No — I’ve never — nobody ever told me that.

This is the Bush defence for the outrageous rhetoric intended to convince the American public and the world that there was a need for a military strike on Iran. At this point though, it makes Bush look like little more than a clueless buffoon. Is he the president or isn't he?
To recap: At the same time Bush was ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran, he was told by his National Intelligence Director that that have “some new information.” Yet Bush wants the public to believe he never learned what the information was, nor was he interested.
That's more than a little hard to believe and Josh Marshall calls immediate bullshit, noting that Bush has been changing the terms of his rhetoric on Iran because he had to be aware that the NIE was going to crush his case for attacking Iran.
[W]hen you look back at his speeches, there's evidence that the president was shifting his terms because he knew that the intelligence on which his push for war was based was likely too collapse.

If you go back to his October 17th press conference, the one where he spoke of 'World War III' he changes his wording. It's no longer the need to prevent the Iranians from getting the bomb. Now it's the necessity of "preventing them from hav[ing] the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

That's the tell.

That change is no accident. He wants claims that will survive the eventual revelation of this new intelligence -- while also continuing to hype the imminence of the Iranian nuclear threat that his spy chiefs are telling him likely does not exist.

So, the rhetoric will probably continue and increase as Bush now tries to sell the idea that Iran needs to be bombed because they possess the knowledge necessary to create a nuclear weapon. He (on Cheney's orders) would bomb them because of what they know.

So, despite what Bush says about when he finally got the information in the NIE, there is already an indication that he was aware of its contents before October 17th.

Back on November 10th Gareth Porter wrote an article which I linked to describing the delay in releasing the NIE. In it he described the fight between Cheney, who wants desperately to attack Iran, and the intelligence community which refused to alter the findings or material. In fact, Porter pointed out that there had already been casualties in Cheney's campaign to attack Iran.

Cheney's desire for a "clean" NIE that could be used to support his aggressive policy toward Iran was apparently a major factor in the replacement of John Negroponte as director of national intelligence in early 2007. Negroponte had angered neo-conservatives in the administration by telling the press in April 2006 that the intelligence community believed that it would still be "a number of years off" before Iran would be "likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or to put into a nuclear weapon, perhaps into the next decade".
If Negroponte knew that, and stated it publicly, Bush also had to know. The pounding of the war drums continued however and the pattern of rhetoric appeared to be a carbon copy of the model employed by Bush and Cheney to attack Iraq. The problem this time, however is that there was a comprehensive intelligence estimate that would expose the Bush/Cheney claims as fraudulent.

The contention in Porter's article, and Negroponte's statement of 19 months ago, is supported today by Scott Horton in Harper's Magazine. Again, there is a stunned disbelief that Bush and Cheney continued to push for an attack on Iran despite being in possession of good intelligence that ran counter to their claims of Iran's nuclear capability and ambitions.

Ken Silverstein and I have been pointing for the better part of the year to the very strange goings-on surrounding the preparation and issuance of a vital intelligence report on the state of Iran’s nuclear project. The White House, and particularly Vice President Cheney, has been feverishly attempting to stop its issuance. The Director of National Intelligence, McConnell, has been at odds to oppose its declassification. In sum, something was there and the war party was intensely upset about it.

[...]

National Security Advisor Steve Hadley appeared this afternoon to answer questions about the NIE and to offer remarks. Hadley has never been a particularly effective figure at press gatherings of this sort, and today was a very weak showing even by Hadley’s standards. But the key question came right off the bat: What should we think about the fact that as recently as October 17, President Bush was giving public remarks in which he pointed to the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran as World War III on the horizon? Indeed, a quick check shows the mushroom cloud analogy, which we all so closely associate with the irrepressibly irresponsible Condoleezza Rice, flowing from the lips of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Rice and Director of National Intelligence McConnell–with increased frequency since the post-Labor Day “roll out.” Hadley responded by saying that the NIE was only completed in the last two weeks and it rests on “new intelligence”–presumably newer than October 17–which pushed the analysts over the line and caused them to close their judgments on the issue.

Is this true? That will be a subject for further study. But one highly reliable intelligence community source I consulted immediately after Hadley spoke answered my question this way: “This is absolutely absurd. The NIE has been in substantially the form in which it was finally submitted for more than six months. The White House, and particularly Vice President Cheney, used every trick in the book to stop it from being finalized and issued. There was no last minute breakthrough that caused the issuance of the assessment.” So what, I asked, if not an intelligence breakthrough, what caused the last-minute change and the sudden issuance of the summary of the NIE? My source had no idea. He speculated, however, that a hardening of attitudes within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the intelligence community, and in Israel against the plans for an air war in Iran had caused Cheney and his team to fold their cards. “But I’d leave that with a final note of caution,” the source added, “Cheney sometimes appears to give up, but he’s a tenacious son-of-a-bitch. He may very well be back at it tomorrow.”

In case anyone missed the obvious, this has always been a Cheney push and Cheney, between defibrillator sessions, is really the one in charge.

I suspect Cheney will indeed be back pounding the "Iran must be dealt with" drum very soon. And the push to bomb Iran will find itself back on the stage in short order.

But the question is, if there is no active nuclear program in Iran, what precisely are they going to bomb? If knowledge is the threat that would suggest the target might be a university.


Monday, November 26, 2007

Quel Surprise . . . .

From Reuters today:

Cheney found to have irregular heartbeat
Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:55pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a history of heart problems, was found to have an irregular heartbeat during a doctor's visit on Monday morning, his office said.


The bigger surprise here is that the cretin has a heart . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)