Belated Praise For Congresswoman Barbara Lee (& Condemnation for Dennis Marks) In Regards to the 2001 AUMF Vote

By unlawfully ceding the war-declaring power to the president, they allowed the president to start a war against Iraq based on whatever evidence or whatever lies he chose -- John C. Bonifaz (dob 6/22/1966) a Boston-based attorney and political activist specializing in constitutional law and voting rights. Excerpt from his 2/12/2014 article "Iraq Invasion Was Unconstitutional". Bonifaz argued that the President's planned first-strike invasion of Iraq violated the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution.

Barbara Jean Lee, the U.S. Representative for California's 13th congressional district and a Democrat, "gained national attention in 2001 as the only member of congress to vote No on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), stating that she voted NO not because she opposed military action but because she believed the AUMF, as written, granted overly-broad powers to wage war to the president" (blurb via Wikipedia).

In reaction to blogger Willis Hart pointing out that Lee was the sole NO vote on the AMUF, Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) said...

Dennis Marks: Lee is the one who voted like the Taliban slipped her a check. She is also a devout racist (1/11/2014 AT 4:28am).

Correction: the "Taliban slipped her a check" was due to her AUMF vote; and the "racist" crack was due to... who knows? I'm going to guess it's because she is Black. Whenever Dennis accuses someone of racism, it seems as though they are always Black. I certainly cannot think of an example of him calling a White person a racist, with the sole exception of Dennis calling me and another blogger "racist" due to our support for Affirmative Action.

In any case... Barbara Lee deserves mucho kudos for being the ONLY one who recognized the FACT that the AUMF granted WAY too much power to the preznit. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and with the AUMF Congress ceded its Constitutionally granted power to declare war to the preznit, which bush used to illegally invade two countries. bush abused the AMUF and lied us into a war with a country completely unconnected to the 9-11 attacks; as well as using it to justify other unconstitutional actions, as the author of the following NYT editorial points out...

NYT Editorial: Mr. Bush used the... law as an excuse to kidnap hundreds of people - guilty and blameless people alike - and throw them into secret prisons where many were tortured. He used it as a pretext to open the Guantánamo Bay camp and to eavesdrop on Americans without bothering to obtain a warrant. He claimed it as justification for the invasion of Iraq, twisting intelligence to fabricate a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. (Article excerpt from the New York Times website, pub. 3/9/2013. No author cited).

That isn't to say that the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't illegal or unconstitutional, which it was, given that there was no formal declaration of war... which was the entire problem with the AUMF; it grants "overly broad" powers to the preznit to wage war against an UNNAMED group ("the terrorists" responsible for 9-11). The AMUF should have authorized military strikes in Afghanistan against the al Qaeda camps only, and it should have only been voted on AFTER we determined bin Laden was behind the attacks. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq SHOULD have (Constitutionally) required a declaration of war by Congress... although they would still have been unnecessary (especially Iraq) and illegal under international law (at least they wouldn't have been unconstitutional).

According to Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, "this [the AUMF] is worse that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution". Aside from a Congressional deceleration of war, the President can send the military into armed conflict by invoking the War Powers Resolution, a law that allows the president to enter "armed conflict without the consent of Congress".

However, under the War Powers Resolution the president is limited to conflicts lasting no more than 60 before a Congressional authorization is required. Under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution the president (LBJ) was limited to who assistance could be provided to. LBJ's resolution said the president was limited in that it "authorized [him] to do whatever necessary in order to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty"... so it at least gave a who and a where, unlike the AUMF, which only gives a "who", and a very nebulous "who" at that.

Under the AUMF, bush was granted "the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force against those whom he determined planned, authorized, committed or aided the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups". The "harboring" part allowed (and continues to allow) bush, Obama and FUTURE presidents to send troops (and drones) anywhere in the world to kill anyone (even US citizens) engaged in terrorism (or innocent people - referred to as "collateral damage").

Indeed, the Obama administration has cited the AUMF for military actions it has engaged in. For example, the dramatic ramp up of drone strikes -- in Afghanistan and Pakistan (a country we aren't at war with) -- was cited as being authorized by the 2001 law...

John Brennan, while chief counterterrorism advisor to BHO: First, these targeted strikes are legal. ... To briefly recap... the Authorization for Use of Military Force - the AUMF - passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks authorizes the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those nations, organizations and individuals responsible for 9-11. There is nothing in the AUMF that restricts the use of military force against al-Qaeda to Afghanistan. ("The Ethics and Efficacy of the President's Counterterrorism Strategy"; Remarks given at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC on 4/30/2012).

In addition to be morally reprehensible, given the loss of innocent civilian life - Robert Taylor of PolicyMic says "there are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians [or] 50 for every one suspected terrorist" (citing a Columbia Law School report that looked at 2011 civilian deaths in 2011 which concludes "drone strike casualty estimates likely understated").

In regards to the Columbia Law School report cited by the Libertarian Taylor, I must concur, and add that these strikes are, in my strong opinion, extremely counterproductive and could be classed as war crimes (according to Amnesty International).

Although, while at the same time using the AUMF to justify other military actions, president Obama has promised to "revise and ultimately repeal [the AUMF] that he worries could lead to a perpetual war". So, at least Obama realizes there is a problem... but I say NO to "revising". The law should not have been passed to begin with. Rep Lee is the ONLY member of Congress to have gotten it right when voting NO on this bad law. The AUMF needs to be repealed - something Rep. Lee has has been pushing for ever since the AUMF was passed.

A 5/23/2013 HuffPo article by Matt Sledge says the Pentagon, in disagreement with the president, believes "the AUMF means they could operate from Boston to Pakistan, for the next 10 to 20 years [and that] it could even be used... in new battlefields like Congo or Syria.

But the idiot Dennis condemns the ONE person who voted correctly in regards to this abominable piece of legislation with a vile lie about her voting "as if the Taliban slipped her a check" -- even though she said she voted NO not because she opposed military action against al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan (which she did not), but because she believed the AUMF granted overly-broad powers to wage war to the president (which it did). And then Dennis throws in a charge of the African American representative being a "devout racist" with no explanation at all... other than the obvious explanation, which is that she is Black.

In conclusion I must say Barbara Lee deserves praise for her AUMF vote and her continuing efforts at repeal, while Dennis Marks deserves condemnation for his vile and baseless accusations of the Congresswoman siding with al Qaeda and being racist. The first charge has obviously got much to do with Dennis' utter stupidity, the latter likely due to the Congresswoman speaking against GOP voter suppression laws designed to disenfranchise minorities legally entitled to vote.

Or that is my guess, due to Dennis' praise of the recent SCOTUS gutting of the Voting Right Act. In regards to the SCOTUS ruling, Dennis said the gutting was a "victory for those who want progress toward equal treatment, diminished racial bias, and level playing field".

