The Day The Terrorists Won (Tuesday, September 11, 2001)

The terrorists won after 9/11 because we chose to invade Iraq, shred our Constitution ~ excerpt from a 11/15/2015 Salon article by Bret Weinstein.

Note that by "the terrorists" I refer to the Saudi Nationals who flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and the Pentagon, as well as their financiers. In addition, among "the terrorists", I include the accomplices in the bush administration. Accomplices in that george w bush knew a terrorist attack was likely. Knew the likely target. And knew an attack was imminent. Yet he did nothing.

Remember the PDB (presidential daily brief) from 8/6/2001 that warned Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US? Condi Rice fibbed and said "the CIA's PDB did not warn the President of a specific new threat but "contained historical information based on old reporting". Implying there was no reason for them to act... "historical information based on old reporting".

But that is CLEARLY bullshit, given the in Ladin Determined To Strike in US warning contained within the PDB. You don't act when you're being WARNED?

An excerpt from the PDB.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America". *snip* Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ----, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack. Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks... Al Qaeda members ---- including some who are U.S. citizens ---- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. *snip* We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks...

Yes, there is "historical" data here, but it also says that bin Laden IS DETERMINED. More attacks WILL come. And this warning (and it absolutely was a warning) was delivered less than 4 months before the 9/11 attacks occurred. There were other warnings, however. Warnings that date back the early days of the bush presidency.

They're coming here: Bush admin. ignored multiple pre-9/11 warnings (11/14/2015 RT article excerpt) Disclosures from more than 100 hours of exclusive interviews with 12 former CIA directors reveal that the George W. Bush administration ignored repeated warnings of an Al-Qaeda attack before September 11, 2001, according to a new Politico report. ... A key meeting took place on July 10, after the head of the Al-Qaeda unit at the CIA... "The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw" [Cofer Black, a CIA chief of counterterrorism] said. ... "It was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die" [according to Black]. Black and [CIA director George] Tenet requested an urgent meeting at the White House and met with Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. The president was on a trip to Boston at the time. Rice was told there would be significant terrorist attacks against the US in the coming weeks or months. "The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al-Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States", said [Al Qaeda unit head, Richard] Blee, according to Tenet. Rice asked what they thought they needed to do, and Black blasted "We need to go on a wartime footing now!". Despite this warning, Black said the administration sat back.

But, instead of taking the warnings seriously, the author of the Politico article concludes that the warnings were actively ignored (referred to by Senator Al Franken in his book Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them as "operation ignore").

Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called "the Blue Sky paper" to Bush's new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat - "getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan" "And the word back", says [CIA director George] Tenet, "was we're not quite ready to consider this. We don't want the clock to start ticking"... Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they'd been warned. (11/12/2015 article by Chris Whipple).

So it isn't just me who thinks that the bush administration ignored the threat that an attack was coming, and that, had they acted, they might have prevented 9/11. Note that the "word back" was that they did not want "the clock to start ticking", not that they weren't convinced.

That the attacks were ALLOWED to occur is a solid conclusion, IMO. As a pretext for invading Iraq. As per the stated desire of PNAC for a "new Pearl Harbor". (Wikipedia/Project for a New American Century/Critics: Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans).

The bush administration was also warned that hijacked planes might be used as weapons.

WH spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility". However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement. The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?", warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building. [Also] the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer [2000] that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools. (What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11).

Then there is the fact that the WTC was bombed previously, due to it being seen by al Qaeda as a symbol of the United State's economic power. On 2/26/1993 a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower, killing 6 people and injuring more than a 1,000. Given the fact that the 1993 plan basically failed, in that those responsible had intended to bring down the entire structure and kill many more, I think our government should have assumed that another attempt was likely and only a matter of time.

So, while I don't believe that bush knew EXACTLY what was going to happen (that al Qaeda would fly planes into the WTC), I do think the bush administration might (or should) have been able to connect the dots and make some educated guesses as to what al Qaeda may be planning, but they chose not to (didn't want the clock to start ticking).

bush, IMO, likely knew there would be an attack, but they had NO idea how bad it would be. My conclusions (which many others have reached) don't represent a "strange hate" (as a Libertarian blogger called my conclusions awhile back). Not strange and not hate. Only a rational conclusion based on an examination of the facts. Although I think hate surely would be justified.

Also, I say he LIKELY knew. I (of course) do not know with 100 percent certainty that bush knew an attack was coming. Given the fact that he (as president) was an incompetent doofus, maybe Cheney played him for the useful idiot (and that it's Cheney who is truly evil)?

Me, I'm thinking that Cheney (who was one of 25 people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles, while bush wasn't) wanted a "benevolent global hegemony" which would be brought about by toppling Saddam. i.e. the domino theory which said that if the US "overthrows Hussein and creates a pro-Western democratic regime in Iraq, the example will increase internal pressure to open closed societies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria").

Whereas bush wanted to take out Saddam because he allegedly tried to kill his daddy.

During a campaign speech in September 2002, Bush cited a number of reasons - in addition to alleged terrorist links and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) about why Saddam was so dangerous to the U.S., noting, in particular that, "After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad". He was referring, of course, to an alleged plot by Iraqi intelligence to assassinate Bush's father, former president George H.W. Bush, during his triumphal visit to Kuwait in April, 1993, 25 months after US-led forces chased Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War and three months after Bush Sr. surrendered the White House to Bill Clinton. While the alleged plot was never cited officially as a cause for going to war, some pundits... have speculated that revenge or some oedipal desire to show up his father may indeed have been one of the factors that drove him to Baghdad. (So, Did Saddam Hussein Try to Kill Bush's Dad? by Jim Lobe. 10/19/2004 Republished by Common Dreams).

