You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Rumsfield’ category.

Recently Duffy made a comment that was, as my kids would say, was “sooo…..2004” Being away I failed to respond in a timely fashion, and Tyler Nixon, thankfully, stepped up to the plate, and contributed the opposing point of view.

But it caused me to reflect, since a month ago I heard the same type of comment offered again in defense of Cheney, that events have moved forward so fast, that it is quite plausible that one missed an integral piece of the puzzle needed to understand today’s events.

In an effort to fill in those “gaps of knowledge”, perhaps allow me to expand on why it is quite conceivable that Cheney orchestrated the war to enrich his pockets.

These sources may be unknown to many of you. But I have found that credibility is often more prevalent, the further one is removed from the Kleig lights of media’s attention. When thing are said that are not “self serving”, their is a good chance that there may some truth buried within.

The area of concern lies with how intelligence was orchestrated by the administration to create an illusion, instead of being used to find facts. Now in late 2006 and 2007 we are starting to get the “unofficial” side of events that led us to invade Iraq, as ex-American intelligence officers have vetted their manuscripts and now are publishing them.

Are these ex intelligence officers to be believed, over the “official” Administrative take of events leading up to March 03?

Perhaps. Our Supreme Court always publishes a dissenting opinion, whenever it processes a verdict. This allows the open discussion of ideas, even after the discussion is rendered obsolete due to the decision having already being made.

These opinions, now being published, should be treated as the dissenting opinions that did not win in the inner office discussions leading up to the chain of command’s decision. But unlike Supreme Court decisions, these do not need a court case to be overturned.

One further note, before I begin. If history had shown the Iraqi war to be successful and accomplish the mission that was sold to the American people, then this conversation would be irrelevant. It is only within this context, that five years after we were first presented this intelligence, we are currently mired in dealing with bombs smuggled into the very safe Green Zone, and with demonstrations against American occupation, by the very Iraqi policeman and Iraqi army officers we counting on to defend our troop’s safety and security within that region, that this dissenting opinion, belatedly offered, has any merit.

When one of these sources took over as CIA chief of the European division, he was told the White House was extremely interested in Iraq, and that his department should report everything they could find out about it, as well as on Iran and China. The scuttlebutt within the agency was that the Bush people were out to settle the score for the first Gulf War. Bin Laden was an afterthought. All effort to move the terroristic threat into the inner sanctums of the White House, were blocked or shut down, as evidenced by the now famous “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” fiasco proved. Instead of revamping efforts to concentrate on unearthing terrorists in Europe and infiltrating weapons proliferation networks in Europe, resources were shuffled towards gathering any dirt on the Saddam regime that could justify a ground attack upon that country. In any bureaucracy one career moves forward only if one gets noticed. When praise was delegated to Iraqi findings and silence given towards Bin Laden findings, a strong signal reverberated throughout all intelligence agencies.

George Tenet, to his credit was dedicated to breaking down barriers with our European allies. but he was swimming against the tide, which was turning increasingly away form the real targets and toward Iraq.

“The Bush administration was about to embark on a course that would do more to undermine this country’s intelligence community than any of the actions of its predecessors.”

This caveat was offered to illuminate how this administration chose fiction over fact.

Just hours after 9/11 one of our allies offered their support. “Anything we can do”, they said, “is at your disposal”. ” I hope we can all agree that we should focus attention on Afghanistan and not be tempted to launch any attacks on Iraq.” this representative said.

George Tenet replied. “absolutely, we all agree on this that. Some might want to link the issues but none of us wants to go that route.” The other side of the argument was of course represented by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, and the others, but for now, under the quiet skies over post 9/11 DC, no one in the intelligence communities on BOTH sides of the Atlantic, considered pursuing Iraqi leads.

Had intelligence been part of the policy decisions, we might be in much better situation than where we are now. Under a different administration, the policy hatched out in meetings between underlings of international intelligence agencies may have risen to the policy determining level of senior officials. It was thought that European allies might take a request of cooperation from one of their neighbors better than they would have from us. This attempt to make the pursuit of Al Qaeda appear to be a multinational effort, was stopped by Rumsfeld’s disparaging remarks against our allies France and Germany by calling them “Old Europe” Had this officer known what was to come, he would have tried to make them understand the value of our friends across the ocean. “But then again, with their agendas, their mind was made up.”

Thanks to Mike Mahaffie for this brilliant shot

We have seen it before, often in old movies or 60’s television, there is one rope keeping the protagonist from certain death, and as the threads pop loose, one by one, the suspense builds.