Rep. Lee, speaking on the House floor on 12/7/2011 correctly pointed out that "Republican legislators around the country are purposefully trying to deny Blacks the right to vote by pushing for voter identification laws". This kind of truth-telling would, given Dennis' support for the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, is probably what makes Lee a "devout racist" in the eyes of the racially biased Dennis. Or it could just be that she's Black.

In either case I again offer praise to Mrs. Lee and condemnation for Dennis. Correctly identifying the GOP strategy of tilting elections in their favor via suppressive voter ID laws that target minorities isn't "racist", although I do believe it is very bigoted and offensive to call a Black woman racist for taking a stand against GOP disenfranchisement tactics. In fact, I'd say the illiberal Dennis is quite devout in his labeling of Black people who take a stand against Conservative bigotry as "racists".

Update 7/1/2014: Dennis, as he often does, deleted his comment. Reason? He says he does it "for the amusement factor". BTW, I did not notice this one until the Google cache had been overwritten... which means his comment is gone forever. You can trust me, however. He absolutely did type and submit this racist slur about Congresswoman Lee.

@@

 swtd-244, dDel-20.  See also tadm-32.

Bullplop On Blowback

Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world ~ Lt. General William Odom (6/23/1932 to 5/30/2008) a retired U.S. Army 3-star general, and former Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan, which culminated a 31-year career in military intelligence.

In a 3/9/2014 post the Libertarian-leaning blogger Willis Hart (WTNPH) gets all un-libertarianish in disagreeing with the head guru Ron Paul. According to said blogger, "for Mr. Paul or anybody to think that 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings, and Benghazi wouldn't have happened had only our troops not been placed in Saudi Arabia for a spate is a little bit silly and naive in my estimation".

In reply I must say "what a dope". Our military presence in Saudi Arabia was cited by bin Laden as his rationale for the 9/11 attacks (a "spate" of 12 years), but a LOT has happened since then (both before and after we withdrew from Saudi Arabia in 2003), such as an illegal invasion of two countries and sustained drone strikes in several others we aren't at war. Drone strikes that continue to claim the lives of innocent civilians. The Boston Marathon bombings and Benghazi were blowback for those things, you dolt!

A 5/17/2013 CNN article reports that bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wrote "in a message scribbled on the boat where he was found hiding [that the] bombing victims were collateral damage in a strike meant as payback for U.S. wars in Muslim lands".

The author of this idiocy goes on to list his problems with "radical Islam", and WTNPH has very valid concerns, but, in my estimation, a large number of those who have been "radicalized" chose the "revenge" route exactly because of our response to 9/11, which was for bush to take advantage of the shock of the nation - as well as the strong feeling at the time that we needed to strike back - and go to war with two Middle Eastern countries.

Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-American citizen, and attempted Times Square car bomber acted "because of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009 because of U.S. military strikes in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-American, planned a suicide attack on New York City's subway system because of the U.S. role in Afghanistan" (excerpt from the 4/27/2013 Consortium News article "The Blowback from Interventionism" by Melvin A. Goodman).

Following 9/11 bush saw an opportunity to become a "war president", get political capital, use that to further his other agenda items and get elected to a second term. The attacks also presented a wonderful opportunity for the bushies to plunder the treasury by way of "no bid" Afghanistan and Iraq "reconstruction" contracts. A 3/20/2013 International Business Times (IBT) article puts the cost of pilfered loot at $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts. IBT reveals that "ten contractors received 52 percent of the funds" with Halliburton's KBR receiving $39.5 billion "over the past decade".

Dick Cheney, as a result of Halliburton contracts, profited over $7 million dollars (stock options he received while working for the company increased by 3,281%). In addition, Cheney continued to receive a "deferred salary" while VP, to the tune of an average of 200k a year. The IBT article further points out that "the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan [estimates that] the level of corruption by defense contractors may be as high as $60 billion". Halliburton and KBR were in on that corruption.

That WTNPH consistently has defended bush in regards to his lying and thieving is, in my opinion, thoroughly disgusting. Yes, he does criticize him for the way he went about it, but he does agree "Saddam in fact did have to go". And he absolutely refuses to believe that bush ever lied about WMD, even though the evidence proves otherwise. bush lied, Iraqi civilians and US soldiers died (and were maimed)... and bush cronies profited tremendously.

Ron Paul, while I may strongly disagree with MOST of what he believes, is correct when he said 9/11 "was blowback for decades of US intervention in the Middle East". And he was also correct when he said "the last thing we needed was the government's response: more wars, a stepped-up police and surveillance state, and drones".

Yes, OBL "publicly denounced Saudi dependence on the U.S. military, arguing the two holiest shrines of Islam, Mecca and Medina, the cities in which the Prophet Mohamed received and recited Allah's message, should only be defended by Muslims" and cited our military presence in that country as the motivation for the 9/11 attacks, but Al Qaeda was (prior to 9/11) an obscure Islamic movement and most likely faded from existence if not for our military response.

It was our response post-9/11 that continued the blowback (and made it worse). Another response and the problem of radical Islam surely would be a lot serious than it is today. That Willis thinks Ron Paul believes Saudi Arabia is the only reason for the rise of radical Islam is more than a bit silly and naive in my estimation. And, where the usually Libertarian Mr. Hart should be agreeing with Ron Paul he goes the interventionist regime change route. Which is odd, because when it comes to the US economy he is stridently opposed to intervention.

Also, I think it should be noted that, while the Hartster insists there is "no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public", he is positive Obama lied about Benghazi.

The main point of the Hartster's commentary is, in my opinion, to push his Islamophobic (and more Republican) POV in which the US is blameless and all fingers should be pointed at the "rag heads" practicing a religion he is biased against. For the record WTNPH doesn't use the term "rag head", but reading his commentary you very much expect him to.

Further proof that WTNPH is full of bullplop when he says "the argument that U.S. foreign policy has sowed the seeds of discontent and prompted Islamic retaliation -- ultimately fails"... ->Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11 by WashingtonsBlog, 9/5/2012. Excerpt: Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of Al Qaeda in the 1970s to fight the Soviets. ->More Blowback from the War on Terror by Jennifer Daskal, Salon 10/1/2008. Excerpt: In late 2006, the Bush administration backed a full-scale Ethiopian military offensive that ousted the Islamist authorities from Somalia's capital, Mogadishu... [That innocents were caught up in the fighting and killed or tortured has] fueled anti-American rancor in Africa.

See Also: Dennis Marks Sez Ron Paul Speaks With One Voice Alongside The Terrorists tadm-21. 3/12/2014.

 swtd-239. ost-52. 

War Criminal Hypocrite

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. ...an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses ~ Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith writing for The Center for Public Integrity, 1/23/2008.