Which is why I conclude that, given the fact that 9/11 was an evil act, that bush (as a participant in that event) is an evil man. Because of his inactions. BTW, most evil people don't view themselves as evil. Remember that Osama bin Laden thought he was leading a religious crusade against the Great Satan. And believed he was on the side of God (AKA Allah).

Point is, we always determine evil by what evil does. Or what evil people do. In this case the evil of george w bush in ignoring the warnings and allowing 9/11 to happen. Something the evidence strongly suggests happened.

"Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" Public Policy Polling asked in 2009.Wikipedia notes that "27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded YES".

And that the plan to hijack airplanes and fly them into the Twin Towers actually got an assist from the then sitting president? That is why I say the terrorists won. This was the event with which OBL kicked off his jihad against the West. A jihad that rages on today (in the form of ISIS). It also provided the bushies with the excuse to invade Middle Eastern countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) that they were hungering for.

If not for the "failures" of the bush administration I think that ISIS would probably not exist. Something to think about on this, the 15th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on our nation. That a former president HELPED the terrorists and (with his illegal invasion of Iraq) GREATLY empowered our enemies (DSD #31).

Image: gwb and OBL meet prior to 9/11/2001 to coordinate their plans to bring down the Twin Towers. Note that I am not a 9/11 Truther. My commentary from 11/17/2009 titled "Best Friends George and Osama" (SWTD #30) was a work of satire. But only in part.

  

SWTD #350. See also OST #168.

Donald Trump, Founder Of American ISIS (Theory)

The 2016 candidate has more in common with the terrorist group than he does with America ~ Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in his 12/9/2015 TIME article "What Donald Trump and ISIS Have in Common".

"Here's the reason you should shoot her, she started ISIS. He was literally saying that". "Her" being Hillary Clinton and "he" being Donald Trump. This observation from Suzanne Westenhoefer, guest on the 8/12/2016 airing of the Stephanie Miller Show.

Now Trump claims he didn't mean it. Again. Tweeting "Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) 'the founder' of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM?".

Sarcasm? But when Trump was given an out by Conservative Talker Hugh Hewitt, he clarified that YES, he meant that BHO and HRC founded ISIS. Literally.

Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night [8/10/2016] in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace". Trump objected. "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS", Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton". Hewitt pushed back again, saying that Obama is "not sympathetic" to ISIS and "hates" and is "trying to kill them". "I don't care", Trump said, according to a show transcript. "He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?" Hewitt and Trump went back and forth after that, with Hewitt warning Trump that his critics would seize on his use of "founder" as more example of Trump being loose with words. (Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally by Tal Kopan. 8/12/2016 CNN).

"Lose with his words"? I don't think so. Trump knows what he's saying. Previously I said that Trump speaks without thinking. I retract that. When he suggested that "2nd amendment people" should assassinate Hillary Clinton he meant it and he meant to say it (DSB #52).

That was a shout-out to the misogynist HRC haters on the Right. I don't believe that Trump actually wants anyone to shoot HRC. But that is what he said and what he meant. No doubt (despite some not being able to accept that he was talking about assassination).

This is the Trump MO. He'll say something "beyond overboard". And he absolutely means it when he says it. It's his way of speaking to the base. "I'm with you, *wink, wink*" he says. Then he walks it back. But the base gets the message.

"He was NOT suggesting assassination" the Conservative blogger Rational Nation insists, but he WAS. Saying outrageous things (that the crazy bigoted rubes want to hear) is an essential component of Trump's con.

"He's a truth teller! He's speaking to us" the rubes say. This explains why Trump jumped on the Birther bandwagon (Obama a Kenyan-born Muslim) and why he's demonizing HRC as "crooked" and suggesting she should be assassinated (she'll appoint SCOTUS judges who will get rid of the 2nd amendment, she co-founded ISIS). BHO (Black man) and HRC (Clinton, woman) being the focus of intense hate from the insane hate-fueled Right.

The trouble is that almost everyone outside the Trump base finds such statements crazy and objectionable. So he says these crazy and objectionable things (speaking to the base) but then walks them back (no, I don't mean exactly what you heard me say).

Donald Trump is a dangerous con man. I'd say he hijacked the Republican Party, but the truth is "you built that" Republicans. With your stoking of resentment for our first Black president ("racism" of Obama, Holder, et al, have hurt race relations, not racist bigots who are angry that a Black is in the White House).

It's one of the reasons people joined the Tea Party and why anti-government militias have surged since Obama was elected. A 2/4/2016 NewsWeek article says that "Right-wing extremists are a bigger threat to America than ISIS", and I agree.

And right now Trump is speaking for them. The scary thing is that if Trump wins or if Trump loses, he has riled them up... and they're going to be MAD (anger intensifying due to Trump losing, or anger intensifying when Trump wins and they figure out he was bullshitting them).

I honestly believe that it might only a matter of time before (in addition to Muslim extremist terrorist attack) we start seeing more Right-wing terrorism. Which is why I predict that the candidacy of Donald Trump might end up founding an American version of ISIS.

Yes, I seriously think this could happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president (something that seems more likely than not). One of the first orders of business being the carrying out of the assassination as ordered by their candidate (from whom the election was "stolen").

For the record... I agree with Hewitt in regards to that vacuum that lead to the creation of ISIS. Although the vacuum was created by gwb's illegal invasion of Iraq. gwb created ISIS and is their (former) MVP. Although I guarantee you they never "honored" him. (gwb did not "found" ISIS, however. That would be Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).

Video: President Obama and "crooked Hillary" co-founded ISIS, according to Donald Trump (0:28).