When commenting on other blogs I often, when the topic comes up, refer to George bush (and others in his administration) as "war criminals". The reason I believe the label is applicable is mainly due to his invasion of Iraq and authorization of waterboarding. But lately, on a another site the blogger dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) has been "calling me out" for my "hypocrisy" whenever I do it (use the "war criminal" label when referring to bush and bush administration officials).

According to Mr. Marks, if I were consistent and not a hypocrite, I'd have to acknowledge that Bill Clinton is also a war criminal, because he authorized the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 without UN authorization, which is the "same" thing bush did when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

Dennis says the only reason I say bush is a war criminal while Bill Clinton is not is because bush has an "R" behind his name. Of course these accusations are patently absurd due to a few important distinctions between the bombing of Yugoslavia and the invasion of Iraq.

In order to "catch" me in my hypocrisy, Dennis asked me if "George W. Bush [was] lying when he said that Saddam Hussein had been engaged in the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction technology which was a threat to countries in the region and he had made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"?

Turns out this is actually something Nancy Pelosi said, so when I said, "yes, bush lied", Dennis responded with the following...

Dennis Marks: Bush told the truth. We all know this. However, the quote I gave you was a bit of a "sting". It proved two things: your hypocrisy, and that you never bother to check anything. (5/9/2012 AT 8:11am).

So it looks like Dennis got me good, huh? Except that the Nancy Pelosi comment is from 12/16/1998 (when Clinton was president) and actually represents what the politicians believed to be true at the time. Also, Nancy Pelosi did not then conclude that we must go to war with Iraq in order to "disarm" them, and neither did president Clinton.

Also, what Nancy Pelosi said was in line with what United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter reported regarding Iraq's WMD program. In August of 1998 Scott Ritter said that, absent effective monitoring, Iraq could "reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program".

The intent of Pelosi's statement was to keep up the pressure on Iraq and to signal her support for the UN inspections. The Clinton administration was in favor of containment and inspections and not of waging war. And the Clinton administration policy of keeping the pressure on Iraq paid off, because in June of 1999 weapons inspector Scott Ritter said, "when you ask the question, does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons? the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is NO across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed".

In early 2003 The UN weapons inspectors (who had been absent from Iraq for several years) were in the process of verifying if Iraq was in compliance with the UN Resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said the inspectors "found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament". According to Blix the open issue would be resolved in a matter of months.

Then, on 3/7/2003, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, confirmed that what Scott Ritter said in 1999 was true when he told the UN Security Council that, after his team had done 247 inspections at 147 sites, they found there was no evidence of resumed nuclear activities, nor any indication of nuclear-related activities at any related sites. He went on to say that evidence suggested Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990 and no longer had a centrifuge program. He concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997.

So, the question is why - even though it appeared as though Iraq was complying - did bush order "shock and awe" on 3/19/2012 and a ground invasion on 3/20/2003... a mere 12 days after Mohamed ElBaradei said Iraq was complying and no WMD had been found? According to bush the mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". How could disarming Iraq be bush's primary reason for toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein when the UN weapons inspectors on the ground were reporting that Iraq was already disarmed?

bush obviously did not "tell the truth". Given what the inspectors ON THE GROUND were saying, bush clearly LIED. So, not only did bush invade Iraq without UN authorization (violating articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter) but he ordered an invasion to "disarm" Iraq when the UN inspectors were telling him Iraq was already disarmed.

This is quite different than what Bill Clinton did when he authorized the use of American troops in a NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 to stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Albanians by nationalist Serbians in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's province of Kosovo. Yes, Bill Clinton bypassed The UN. According to Wikipedia, "the issue was brought before the UN Security Council by Russia, in a draft resolution [that said] 'such unilateral use of force constitutes a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter'. China, Namibia and Russia voted for the resolution, the other members against, thus it failed to pass".

So neither president's war (Clinton/Yugoslavia and bush/Iraq) was authorized by the UN, and, because of this, I think the case can be made that each is a war criminal - if UN authorization is the only criteria used in determining if a war is "legal". Certainly others HAVE argued that Bill Clinton is a war criminal (do a Google search if you don't believe me). But SHOULD each be charged with war crimes? I say "no", because Bill Clinton did obtain the authorization of another international body (NATO), whereas bush went to the UN and argued his case... and the UN specifically said "no". And not only did they say no to the invasion, they also said no to his claim that Iraq was not disarming.

To Clinton the UN did NOT say "no". To bush they did say "no".

Also, while Bill Clinton authorized bombing to stop war crimes, which resulted in the real war criminal (Slobodan Milosevic) being brought to trial, bush authorized an invasion based on a lie. Iraq had no WMD, which the UN weapons inspectors told him BEFORE he invaded. Later, when no weapons were found, bush blamed an "intelligence failure".

I think this explains why the people of Serbia consider President Clinton a hero and erected a statue statue to honor his actions that stopped the brutal Serb forces' crackdown on independence-seeking ethnic Albanians, whereas, in Iraq, one Iraqi showed his appreciation for bush's invasion by calling him a "dog" and throwing his shoe at him (which is a sign of contempt in Arab culture). According to Muntadar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi television journalist who threw the shoe bush narrowly ducked, his action was intended as "a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people".

"This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq" al-Zaidi shouted as he threw his second shoe. He was referring to the huge number of Iraqis killed since the war began. A peer-reviewed study from the prestigious medical journal The Lancet says approximately 1.4 people have been killed as a result of the conflict. Although the 1.4 million figure is an estimate, it is an estimate with a 95 percent confidence interval (Wikipedia: "In statistics, a confidence interval... is used to indicate the reliability of an estimate").

Also, Lila Guterman, writing in a in a January 2005 Columbia Journalism Review article stated, "I called about ten biostatisticians and mortality experts. Not one of them took issue with the study's methods or it's conclusions. If anything, the scientists told me, the authors had been cautious in their estimates".

The blogger who declared me to be a hypocrite says the Lancet's casualty estimates are "pulled from thin air with no evidence", but the real reason he objects is because pointing out how many innocent lives bush's illegal war has cost illustrates how enormous and disgusting a lie his claim that "bush told the truth and saved lives" is.

There is also the failed reconstruction, the primary purpose of which was to enrich the bush administration's contractor buddies. Given the fact that so many of these contractors over billed the government and did shoddy work on top of that, and so few of them were prosecuted - what else can one conclude?

Finally there is the bush administration's violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war, states that "physical or mental torture [as well as] any other form of coercion" is prohibited. Under the Geneva Conventions torture is defined as a "grave breach" and individuals involved can be prosecuted for war crimes.

Furthermore, during the tribunal that convened following the war in the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Court found that these "provisions are considered customary international law, allowing war crimes prosecution by the United Nations and its International Court of Justice over groups that have signed and have not signed the Geneva Conventions.

bush authorized torture by his own admission, although the torture he admits to authorizing is "only" the waterboarding of three individuals. But far more individuals than the three detainees who were waterboarded were subjected to torture. The photographic evidence of the torture that took place at Abu Ghraib is proof of that.

Human Rights Watch says that "Al-Qaeda detainees would likely not be accorded POW status, but the [Geneva] Conventions still provide explicit protections to all persons held in an international armed conflict, even if they are not entitled to POW status. Such protections include the right to be free from coercive interrogation, to receive a fair trial if charged with a criminal offense, and, in the case of detained civilians, to be able to appeal periodically the security rationale for continued detention".

In regards to "detained civilians", bush administration official Lawrence B. Wilkerson (chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell) contended that there are innocent civilians being held (indefinitely) at Gitmo. Mr. Wilkerson said, "there are still innocent people there. Some have been there six or seven years". Gavin Sullivan of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights says "[bush] bears ultimate responsibility for authorizing the torture of thousands of individuals at places like Guantánamo and secret CIA black sites around the world".

The Iraqi people are aware of all of these factors - bush lying about WMD, the large number of deaths from collateral damage and the civil war the invasion unleashed, the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and detention of innocent Iraqis, the billions that went to corrupt US companies instead of to Iraqis (who could have rebuild their own infrastructure), and the theft of their oil on behalf of Western oil firms - and this is why they will NEVER erect a statue in bush's honor.

Most recently the blogger who criticizes me said that my "ignorant, personal interpretation of international law [has] crumbled to dust". The straw man he has set up is that the ONLY reason I call bush a war criminal is because he violated the UN Charter by not obtaining UN authorization to invade Iraq, but Clinton did the same, and since I don't agree I'm an ignorant hypocrite.

But, as I've just proven, aside from neither Clinton nor bush receiving UN approval for their military actions, the situations are not at all comparable. And, when Dennis says my case against bush rests "entirely" on the singular fact that bush invaded Iraq without UN authorization, he's lying. I'm not a hypocrite, and bush IS a war criminal, albeit an unprosecuted one.

SWTD #116

Frenemies with Benefits: 9/11 Villans George W bush & Osama bin Laden

We will take them out; we will kill bin Laden; we will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority. Tonight I can report to the American people and to the world, that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda, and a terrorist who is responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children ~ Barack Obama (dob 8/4/1961) making a campaign promise on 10/7/2008, and announcing (on 5/2/2011, as president) that the promise had been fulfilled.

Definition, Frenemy: a portmanteau of "friend" and "enemy" that can refer to either an enemy disguised as a friend or to a partner who is simultaneously a competitor and rival. The term is used to describe personal, geopolitical, and commercial relationships both among individuals and groups or institutions (Source: Wikipedia).

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 5/2/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. The discussion concerns the operation (code named Neptune's Spear) carried out by Navy SEALs on 5/2/2011 which lead to the death of Osama bin Laden. (Information within brackets are notations added by me).

Thom Hartmann: ...this is a very significant moment [referring to the OBL kill]. But why now? Why not before? Gareth Porter is with us. Gareth Porter is an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy. You can read his writings over at ipsnews.net and elsewhere. Gareth, welcome to the program.

Gareth Porter: Thanks very much Thom.

TH: I was at at dinner party a couple of weeks ago with a progressive member of Congress and a couple of local DC pundits, and I made the comment that in 2001 the Taliban made an offer to George bush. The Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden and George bush turned them down. Everyone in the room, without exception, looked at me like I'd just said that the moon landing didn't actually happen.

GP: I think that is a fair comment on what happened in 2001.

TH: Actually, my understanding is that the Taliban didn't actually offer to turn bin Laden over to bush. They said to bush that they'd turn him over to a third country where he could get a fair trial [if the US was able to produce evidence that OBL was guilty of planning the 9/11 attacks].

GP: Actually, they went beyond that. That was their position as of the first week of October 2001; three weeks after 9/11. But after the US began the bombing of Afghanistan on October 7th, the Taliban very quickly adopted a new position - which was taken to a secret meeting in Islamabad by the then Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil. The new offer was to turn over, without any preconditions, and you can forget about the evidence...

They said they would turn bin Laden over to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is a Saudi-based international organization of Islamic countries. It is a moderate Islamic organization. I believe it is a fair presumption that bin Laden being tried by an OIC international panel of jurors would certainly result in a guilty verdict for the 9/11 attacks.

Had George bush seized upon this proposal - the process [his trial by an Islamic organization] would have arguably reduced the appeal of bin Laden and al-Qaeda enormously throughout the Islamic world. Having Osama tried by Islamic jurists and by an Islamic international organization would have been an enormous advantage [in that the Islamic world would have accepted the verdict as legitimate].

TH: Why did the bush administration not want that to happen?

GP: That's a very interesting question, Thom. I have been writing a chapter for a book I'm working on precisely on this topic of why bush did not catch bin Laden. There are a couple of answers to that question. The first one is that the neoconservative inner core of the bush administration's national security team (Cheney and Rumsfeld) were determined to avoid getting involved in Afghanistan. They, of course, had their hearts set on Iraq and a major US military operation there. They never took bin Laden and Al-Qaeda seriously. Cheney and Rumsfeld dismissed the idea that Al-Qaeda could threaten the United States because they weren't state sponsored but independent actors. So they convinced bush not to do anything that could possibly prejudice the plans for an attack and occupation of Iraq.

TH: Which we know now he had been talking about in 1999 to his biographer Mickey Herskowitz, and was the subject, according to Paul O'Neill, of the very first cabinet meeting that they had in January 2001. [see YouTube video below].

GP: Exactly. The bush administration never had a plan to actually capture bin Laden. Even after 9/11.

TH: Right. Even at Tora Bora where he was arguably right there in front of him [Rumsfeld let bin Laden escape in 2001, says Senate report].

GP: You have to understand that what was being done there was strictly improvisation. There was no planning ahead of time. There would have to have been very detailed planning immediately following 9/11 for any possibility of an effective operation to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan.

TH: Gareth, here's my theory on this... if Lex Luthor didn't exist in the Superman comic books, and all Superman did was run around and stop gas stations from being robbed, they would be the most boring comic books on earth. The "good" of a good character in fiction is defined by how "evil" the evil character is. So for George bush to turn himself from a ne'er-do-well who was appointed by the Supreme Court - into Superman - he needed to have a Lex Luthor. And he took the opportunity to turn Osama bin laden into Lex Luthor so he could be Superman.