8/15/2016 Update: I was alerted to PROOF my theory regarding Trump may be correct my way of the Thom Hartmann program today. That proof? An 8/14/2016 "Blue Nation Review" titled Trump Is Seeking a White Nationalist Awakening NOT the White House. According to the author of the article, Peter Daou, Trump "realized he couldn't defeat Hillary so he simply aimed HIGHER than the presidency". The goal? Trump is "seeking to lead an uprising — and perhaps a violent one".

SWTD #345

Iraq War Based On gwb Lie Of "Disarming" Saddam When IAEA Officials Who Were There, On The Ground, Said Iraq Had No WMD

George W. Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda according to a 1/22/2008 study by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism. In total the Bush Admin made 935 false statements in run-up to war.

According to the gwb administration, the purpose of the vote on the Iraq War Resolution was to pressure the UN and Iraq into getting inspectors back into the country. At least that's what Hillary Clinton has said when defending her vote on the matter.

Hillary, before voting, asked "If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job". She was told that, YES, that was the goal. To show the UN and Iraq that the bush administration was serious, Congress needed to authorize war if the inspectors were not allowed back in (Hillary Clinton Never Supported the Bush/Cheney Invasion of Iraq).

Well, it worked. Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were allowed back into Iraq... and so bush, realizing that the threat worked, allowed the inspections to do their job and the UN to decide what to do if Iraq again balked and did not cooperate (as the UN charter stipulates).

No, wait... that isn't what happened at all. Saddam did drag his feet (as before) and not cooperate fully. Although the inspectors thought progress was still being made. None-the-less the bush administration (already having the Congressional authority it needed) launched an attack.

And the bush administration launched it's attack in spite of (1) telling members of Congress they were voting to get inspectors back in and that war would be a last resort, and (2) The UN charter saying "it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced".

bush, in deciding to go ahead with the invasion despite the UN not voting for war, violated articles 33 and 39 of the Charter (33 says disputes are to be resolved peacefully and 39 says that the UN "decides what measures shall be taken" when the resolutions it makes are violated).

Because UN charter does not allow individual countries to act unilaterally a number of UN and IAEA officials condemned the US invasion of Iraq. (Condemned it, or pointed out why it was unnecessary).

Six UN & IAEA Officials Who Either Condemned US Invasion of Iraq Or Confirmed It Was Unnecessary

1. Kofi Annan: The UN Secretary-general from 1/1/1997 to 12/31/2006 said (in regards to the bush invasion of Iraq) "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal". This, according to a statement made to the BBC in September 2004. According to spokesman Fred Eckhard this "has been the Secretary-General's longstanding view [because the UN charter] does not allow pre-emptive attacks".

2. Mohamed ElBaradei: The IAEA director from 1997 to 2009, in regards to bush's claim that Iraq had WMD and the invasion was needed to "disarm" Saddam, said, "deliberate deception [isn't] limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators" (this is a quote from his book Age of Deception).

3. Hans Blix: The former head of the IAEA (1981–1997) who was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and was in charge of looking for WMD in Iraq said that his inspectors "found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament". Iraq was not complying or having difficulty complying (because of misplaced stockpiles) but Mr. Blix was confident that everything would be resolved. The only thing that was needed was time ("a matter of months").

Furthermore Blix said that if "the inspections been allowed to continue, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's preemptive, unilateral actions have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere". (For The Record, Yes, George W. Bush Did Help Create ISIS).

Although, according to Blix, US President george w. bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair did not act in bad faith, but only exhibited "a severe lack of critical thinking".

4. David Kay: The Chief weapons inspector said "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them" when he resigned on 1/23/2004.

I should note, however that Kay defended the Bush administration, saying that even if Iraq did not have weapons stockpiles, this did not mean it wasn't dangerous. Was Iraq dangerous? Perhaps, but there are many countries with "dangerous" regimes, and the US isn't invading them all. That Kay also blamed "faulty intelligence gathering" for the prewar WMD conclusions (even though this is pure bullplop) explains why he defended the lying bush administration.

Although the conclusion of the Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq (that the bush Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent) wasn't released until 5/25/2007, so perhaps Kay's idiotic partisan statement is understandable? The US government had not yet confirmed that the bush administration blatantly lied. Even though the IAEA had.

But, and this is the important point, Kay knew Iraq had no WDM because he was one of those on the ground in Iraq who was looking for it (and did not find it). Thus confirming that the war was (if not illegal/based on a lie) unnecessary as per the bush administration reasons for waging it (to "disarm" Iraq).

5. Charles Dulfer: Dulfer, who replaced David Kay as Chief weapons inspector, said "it turns out that we were all wrong [and] I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed, militarized chemical weapons there".

6. Scott Ritter: A United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, while not a participant in the 2002 inspections, has remarked that "since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated". The nuclear program was eliminated and there was no evidence Iraq had retained chemical or biological weapons according to Ritter.

The Republican-identifying Ritter who says he voted for gwb was later (in 2001 and 2010) accused of "soliciting minors for sex on the Internet" (the 2001 charges were dismissed and the 2010 charges resulted in a conviction). For this reason Ritter's critics discount his statements re Iraq having WMD. Obviously the two aren't connected, but still the crime he was convicted of calls his character into question. He desired sex with minors, so he obviously lied about finding no WMD (so say his critics... see SWTD #232 point "5A" for more info concerning what one specific critic said when I brought up Ritter's name in a discussion re the illegality of gwb's Iraq invasion).

**End list of 6 UN and IAEA Officials Who Either Condemned US Invasion of Iraq Or Confirmed It Was Unnecessary**

In regards to ex-preznit bush saying (on 3/19/20013, in an address to the American people notifying them of the beginning of the illegal invasion of Iraq), "my fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger"... we knew/know bush was lying and he knows/knew he lied/was lying.

How do we know for certain that bush lied? Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council (on 3/7/2003) via written report that the "UN inspections in Iraq worked". Please note that this report was delivered on 3/7/2003 and bush ordered the invasion on 3/19/2003. So bush said "invade to disarm" AFTER the head of the IAEA told the world that the inspections worked and that Iraq was already disarmed!

A fact that the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, as well as everyone at the IAEA (listed above) confirms (despite Kay going along with the "faulty intel" BS). My conclusion is that bush CLEARLY lied. And it was a blatant bold-faced lie.

This is something our own government concluded with a bi-partisan majority report issued by the Senate (on 6/5/2008) that said "the [bush] Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent".

Yet the bush apologists continue to lie... both about bush lying about Iraq having WMD (it was an "intelligence failure", they say), as well as Iraq having WMD. Iraq really did have WMD these liars/dumbshits say! Wikileaks documents prove Saddam had WMD!

Sorry, but no. bush claimed that we needed to invade to "disarm" Saddam, not that we needed to invade to clean up old, forgotten, buried and degraded chemical weapons. Which is what was actually claimed, and this was NOT what bush hyped (in order to scare the American people into accepting war). According to Wired's Noah Shachtman "Saddam's toxic arsenal [was] largely destroyed after the Gulf War". (WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No Evidence of Massive WMD Caches).

What we found after the invasion was "remnants". Remnants are what the Wikileaks documents revealed were found in Iraq post invasion. Would the American people have agreed to war over "remnants"? We all know the answer to that question is NO. Which is why bush ignored what the IAEA was telling him about Iraq having no WMD and lied about "disarming" Saddam.

Wikipedia notes that "In a White House Iraq Group meeting, chief Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson proposes the use of a smoking gun/mushroom cloud metaphor to sell the American public on the supposed nuclear dangers posed by Saddam Hussein".

The "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" metaphor was just one of the 935 false statements, (including 232 lies that bush himself disassembled) the administration used to SELL us the Iraq war. "Intelligence failure" my ass!

Video: Terrorist leader bush scares the shit out of Americans with BS about Iraq possessing nuclear weapons and using them to attack us. Clip from a 10/7/2002 TV address broadcast from Cincinnati's Museum Center at Union Terminal (0:07).

Notes
[1] From an 8/28/2011 discussion on the blog of Willis Hart: When I pointed out that HRC said the gwb WH told her a YES vote wasn't a vote for war, but a vote to pressure Iraq to agree to "complete, unlimited inspections", Willis Hart responded by saying, "My God, wd, what do you expect her to say, I screwed up? You know as well as I do that, if the war had gone better, the lady would have been patting herself on the back till the cows came home. She (and Kerry and Biden) knew exactly what they were voting for".

See also: SWTD #154: Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-Preznit bush's WMD Lies (5/23/2013).

SWTD #312

An Example Of An Individual Taken In By The Lie That The bush Administration Received Faulty Intel & Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq?

the [bush] Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent ~ The conclusion of Phase two of the Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq.

As a result of John Ellis Bush (AKA Jeb Bush) being asked whether or not he would have done the same as his war criminal brother and invaded Iraq, the question of whether Iraq was a "mistake" or not has come up again. (Although Jeb lied, pretending to mishear the question as whether or not he'd invade at the time NOT knowing what we know now, when the question actually was would he have invaded knowing what we know now. He said he would have... and Hillary would have too. When Hillary would not have).

Les Carpenter (AKA "rAtional nAtion", RN, or "Lester Nation") of the blog rAtional nAtion uSA, falling for the lie, answered the actual question in a recent blog post. Les said "Yes, Iraq was a mistake".

Problem is, that question is bullshit because it plays up the false narrative that the bush administration received faulty intelligence. The fact is that the bushies never received any intelligence that said what they so desperately wished to be true, which is that Saddam had WMD he might use. Perhaps on the US. With the proof being a mushroom cloud.

While there were some tidbits of info suggesting the bush version of the intel might be true (which turned out to be misleading bullplop propagaged by liars like Ahmed Chalabi, passed on with the goal of tricking the bush administration into toppling Saddam), the actual intelligence was clear that Iraq having WMD was doubtful.

And the IAEA produced a report saying so (the IAEA is the UN agency that sent a team of inspectors into Iraq to look for WMD and did not find any). They told the UN this, which is why the UN voted not to authorize the war.

So, despite the fact that we know now (and we knew then) that Iraq did not have WMD, the narrative now is that Iraq was a mistake (and we didn't know then). Although, for quite some time following Jeb's doofus brother leaving office, the narrative was that it was the right thing to do despite no WMD being found. bush said a number of times that he'd make the same decision again. Now the narrative is that it was a "mistake". Which is as far as they want to go, I believe.

Perhaps some day we'll get to the point where the American public largely accepts that gwb lied, same as they accept that LBJ lied us into Vietnam? Who knows. Obviously the bushies want to stop that truth from becoming widely accepted. Right now because it would not be good for Jeb to have to run with the electorate believing his brother lied (as opposed to having been a victim of bad intel).

Today [2/9/2015], The Wall Street Journal op-ed page has Republican judge Laurence Silberman fiercely insisting that the Bush administration did not lie, and that the claim it lied is itself a calumny. Silberman's argument is a simplistic one aimed at confusing those who have already forgotten the basic sequence of events. Silberman argues that a bipartisan commission, which he co-chaired, investigated the matter, and found that the Bush administration was victimized by faulty intelligence. (Republicans Still Denying Bush Lied About Iraq by Jonathan Chait. Daily Intelligencer).