GP: I think there's something to that, but let's stop and recall a very important distinction here. When he had the opportunity to really do something about al-Qaeda and bin Laden in 2001 he was not interested at all. And remember that even in early 2002, after bin Laden had escaped to Pakistan, it was George W bush who reasurred the American people that bin Laden wasn't really important. He only invented bin Laden as a factor in his policy after the Iraq war began to go badly.

TH: Ah ha. So that's when it got convenient from him.

GP: Yea.

TH: Gareth Porter. Gareth, thanks so much for being with us. Great talking with you.

GP: Thank you Thom.

[End Thom Hartmann/Gareth Porter 5/2/2011 discussion]

My conclusion, based on this conversation (and everything else I have read), is that GWB didn't take the threat posed by OBL and Al-Qaeda seriously until it suited him. Richard Clarke (chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council) told bush that, since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (10/12/2000), he had been working on an "aggressive plan to take the fight to al Qaeda".

bush didn't want to hear it, so he demoted Richard Clarke and re-assigned the counter-terrorism issue to a task force headed by Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney's task force didn't meet until 9/4/2001. This was 234 days after the bush administration assumed power, but only 7 days before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In the next segment Thom Hartmann concludes that GWB, "just wanted to transfer billions of dollars to his buddies in the defense industry", and points out that Halliburton was on the verge of bankruptcy before 9/11, and now, in the last quarter, this former US-based company (which is now located in Dubai) posted a 5 billion dollar profit. In bush's mind "the best way to revitalize the economy is war", and the best way to judge how the "economy" is doing is to examine how the wealthy elites are faring.

Clearly OBL and GWB exploited each other for their own advantage. Osama provided George with the excuse he and PNAC needed to launch their unending "war on terror" and "revitalize the economy". 9/11 also allowed bush to brand himself a "war president" and paint the Democrats as "weak on national defense", thus securing his second term - because you can't change a horse midstream when we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

In return bush handed Osama the bona fides he craved as a Wahhabi leader. Pre-9/11 Osama lead an obscure Islamic movement that was going nowhere. When bush declared war on "terror" and declared it was a "crusade", he elevated Osama to the level of super-villain (or hero fighting back against the "Great Satan", depending on your point of view) and revitalized Al-Qaeda. Outraged Muslims whose family members were killed ceased being innocent civilians and joined the "insurgency" to fight the American invaders. Osama's plan was to bog down the United States in a war of attrition and bleed America to the point of bankruptcy. George bush delivered in spades.

This is why call George bush and Osama bin Laden "Frenemies with benefits". Osama is now dead, "justice" having been served. But what about George bush? Why is he still a free man? We know where he is, so I think Seal Team 6 could take him out quite easily. Whether or not I'm kidding (about assassinating bush) I do believe he belongs behind bars - along with the other war criminals in his administration. I think that would be appropriate for a group of war profiteers that are responsible for the deaths of over a million people.

Video: When did bush decide to invade Iraq? A 2004 60 Minutes report says (according to then Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill) bush spoke of invading Iraq during his FIRST cabinet meeting! (2:01)

SWTD #76

GOP Propaganda Campaign Turns Failed Petraeus Iraq Surge Into Success

With the passage of time, President Bush's decision to champion a new counterinsurgency strategy, including sending 30,000 additional troops to Iraq when most Americans were bone-weary of the war, will be seen as one of the most impressive and important acts of political courage in our lifetime. And those who fiercely opposed the so-called surge were not only wrong in their judgment; in some instances their actions were shameful ~ Peter Wehner, former bush speechwriter (and butt kisser), revising the bush legacy.

You were probably unaware that the Petraeus Iraq surge failed. The reason being that the Con propaganda campaign has largely been a success. Even our President (the current one, not the "courageous" unelected war criminal), has been taken in by the Con disinformation exemplified by the factually inaccurate Peter Wehner quote. Even though he originally criticized the surge, correctly stating, "the surge is not working", now, according to General Petraeus, "President Barack Obama acknowledged that the troop surge in the Iraq war was a success". Sadly this erroneous conclusion was cited "during deliberations over whether to enact a troop surge in Afghanistan".

According to Robert Woodward's book, "The War Within", the decline in violence can be attributed to three factors (none of which is an increase in US troop strength). First, "the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province". This was the so-called "Sunni Awakening", and it isn't that big of a surprise that they "laid down their arms against coalition forces, patroled neighborhoods, and fought against other Sunni insurgents", since we paid them to do these things (although some of the Sunni militia decided two monthly paychecks were better than one, and "moonlighted" with the insurgency).

The other two factors contributing to the decline in violence, according to Woodward's book, were "the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a ceasefire", and "the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders". (This information is from the 6/29/2010 article "Gen. Petraeus and the Surge Myth by investigative journalist Robert Parry. See also "Iraq War troop surge of 2007: Opposition", on Wikipedia).

There is also the fact that a civil war was fought in Iraq, unlike in Afghanistan. The Shia and Sunni were fighting and killing each other, and so had less resources to devote to fighting and killing American troops. But when then Senator Biden suggested dividing Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic states, thus quelling the sectarian violence, the bush administration (and Iraq's majority Shia government) rejected a partitioning of the country, deciding to allow the bloodbath to continue. The level of violence went down because the numerically superior Shia (55% of Iraq's population versus 18.5% Sunni) eventually either killed or displaced enough of their enemies to effectively win the war.

More than 1.3 million Iraqis have lost their lives since the start of the war. 4.7 million Iraqis lost or were forced to flee their homes (16% of the population). What portion of each of these estimates can be attributed to the US invasion and what portion can be attributed to the civil war isn't known, as the bushies certainly had no motivation to look into the matter.

The majority Shia government rejected partitioning because they deemed that it was payback time for their former Sunni oppressors. Under Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship, which was Sunni-led, the Shia and Kurds were mercilessly persecuted. The Saddam regime also convinced their fellow Sunnis that they were not a minority - which explains why, when the US sponsored elections resulted in the Sunni netting "only a modest minority of seats", many Sunnis suspected fraud. This suspicion became one of the primary forces that fueled the insurgency. (They also overwhelmingly rejected the new Iraq constitution).

The bush administration knew that a civil war would produce an eventual victor, and then they could claim success when the violence decreased. Which explains why they worked so hard to deny one was taking place. This course of action resulted in a high of 3000 murders per month (according to a 2007 report issued by retired US Army General Barry McCaffre) - but the price was deemed quite acceptable. My opinion is that the bushies believed that if Iraqi ragheads wanted to kill each other there is no reason they should not allow it to happen, especially when the result was to make the war effort appear to be going better than it was.

An article published by "The Economist" on 6/17/2010 reports, "sectarian animosity still prevails", and that "Iraq's fledgling democracy remains frighteningly fragile" due to there being "little sign of a genuine cross-sectarian consensus". Despite these facts victory has been declared in Iraq, news coverage has dropped to virtually nill, and focus has shifted to the other war. The ouster of McChrystal and the installation of Petraeus led John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey CA to remark, "It's kind of sad and ironic that the fall of McChrystal will result in the reaffirmation of a highly problematic strategy".