Les Carpenter (AKA "rAtional nAtion") is one of those who, despite being a Libertarian and not a Republican, believes the false narrative currently being spun.

rAtional nAtion: Whether GWB knowingly lied or the intelligence was wrong I am not in a position to know; with certainty. Neither aRe you Dervish. Irrespective of this it was unwise to invade a foreign country that posed no threat to the USA. 5/14/2015 AT 06:55:00 PM EDT)

Actually, Les, I am in a position to know that bush lied. All one really needs to do is be aware of the facts, as the Daily Intelligencer points out in it's article (continued from above).

Silberman does not mention that the commission he chaired did not even investigate whether the Bush administration manipulated intelligence. Senate Republicans refused to allow the commission to investigate this matter, fearing it would harm Bush's reelection prospects. Indeed, Silberman himself wrote in the report at the time, "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry". This was a favorite line of pro-Bush spin. It is true that passing on faulty intelligence by mistake is not the same thing as misrepresenting intelligence. Bush's defenders habitually rebutted accusations of the latter by insisting that the former was true. In reality, both things happened - the administration suffered from honest intelligence failures, and it misled the public about the facts as it understood them. The question of whether, in addition to being victimized by faulty intelligence, also misrepresented the intelligence it did have, was left to a second Senate report, called the "Phase II" report, which came out a few years later. That report, which was endorsed by two of the committee's seven Republicans and all its Democrats, concluded, "the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent". (Republicans Still Denying Bush Lied About Iraq by Jonathan Chait. Daily Intelligencer).

It is a "demonstrable fact that the Bush administration deliberately misled the public". Iraq was not a mistake, but a deliberate decision by the bush administration to lie to get the war it wanted. Case closed.

The only question that remains is... why does Les Carpenter of the Libertarian/Objectivist blog "rAtional nAtion uSA" say he doesn't know "Whether GWB knowingly lied". I suppose he might be telling the truth when he says he isn't in a "position" to know, which he wouldn't be only if he is deliberately avoiding reading anything that gives the accurate facts concerning this matter. Which he might be doing because he doesn't want to know the truth. Or he might be on board with the false narrative. Perhaps because he's a fan of Jeb and doesn't want his chances of winning the White House harmed.

Of course this is all conjecture, as Les, when I presented him with some of the facts, declined to respond again. Personally I think the reason for Les going along with this lie is because he wishes to protect the GOP. He does not care for Jeb as such (or any of the other potential candidates who are expected to declare), but he does dislike Hillary intensely and does not want to see her win. In his mind a Republican might be better than Hillary.

Although this does not jibe with Les' recent claim that he is "moving away from the right", but it's the best explanation I can come up with. Pure conjecture, in other words. Which Les and his yes man Dennis Marks have indicated they loath.

Awhile ago an Anonymous commenter on this blog said "ever notice how RN never really says what he thinks? He likes to bait people, without stating his position". I agreed that I had noticed this. In fact, I continue to notice that he does this. He also loves to cry about "old bones" if inconsistencies are pointed out between past and current statements (by him or his toady Dennis).

For example, he frequently says he's an adherant of Ayn Rand's Objectivism (which views selfishness as a virtue), even though this does not jibe with his claim of supporting what he calls "Thomas Paine style benevolent capitalism" (which is not really a thing. What Les actually refers to is a mixed economy wherein capitalism and Socialism both exist and compliment each other. Which *I* am an adherent of). But Rand opposed Socialism, being something that encourages the "parasites and leeches" and is THEFT under this worldview.

But apparently "self interest" means whatever Les decides it means. And he's a fan of Rand even though Rand would consider him a collectivist pawn. So, what's my conjecture in regards to this? It's that Les does not explain himself because he can't (because he realizes he's a very bad Objectivist). That, or he's still having fun playing games with my delusional ass (actual quote: I've had fun playing games with your delusional ass).

More likely it's a combination of the two, and he's playing games with his readers concerning his perpetrating the good for Jeb (or at least not as bad for him) false "Iraq war mistake" narrative. Or maybe it's his ass that is delusional. I surely cannot say with any certainty. His clinging to Objectivism and Rand points to his being delusional, that's for certain. Especially in light of his support for the socialistic parasite-encouraging "benevolent capitalism" thievery.

As well as LOL-able claims of me "misquoting" him when I cut, paste and link to prior comments of his. Les said "Medicare as a model for universal healthcare, with some modifications (improvements to insure long term fiscal viability) may not be such a terribly bad idea" on another blog. I linked to this comment on his blog and that's when he (feigned) anger and the "misquoting" allegation occurred.

No doubt I'm misrepresenting him with this commentary. In his delusional mind, at least (Note: It is my opinion/conjecture that Les Carpenter is "deluded").

See also: George W. Bush didn't just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse by Paul Waldman. The Week, 5/20/2015. [What was "much worse"? That what the Bush admin launched in 2002... may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history... the theory on which the WH operated was that whether or not you could fool all of the people some of the time, you could certainly scare them out of their wits. That's what was truly diabolical about their campaign].

SWTD #282, lDel #21.

Apology Owed By Spinning Liar Re LBJ/Tonkin Vs GWb/WMD

Fifty years on we know the trigger for war with Vietnam was a fiction. Will it be another 50 before we know the truth about Iraq? ~ DD Guttenplan, writing for The Guardian in a 8/2/2014 piece titled "When Presidents Lie To Make A War".

Many "love letters" from a blogger named Willis Hart concerning yours truly on his idiotic Libertarian blog as of late. And by "love letters" I mean lies targeted at someone this blogger dislikes intensely.

But the disliking is mutual. Specifically due to the lies this dude spins, such as the following...

Willis Hart: wd is one of those people who claims to be against war, war crimes, and empire but who constantly spins for then when its his fellow's doing (the asshole even spun for LBJ and Vietnam which was quite possibly the most moronic war of them all). (7/30/2014 AT 9:40pm).

I never said a damn thing in support of the Vietnam war, you liar. And, yes, it was one of the most moronic wars of them all. Until preznit bush came along, that is. As for my "spinning" about LBJ, all I said was that "whether or not LBJ lied is, in my opinion, a tad more nebulous that the question of whether or not George W. bush lied in order to pressure Congress into allowing him to invade Iraq".

Initially I do not believe LBJ lied about what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin, although I do believe he latched onto the initial reports of what happened and used that to justify the actions he (and Robert McNamara) wanted to take. And, then when he found out the initial reports were inaccurate? Then he did keep that info under wraps. So, yes, he did lie. Later.

That would be a little different than what bush did, which was to lie right away, even though he knew the truth from the get go concerning WMD that Iraq did not have. And THAT was the point I was trying to make to the Hartster. That the lies of bush were worse for this reason. That is even *if* Iraq having WMD was a good justification for invasion (which they did not, but assuming they did). I say no.

But Willis rewrites the discussion that took place on his as me "spinning" for LBJ and him holding firm to his principals (the a-hole says he's "intellectually honest" while I'm the MOST "intellectually dishonest" person he's ever encountered).

Willis Hart: And, yes, just like a lot of the conservatives did with Bush and Iraq. (7/30/2014 AT 9:41pm).

What is ironic about this comment is that Willis is one of those conservatives. In regards to the lying about WMD, Willis spun and Willis spun HARD.

Willis Hart: I recognize now that Sadam pretty much had to go. I just wish that President Bush hadn't de-Baathified the country and disbanded the military in that those 2 things really strengthened the Iranian bastards. (6/28/2013 AT 8:39pm).

Notice that he basically agrees that Iraq needed to be invaded and Saddam removed, but only starts disagreeing when it comes to the "de-baathification" and disbanding the military (things that happened AFTER we invaded). Previously he said he was against the war, but would absolutely not call bush a war criminal and insisted (wrongly) that bush never lied.

Willis Hart: you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero. (7/10/2012 AT 7:00pm).

But there MOST CERTAINLY IS a paper trail. And the George W bush most certainly lied.

First, the lie...

In remarks preceding the invasion by one day (6/21/2003), the former president said, "our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". (Wikipedia page: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, footnote #93).

And now the proof/paper trail that proves bush was lying...

The invasion of Iraq was ordered by ex-preznit bush on 3/20/2003 AFTER the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, told the Security Council (on 3/7/2003) via written report that the "UN inspections in Iraq worked". Mr. ElBaradei's team conducted 247 inspections at 147 sites and found "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites". The IAEA report went on to say that "Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990... no longer had a centrifuge program, [and that] Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997". (Excerpt from a 5/23/2013 SWTD post titled "Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-President bush's WMD Lies").

The IAEA told bush via written report (PAPER TRAIL) that there was no WMD. Yet Willis defended the ex-preznit on this matter. While sticking his fingers in his ears and humming (figuratively) so he was didn't have to hear about any proof of bush lying. At one point he even said he was convinced that "Saddam had to go". Spinning? In my opinion... absolutely.

But now (apparently) the hypocrite has changed his mind? The following excerpt from a Willis post seems to suggest he has. In this instance he blogs about the Zimmermann Telegram.

Willis Hart: ...the fact that the American people bought this shit (a la the Maine, a la the Gulf of Tonkin, a la WMD, etc.)... (7/26/2014 AT 4:00pm).

Here Willis argues that the Zimmermann Telegram (a 1917 diplomatic proposal from Germany for Mexico to join the Central Powers, in the event of the United States entering World War I on the side of the Entente Powers) was used by president Woodrow Wilson as a rationale for US involvement in WWI. Willis says this is a lie comparable to The Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin and... wait for it... the LIE by bush concerning WMD that Iraq did not have!

Although, I should note that Willis does not call the idea that Mexico might go to war with us a "lie", he calls the telegram a "rationale". Indeed, the telegram was published and the public was angered, but Wilson did not suggest Mexico was going to attack us. The fact is that (in 1917) "as a direct consequence of the Zimmermann telegram" we recognized the government of Venustiano Carranza (who came to power via a 1914 revolution) "in order to ensure Mexican Neutrality in WWI".

Is publishing a telegram and then using public outrage to get us involved in WWI a "lie"? Surely not a deception on the same level as the other (actual) lies Willis mentions. Although I don't know if the situation with the Maine qualifies either. Seems to me to be another case where confusion about what happened was used by some to get the American public to accept war.

Of the bunch I would say that bush's declaration that we were invading to "disarm" Saddam is the CLEAREST cut example of a president outright and bold-faced lying. And with the commentary I quote above, Willis is (ostensibly) acknowledging the fact that bush did lie. If so, then I say Willis owes me an apology. Or at least an acknowledgment that he's retracting his previous statements like the one I quoted above regarding there being "no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public".

As well as other statements that are now at odds with his (apparent) new stance regarding bush lying about WMD. Statements like the following from 5/6/2012...