On Friday 7/2/2010 (a day after General Petraeus won Senate confirmation) the House approved $37 billion in Afghan war spending and a 30,000 troop surge. Both the President and Congress are still fully behind the war, even though a poll in March revealed that "American support for the war in Afghanistan has ebbed to a new low", with "42% of respondents saying the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan" (Americans who considered the war a mistake was only 6% in January of 2002).

The President, who, on 12/1/2009 explained to the American people that we would give the war one last shot, and then begin a draw down in July 2011 (with a goal of withdrawing most U.S. forces by January 2013), is now walking back that promise, calling people who keep bringing up the draw down date "obsessed", and insisting "his focus is on making sure the mission there is successful".

Translation? The withdraw will be delayed to allow the new commander a chance to achive results. Even though the strategy isn't changing. How many more US soldiers will lose their lives or their limbs, and how many more billions will be wasted (money which could be used here to improve our economy) before Congress pulls funding and forces an end to this debacle? The Karzai government is corrupt. Accepting the results of Afghanistan's last "election" was the final nail in the coffin. If we ever had a chance of successfully completing the mission, any possibility of that happening ended when we allowed the former Unicol (Union Oil Company of California) consultant to steal the Afghan presidency.

The bushies hand picked Hamid Karzai to be Afghanistan's figurehead, installing him so that he could approve the proposed Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India).

Following the 8/20/2009 elections in Afghanistan, former President Jimmy Carter announced, "Hamid Karzai has stolen the election", and that "now the question is whether he gets away with it". (Incidentally, Mr. Carter was also right about the Petraeus Iraq surge, correctly noting that "it wasn't the surge of American troops that had caused an increase in calm, but General David Petraeus' willingness to pay bribes and pay Iraqi soldiers").

There were some brief grumblings from the Obama administration regarding the legitimacy of the Afghan elections, but in the end Karzai was allowed to get away with it. I'm positive that if bush were still in power the election would have been heralded as a victory for democracy and the Afghan people - the same purple-finger nonsense they pulled in Iraq. The Obama Administration, knowing that contesting the election would be very bad for the war effort, stopped it's grumbling, and instead congratulated Karzai on "winning" a second term. President Obama, while visiting the country, told Karzai "Although the process was messy, I'm pleased to say that the final outcome was determined in accordance with Afghan law".

Unfortunately Obama's proclamation was complete baloney. He knows the election was stolen. The American people and the Afghan people also know that Karzai's win was illegitimate (Karzai has been president since being "chosen" as interim president in 2002, served one five year term beginning in 2004, but will be ineligible to run again in 2014 due to term limits). How in the hell can we expect to win Afghan hearts and minds when they see our government give it's blessing to a corrupt administration's theft of it's supposedly democratic election?!

President Karzai (who says the US has undermined his legitimacy with the ballot stuffing allegations, even though they were made by independent monitors) is seeking to make his "own deal with the Taliban and the country's archrival, Pakistan, the Taliban's longtime supporter". A 6/11/2010 story in the New York Times reports that, when presented of evidence that the Taliban were behind a "spectacular rocket attack on a nationwide peace conference earlier this month", president Karzai said "he believed the Taliban were not responsible" and then suggested that Americans were behind the attack.

58% of Americans favor a timetable for withdrawl of US troops. 73% of Afghans opposed the Obama surge (according to a 2009 poll). The Taliban are united in their opposition to our military (unlike, as I pointed out earlier, there being multiple factions fighting each other). And the corrupt Karzai government is seeking to make deals with the Taliban and "blocking corruption probes [regarding the theft of] huge amounts of foreign aid" (a 6/30/2010 Huffington Post article alleges that "Afghan powerbrokers are moving millions of dollars out of the country").

Karzai will use the money he has stolen from the US, the proceeds from the Unicol pipeline (what this war was really all about in the first place), and eventually, the estimated 1 trillion in mineral wealth to create a "coalition government" by bribing the Taliban, cementing the country's status as a criminal and oppressive oligarchy. Foreign corporations will move in to build the pipeline and extract Afghanistan's mineral wealth. The rich will get richer, the corrupt will retain power, and the poor of Afghanistan will remain poor and oppressed. Mission accomplished. BTW, these things will happen regardless of when we pull out.

Continuing on this path is complete insanity. We either need to begin an orderly withdrawal as soon as possible, or come up with a plan for a negotiated peace. This isn't ideal solution, especially with Karazi still in charge for at least another 4 and a half years. I don't think it matters, as this war was lost some time ago (certainly before Obama's surge). That is, if it was ever winnable. Unfortunately, with the Republicans set to gain seats in the upcoming election, the prospect of a draw down anytime soon is looking quite dim.

Further Reading
[1] Petraeus: We Are In This To Win in Afghanistan by Deb Richman, AP 7/4/2010.
[2] Is Karzai punking Obama, yet again? by Laurence Lewis, The Daily Kos 6/11/2010.
[3] Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team by Wayne Madsen, Democrats.com 1/2002.

7/6/2015 Update: The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart asks "if the surge was so damned successful, then why did it all come apart as soon as we took our finger out of the dike". Answer: gwb (and John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman and anyone else who claims the surge was a success) were/are lying.

SWTD #44

Why bush Really Invaded Afghanistan

I want justice... there's an old poster out West, I recall, that said, "Wanted, Dead or Alive" ~ George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States (1/20/2001 to 1/20/2009) referring to the 9/11 attacks "prime suspect" Osama bin Laden on 9/17/2001.

The US military bombed and invaded Afghanistan because that is where Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were located - "guests" of the Taliban Regime which refused to hand him over to the US for prosecution. There isn't much more to the narrative, as far as most people are concerned. Most people will acknowledge that there is some controversy surrounding the decision to invade Iraq, with some calling it a "war of choice" (you can place me firmly in that camp).

However, contrary to the conventional wisdom that Afghanistan was the "good war" (wisdom that our current president agrees with), I believe the evidence strongly suggests that Afghanistan was another "war of choice". If you recall, before the US invaded Afghanistan bush contacted the Taliban and demanded that they turn over bin Laden, implying that the bombing and invasion wouldn't happen if they complied.

The fact is that Taliban did offer to give up bin Laden. Negotiations between the US and the Taliban had been ongoing for 3 years prior to the 9/11/2001 attacks. Unfortunately President Clinton was unable to close the deal. He did, however, put together an "aggressive plan to take the fight to Al-Qaeda".