Willis Hart: And I don't even really dislike the guy [George W. bush]. I just wish that he had listened more to Powell and less to fellows like Wolfowitz and Perle. And in terms of his motivation, I don't know, I'm not a mind-reader like wd. In Thomas Ricks's book, "Fiasco" (which wasn't exactly a flattering read for Mr. Bush), he states that the regime change advocates were actually LOSING the debate early on and that it wasn't until 9/11 that guys like Perle and Wolfowitz finally started getting some traction. If you were to force me to give an opinion on this, I would say that the decision to invade Iraq was probably more a function of group-think (I believe that this was Scott McClellan's assessment in his book, too) than it was the result of some sinister, diabolical cabal. I'm sure, though, that wd would disagree. (Link).

As well as this one from 8/1/2012...

Willis Hart: There was at least SOME ambiguity regarding WMD. (Link).

If Willis is retracting these earlier statements - then I think he needs to own up and show some intellectual honesty. Admit he was wrong instead of trying to paper over his past incorrectness by falsely painting himself as "consistent", which is something he PRIDES himself on... his SUPPOSED "consistency". I mean, back when I was making my case that bush lied (on Willis' blog - before he banned me) Willis responded by saying it was "almost as if he's got some sort of sick pathology about Bush".

I had a "sick pathology" in regards to the ex-preznit because I - well before Willis did - acknowledged the truth about bush's lying about WMD to scare the public into accepting an unnecessary war? F*ck you Willis. And f*ck you again for continuing to lie about my positions on these matters. I do not CLAIM to be "against war, war crimes, and empire" but "constantly spin" when "my fellow" is the guilty one. I'm against these things, PERIOD. No matter what party the president belongs to.

LBJ lied and kept us in, and escalated Vietnam, costing many American lives in a pointless war. bush lied about WMD and many innocent Iraqis were killed, many American soldiers were killed and maimed, and trillions of dollars were wasted (much of which went into the pockets of bush cronies. A fact I have YET to see Willis acknowledge!).

So, while it is good that Willis is now acknowledging the fact that bush lied about WMD - that he presents himself as "consistent" on this matter is utter BULLSHIT. And that he lies about my positions (to distract his readers from his inconsistencies on this topic?) is deplorable. And, so long as this lying about yours truly is celebrated on the blog of the lying Willis, I will NOT cease irritating him (downgraded from harassing him, I guess). So long as I notice Willis lying about me - and encouraging others to lie - the irritating will continue.

As for how long we might have to wait before it is know that bush lied us into Iraq? We knew the minute the falsehood about why he was invading Iraq escaped his lips. Although, for some of us, the getting to the point where the truth could be accepted took a little longer. And, it is, of course, not AT ALL widely accepted that bush intentionally deceived.

50 years before the truth concerning bush's WMD untruths are established fact? Perhaps. I suppose we have to wait for him to die first. Accepting uncomfortable truths seems to be easier if the truth to be accepted concerns someone who is no longer with us.

Video1: A clip from the documentary The Fog of War by Errol Morris. In this YouTube video Robert McNamara says "It was just confusion. And events afterward showed that our judgement that we had been attacked that day was wrong. It didn't happen". (3:33).

Video2: Official trailer from Errol Morris film The Unknown Known, a documentary focusing on Iraq war liar Donald Rumsfeld... bush's McNamara? (2:56).

See Also: Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-Preznit bush's WMD Lies (SWTD #154) 6/23/2013.

SWTD #267, wDel #70.

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.

Regarding Dennis Marks Citing Osama bin Laden As One of His Heroes

There are heroes in evil as well as in good ~ Francois de La Rochefoucauld (9/15/1613 to 3/17/1680) a noted French author of maxims and memoirs. His is a clear-eyed, worldly view of human conduct that indulges in neither condemnation nor sentimentality.

I think it's intensely loathsome and highly repellent. And, yes, I'm talking about the (now deceased) terrorist leader who financed the 9/11 attacks. That Osama is the one who Dennis Marks recently cited as being one of his heroes. I know for a fact that on 9/11/2001 Dennis was walking around with a huge grin on his face. It creeped out his coworkers and family members who all thought he must not be aware of what happened. But when they told him of the attacks in which thousands of innocents perished - that made Dennis smile even wider.

So, why was Dennis so delighted? It was because he recgonized that 9/11 was the new Pearl Harbor that PNAC had been dreaming of. The PNAC manifesto cited a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" just like this as being necessary to galvanize the public into going to war in the Middle East, and now just such an event had occurred. Dennis whooped and cheered when the twin towers fell - just as loud - if not louder than any of the terrorists. Although he cheered internally and silently, as he knew everybody else would be horrified if he did it externally and out loud. But the smiling he could not help.

That is why bin Laden is a hero to Dennis. Not because he wishes to emulate him, but due to the great gift he handed the Neocons, and to the Republican preznit, George W. bush. Dictionary.com reveals that a synonym of "hero" is either a "lead" or a "star". In regards to 9/11, Osama was most assuredly both. Even though it was KSM who planned the attacks, without the bin Laden money none of it would have been possible. And money, in the worldview of Mr. Marks, is the root of everything that is good.

And the attacks of 9/11 were very good, in the estimation of Dennis. The nation was clamoring for the blood of those behind the attacks, and for that reason legislation that gave the preznit unprecedented power to wage war on "the terrorists" sailed though Congress with but one NAY vote (SWTD #244). Given that vote, the preznit did not have to take it up with Congress when it was determined that bin Laden was behind the attacks and was currently holed-up in Afghanistan.

bush desperately wanted to go to war - in order to avenge his daddy, get political capital and steal tax payer money. Dick Cheney's old company Haliburton would benefit from some war contracts, given that it was on the verge of filing for bankruptcy. VP Dick said a war or two would make him extremely wealthy, given that he still held on to some Halliburton stock options. Many other bush cronies could benefit as well. And then, after bush rubbed their backs, surely they would rub his. And he could most certainly profit personally as well. Dick had Halliburton, and the bush family had The Carlyle Group.