But bush rejected the Clinton administration's claim that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were a serious threat. bush said, "I didn't feel a sense of urgency" (as reported by Bob Woodward in his book "Bush at War", 2002). So he tossed the Clinton administration plan and handed off responsibility for formulating a new strategy to VP Cheney. Cheney's counter terrorism task force never met.

Fast forward to the aftermath of the (preventable) attacks of 9/11. With virtually the entire world backing him, bush submitted an ultimatum to the "rulers" of Afghanistan, the country which was "harboring" bin Laden (the words in quotes are in quotes because Afghanistan was not then and is not now actually a country, but rather a collection of independent tribes and villages).

bush demanded, "We know he's guilty, turn him over". The Taliban, not wanting to be bombed or invaded, offered to take bin Laden into custody and send him to a neutral third country for trial. bush "summarily rejected" the offer.

Under the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" (a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on 9/18/2001), bush was granted "the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force against those whom he determined planned, authorized, committed or aided the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups".

After the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden they were no longer "harboring" him, and thus the invasion was not necessary or appropriate. It was at this point that, instead of issuing an ultimatum, negotiations should have begun (or been renewed). A deadline could have been attached, but, IMO simply rejecting the offer outright was a violation of the resolution.

It is human nature to be offended when presented with an ultimatum when you're expecting an offer of negotiation. Saving face is important in Muslim culture, and that they responded negatively to bush's demands shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone in the administration. Any idiot could have deduced that they'd be insulted when they were informed that they would not be allowed to save face, but instead were expected to submit to a humiliating and embarrassing capitulation.

This is why, in my opinion, bush refused to listen to the Taliban's offer. He deliberately insulted them to short circuit negotiations, which would allow him to proceed with an invasion. What we heard from the bush administration was "this is not a negotiation", and that the Taliban needed to "act to meet all of the president's demands now". Why give in to your adversary's demands when they've made it clear they're going to attack anyway?, which is what the bush administration signaled they were going to do by rejecting all offers of negotiation.

The logical conclusion is that bush had decided in advance that he was going to invade Afghanistan, and asking for the Taliban to give up bin Laden was a deceptive manipulation designed to make it appear as though his administration hadn't already decided to go to war.

Even though war with Afghanistan was not what bush actually desired. As noted by bush's official biographer, Mickey Herskowitz, bush was "thinking about invading Iraq in 1999", and that, if he had the chance to invade he would not "waste it". But because it was common knowledge that bin Laden was in Afghanistan and not Iraq, the American public wouldn't accept a war with Iraq... initially.

Case in point, Chief counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, thought Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was joking when "as early as the day after the attacks, Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though Al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan".

It was unavoidable; the path to war with Iraq went though Afghanistan. So bush bullied and insulted the Taliban into NOT giving up bin Laden, even though they were desperate to do so (to avoid being bombed). However, a war with Iraq would not be saleable if bin Laden was to actually be captured. So, when US forces came close to catching him at Tora Bora, Rumsfeld sidelined "the vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army", and sent "fewer than 100 U.S. commandos, working with Afghan militias" to track down bin Laden. As a result bin Laden and compatriots "walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area".

This information is from a 11/30/2009 Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, "Tora Bora Revisited: How We Failed to Get Bin Laden and Why It Matters Today". An article from the UK's Guardian, "Rumsfeld Let bin Laden Escape in 2001, says Senate Report" suggests that Rumsfled's "incompetence" is to blame. Even though the article title contains the word "let", implying that it was on purpose. Obviously this is because it's an article about how bin Laden "escaped", not an article accusing Rumsfeld of treason.

The Senate report does, however, conclude "unequivocally that in mid-December 2001, Mr. bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, were at the cave complex, where Mr. bin Laden had operated previously during the fight against Soviet forces". It also "suggests that a larger troop commitment to Afghanistan might have resulted in the demise not only of Mr. bin Laden and his deputy but also of Mullah Muhammad Omar, the leader of the Afghan Taliban. Mullah Omar, who also fled to Pakistan in 2001, has overseen the resurgence of the Taliban", but that "fewer than 100 American troops committed to the area were not enough to block his escape".

So we're to believe that Rumsfled's "incompetence" is to blame, even though this was his second term as Defense Secretary (he served under President Gerald Ford from 1975 to 1977)? Rumsfeld has plenty of experience, yet we were supposed to be worried about electing Barack Obama because of his lack of experience? This theory is completely unbelievable.

This explains why Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-New York), recently told MSNBC host David Shuster that the Bush administration "intentionally let bin Laden get away" in order to justify the Iraq war. When Schuster suggested, "That will strike a lot of people as crazy", Hinchey replied, "I don't think it'll strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it'll strike a lot of people as very accurate".

On 3/13/2002 (87 days after bin Laden "escaped") bush said, "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him. And, again, I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him". Why wasn't bush concerned? bush wasn't concerned about bin Laden because he had escaped into Pakistan and was beyond our reach, and thus the possibility no longer existed that he might be captured, dead or alive, and foil bush's plans for invading Iraq.

Afghanistan Timeline
->10/07/2001: Afghanistan Invaded.
->12/16/2001: bin Laden escapes during the Battle of Tora Bora.
->03/13/2002: bush says, "I truly am not that concerned about him (bin Laden)".
->03/20/2003: Iraq Invaded.

Further Reading
[1] Poll: Do you believe that the Bush/Cheney Administration made a conscious decision to let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora? by R. Donald Snyder, Newsvine 11/30/2009.
[2] Rumsfeld Order Allowed bin Laden's Escape by Gabriel Winant, Salon 11/30/2009.

SWTD #33

Best Friends George and Osama

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed ~ Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States (3/4/1861 to 4/15/1865)

Osama bin Laden financed, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed planned and organized, and Al-Qaeda operatives (15 of whom were Saudi nationals) carried out the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Most people would agree that this is a comprehensive list of the principal players. There is one person omitted from the list however. The key co-conspirator whose assistance was essential, because without his help the attacks on 9/11 may have been averted. The costly and pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would never have been fought. And al Qaeda would have remained an obscure Islamic movement and most likely faded from existence.

No, George and Osama were not literally BFFs. OBL clearly considered George a useful idiot, a simpleton he manipulated into doing his bidding. However, instead of being angry at having been used - because he was completely oblivious to the fact that he was doing exactly what Osama wanted him to - I'm sure George was grateful to Osama for the help he provided in saving his presidency, and getting him elected to a second term by allowing him to become a "wartime president" - thus gaining a lot of "political capital".

Osama's stated goal was to "[bleed] America to the point of bankruptcy" through the use of a "war of attrition". He also remarked that it was "easy for us to provoke and bait [the bush] administration". bush, on the other hand, had his own reasons for accepting Osama's bait. Osama correctly deduced that bush "gave priority to private interests over the public interests ... [as] anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind [can see]".