Unfortunately there was a problem, which was that OBL was in Afghanistan and bush wanted to invade Iraq. There was no way bush could fool the public into going to war with the wrong country! But Rummy and Wolfie assured him, "we'll do Afghanistan first, and then Iraq". All was good until a second problem arose, which was that Afghanistan's Taliban rulers offered to hand over bin Laden to a neutral third country for prosecution if bush called off the dogs of war. How to deal with that problem? bush decided to make them an offer they couldn't accept.

Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, the Taliban's foreign minister, proposed that the US and Afghanistan should negotiate either "a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference". Wakil knew bush wanted war (and he was desperate to avoid it), but he couldn't just hand bin Laden over. Afghani culture demanded aabroh (a Pashtu word for "face-saving formula"). Without aabroh those who even considered capitulating to bush's demands would have been put to death.

But the ultimatum to turn over bin Laden to the United States military by bush was not in the least bit serious. Which is why he made it. bush KNEW the Taliban could not accept. The preznit was simply putting on a act before the invasion began, as he knew it would not be proper if he went to war without even giving the Taliban the option of turning over bin Laden.

Also, if one listens to Dennis, you might think, as he does, that "the Taliban and Al Qaeda were united at that time. In lockstep", but this is false. As noted by Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, "there had always been differences of opinion between the Arab fighters of al-Qaeda and [my] Taliban colleagues". Muttawakil remembers that the Taliban "condemned the attacks because the people targeted were defenseless civilians, women, children, Muslim and non-Muslim. But al Qaeda praised it".

bush knew the Taliban and al Qaeda were not in "lockstep", because, if they had been, he would have simply declared that the attack was sponsored or approved by the Taliban. Instead bush only accused them of "harboring" him. Proof positive that the claims of Dennis do not comport with reality. But Dennis knows, as bush knew, that bringing bin Laden to justice was never a goal of attacking Afghanistan. Because, if bin Laden had been taken into custody the American people would have considered the mission to have been accomplished. And then, what of bush's plans for regime change in Iraq?

No, that would not do. That is why Dennis ridicules the notion of the OIC supervising a trial of bin Laden - referring to it as a "kangaroo court" that would have patted him on the back - even though the Taliban suggested that the OIC only supervise. No offer would have been accepted. War was on the agenda, no matter what.

If an arrangement had been negotiated that brought bin Laden to justice - going into Iraq would have been impossible. That is why the offer was rejected before it was even considered, and that is why the bushies made sure bin Laden got away at Tora Bora. That was the second time that Dennis cheered for his hero, as well as sighing in relief.

After he let bin Laden escape bush decided the time was right to make his case to topple Saddam. So he told some more lies to the American people concerning (forged) documents that showed Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake uranium, aluminum tubes that could not be used in centrifuges, and mushroom clouds incinerating American cities (by way of nukes Saddam had no way of manufacturing).

In regards to bin Laden, bush said "I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you". Dennis heard those words and grinned from ear to ear. That night Dennis kissed the poster of the terrorist leader that was tacked to his bedroom wall and said a prayer to thank God bush was president on 9/11. Because Dennis knew, as Rudy Guliani did, that if Gore were president the US wouldn't have gone to war with two Muslim countries.

"Thank you, Osama... I love you" Dennis murmured as he drifted off to sleep. As he slept Dennis drempt of the incredible riches starting two unnecessary wars was going to yield for both the bush and Cheney families. In Dennis' dream the preznit spoke, imploring Shafiq bin Laden to "pass my thanks on to your brother". Then bushie added "no need for him to worry for his safety, however, as I surely have no intention of ever finding him". Shafiq smiled and replied, "Thank you, Mr. bush. We are defintely on the same page".

Dennis woke the next morning to find his undies were soiled due to an nocturnal emission that no doubt came about due to his dreaming of bush and Shafiq discussing how much wealthier each of their families were about to become. "Good times" Dennis remarked as he removed the sticky undergarment. Dennis' eyes then drifted to the bin Laden poster, and that is when he decided a date with Palmela Handerson was in order. Laying back in his bed Dennis finished the deed, screaming out "Osama!" as he climaxed.

Note: This commentary, which contains some speculation in regards to how dmarks views OBL, was written in response to the vile liar saying "there are some (WD sides with) who want such reform [of the Pentagon] not to save money, but to make the nation weak and strengthen our enemies such as his hero Bin Laden".

Frankly, given how much Dennis wanted OBL to escape, I find it much more likely that OBL is Dennis' hero. Hence this narrative, which is intended as satire, even though it could be closer to the truth than even I realize. As for OBL being my hero, I already identified that as a vile lie. I wanted him brought to justice ASAP, which the Taliban offer would have provided for, 10 freaking years earlier (SWTD #76).

And, the OIC could not have let Osama go, BTW, as their position would have only been supervisory, if they had been involved at all.

Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, Taliban's last foreign minister, told Al Jazeera in an exclusive interview... "Even before the [9/11] attacks, our Islamic Emirate had tried through various proposals to resolve the Osama issue. One such proposal was to set up a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference [OIC]"... (Taliban offered bin Laden trial before 9/11 by Mujib Mashal. Al Jazzera, 9/11/2011).

Certainly we could have given it a shot - as opposed to selecting war as the first and only option. It wouldn't have been as if we were throwing away a chance to catch him, as WE DIDN'T CATCH HIM! On purpose, perhaps... (SWTD #33).

SWTD #240, dDel #19. See also TADM #28 and TADM #33.

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.