These statements are from a video released by al Qaeda in late 2004 which should have been titled "Thank you George W. bush".

Osama witnessed first hand how fighting a war of attrition resulted in victory during the Afghan-Soviet War. The Mujahideen (which received funding and assistance from both the US and OBL, ironically) fought the Soviets for 10 long years (1979-1989), ending with a Soviet retreat. This defeat in Afghanistan, and the billions of dollars expended in achieving it, lead directly to the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

Maybe Osama learned that the Project for the New American Century desired a New Pearl Harbor, so he decided to do his buddy George a solid and give him exactly what he and his friends Dick and Donald so desperately wanted?

I'm guessing that is what happened. After all, when George learned that Osama was planning a big surprise for him, he kept the secret on the down-low. If your best friend was planning a surprise party for you, would you spoil it? I'm referring to the President's Daily Brief titled bin Laden Determined To Strike in US.

But this wasn't the first time George had heard that his friend was up to something. Outgoing President Bill Clinton didn't like Osama and tried to convince George that he was bad news. George had just moved into the White House when Bill and a group of his friends staged an intervention.

Richard Clarke (chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council) told George that, since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (10/12/2000), he had been working on an "aggressive plan to take the fight to al Qaeda".

Of course George was shocked. al Qaeda was a religious prayer group Osama lead, but it was just a bunch of guys who got together to study the Bible Qur'an and engage in jihad. George could relate. He used to snort coke and binge drink until he found the Lord. Then he cut back. Osama was probably thinking of running for political office. He came from a wealthy family and was now devoutly religious, the same as George.

But Bill wouldn't stop hassling him, so George pretended that he'd take the "threat" al Qaeda posed seriously and let Richard Clarke keep his job. Unfortunately RC turned out to be a real buzz-kill. All he did was run down Osama. It was "Osama this and Al-Qaeda that", so George demoted him (taking away his cabinet-level access) and had him report to Condi. It didn't help matters when George junked his plan to go after Osama and handed off responsibility for putting a new improved anti-terrorism strategy together to his VP.

Dick assured him he'd fast track put on the back burner ignore the request and he quickly got to work setting up meetings between Big oil and his Energy Task Force. Dick knew they needed to decide how to carve up Iraq's oil fields if (wink, wink) something like a new Pearl Harbor occurred on George's watch giving them the opportunity to invade Iraq and topple Saddam.

In the meantime George took on his top priorities of cutting taxes, deregulating business, denying people with horrible diseases any hope by cutting off funding for stem cell research, allowing Wall Street to risk people's retirement money, creating a "guest worker" program so big business could employ slave cheap labor, spending Bill's surplus to curry favor with the voters, and driving the federal budget back into the red.

Despite his cool agenda George knew that Congress and the American people still wouldn't be hip with his desire to invade Iraq. He wished that Osama would hurry up with that surprise, because George was getting impatient. Plus he had to work really hard ignoring all the details that were leaking out.

Reports came in from all over the globe. In June of 2001 Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban's Foreign Minister, cautioned US intelligence straight up that an "attack was imminent, and would kill thousands". German intelligence passed on some info suggesting that al Qaeda was going to "hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons". The FBI had been hearing that Middle Eastern men were training at flight schools in Florida and elsewhere. Finally, it was learned that Osama was "very disappointed that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center" and that he "was planning large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001".

Unfortunately the cat was out of the bag. Unbelievably US intelligence failed to connect the dots and operation "Big Wedding" (Al-Qaeda's code name for 9/11) remained a go.

Of course none of these reports were viewed by George personally, but they were summarized in the 8/6/2001 PDB "bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US", which was delivered to George while he was chilling in Crawford on one of the longest presidential vacations ever. The briefing confirmed that the threat of a bin Laden attack in the United States remained both current and serious was historical in nature (whew!).

George scolded the CIA briefer for interrupting his "me time" by telling him, "All right. You've covered your ass now". Then he got back to clearing brush, playing golf and riding his mountain bike.

Image: Two buddies kicking back and hanging out.

SWTD #30

e-mail Newsletters

The following two articles (which I am posting excerpts from below) were delivered to my inbox this week courtesy of "Bush Headline News" and author/journalist Greg Palast, respectively.

Politics of Deceit: Dictator Bush's Scare Tactics Not Working By Paul Krugman

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. I wrote about the subject the next day, warning that "politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots". The response from readers was furious -- fury not at the politicians but at me, for suggesting that such an outrage was even possible.

"How can I say that to my young son?" demanded one angry correspondent. I wonder what he says to his son these days. 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. (End excerpt).

The Fear Factory By Greg Palast

I'm going to tell you something which is straight-up heresy: America is not under attack by terrorists. There is no WAR on terror because, except for one day five years ago, al Qaeda has pretty much left us alone.

That's because Osama got what he wanted. There's no mystery about what Al Qaeda was after. Like everyone from the Girl Scouts to Bono, Osama put his wish on his web site. He had a single demand: "Crusaders out of the land of the two Holy Places". To translate: get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.

And George Bush gave it to him. On April 29, 2003, two days before landing on the aircraft carrier Lincoln, our self-described "War President" quietly put out a notice that he was withdrawing our troops from Saudi soil. In other words, our cowering cowboy gave in whimpering to Osama's demand.

The press took no note. They were all wiggie over Bush's waddling around the carrier deck in a disco-aged jump suit announcing, "Mission Accomplished". But it wasn't America's mission that was accomplished, it was Osama's. (End excerpt).

.........................

Paul Krugman (b. 2/28/1953) is an economist at Princeton University who has written several books and since 2000 has written a twice-weekly op-ed column for The New York Times. He is currently a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. (Source: Wikipedia.

Greg Palast is a New York Times-bestselling author and a journalist for the British Broadcasting Corporation as well as the British newspaper The Observer. His work frequently focuses on corporate malfeasance but has also been known to work with labor unions and consumer advocacy groups.

Notably, he has accused Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and Florida Elections Unit Chief Clay Roberts, along with the ChoicePoint corporation, of election fraud during the US Presidential Election of 2000 and again in 2004 when, he argued, the problems and machinations from 2000 continued and that challenger John Kerry actually would have won if not for disproportional "spoilage" of Democratic votes. (Source: Wikipedia).

Additional Options
->Continue reading "Politics of Deceipt" by Paul Krugman.
->Subscribe to Bush Headline News.
->Continue reading "Fear Factory" by Greg Palast.
->Visit Greg Palast's Website.

Recommended Reading
1. Jim Crow Revived in Cyberspace by Greg Palast & Martin Luther King III (2000 election theft).
2. How They Stole Ohio by Greg Palast (2004 election theft).
3. We Don't Need no Stinkin' Recount by Greg Palast (2006 Mexican election theft).

 swtd-5