The real life suspense began with the last election….Rumsfeld moved on. He was replaced with a kinder gentler Texan who possessed the personal skills to navigate around the ancient columns still supporting the antique conservative doctrine of this administration. Then came Scooter’s verdict. That has been followed by increased investigations publicly paraded before America illuminating pitfalls, bringing up things only whispered about before. Above all, the war is going badly. Even worse, support for it on the home front, is down to the 5% mark………And now, the books and interviews begin…………….

Many a leader has found himself in this position. What usually happens is that through some event, they come to realize that the previous paths they have all taken are flawed, and they change direction. This happened to our last president who stole the center and balanced himself between the right and left of both chambers.

There is still time. We can win in Iraq. But to do so we need to do the imaginative….pull our troops back to 911 bases (help is on the way) in the desert, to be used only as needed to support indigenous Iraqi troops. We need to ramp up our mission to help Iraqi’s build their country. Employee every able body Iraqi to rebuild. Give every citizen an Alaskan style depletion allowance, so they each have a stake in their country’s future. Give them basics: water, sewer, electricity. We could move in weeks to facilitate these changes. Soothe relations with our allies, by swearing that U S companies will have no part in developing Iraqi oil. We will buy it of course, but by swearing not to take part of the feast we inherited, we avoid the pretense that we are occupying Iraq for their oil. We then ratchet up the amount of humanitarian works we have been doing since our invasion, all of which have been eclipsed by our in-your-face tactics with the indigenous population.

It is frustrating for Americans to realize how easily we could turn the corner in an instant. If we did then George Bush’s legacy would be forever discussed, along with those of the ancients William Wallace and Robert Bruce.

One must wonder why this administration has not steered itself away from the cliff.. Is Mr. President really the reincarnation of James Dean? Or is there something or someone within his administration that he fears more than going over the edge…….

For you see,………….it is not our abilities that ultimately prove who we are……………… It is our choices.


A review of history is in order. Oil has lain dormant under Iraq for millennia’s. Only recent history has made it useful to man. This oil is lying just under the surface of Iraq and can be retrieved for less than $1.50 a barrel. One Iraqi citizen said “just put a pipe into the sand and oil comes out.” Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and whoever controls Iraq, has his finger not only on America‘s lifeline, but also that of Europe, China, Russia, and the developing third world. And if one includes the unknown reserves for Iraq’s western unexplored desert, perhaps Saudi Arabia falls to a distant second.

The Middle East was ignored up until the ‘74 Oil Crises which occurred during the administration of Gerald Ford. As these countries nationalized their oil production facilities, thereby themselves able to determine the amount of their supply, they were through OPEC able to manipulate the price of oil. It was during this nationalization phase occurring during the Nixon administration, when Kissinger initially called for a plan designed to take the region by force if needed. This plan was secret, and is probably the origin of the map in question. After Nixon stepped down, Gerald Ford was left holding both reins of a Middle East in full gallop towards a cliff‘s edge. Here among several of Ford’s staff, the secret detailed plans were made to take the oil countries by force and secure the area from any Soviet influence. Those staff members from a Presidential cabinet of thirty years ago, are surprisingly quite well known today. They included both Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who are in what has become today know as the neo conservative movement. Foreign oil was then 36% of our total intake and we realized from this oil crises, that our quality of life could be seriously threatened by turning off the spigot of our Middle East oil at its source. Closely aligned with the upstart Reagan in 76, this group scuttled Ford’s chances of returning to office that year..

Jimmy Carter, in what became known as the Carter Doctrine, declared before the world, that the Middle East was an American vital interest and any foreign (Soviet) military intervention into that region would be viewed as an act of war upon this country itself. Then came the fall of Iran and the threat shifted.

Iran created the opportunity for us to befriend our new friend Iraq, which up until that time had been cozy with the Soviets simply primarily because we were heavily invested in the Shah of Iran. But as Iran flip-flopped in its opinion of us,, Saddam saw his opportunity to gain American protection and engaged Iran in a silly and stupid war. This engagement was fueled by American arms and American oil investment into the nationalized oil infrastructure of Iraq.

Then in ‘90, through our oil stained diplomats, Saddam thought we had given him the green light to attack Kuwait. For several days there was indecision on Bush Sr. about what to do. But once the conservative oil community realized the opportunity of taking the Iraq’s oil fields by force, the US on day three of the crises, issued to a surprised Saddam, our ultimatum. Saddam carefully calculated that he could survive without withdrawing and we made war plans to attack and liberate Kuwait. However within infighting of the inner circle, both the Baker contingent, and the private, personal appeals from British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, were able to convince the President that he should push the noble agenda of freeing Kuwait, instead of the neo conservatives main goal of punishing Saddam by taking control of the Iraqi oil fields. As the war evolved into a “just war” with even Syria supporting the Coalition Forces, it became politically impossible for elements of the US to seize the oil fields for themselves. This does however, explain a different reason we went through the western area of Iraq in order to attack Saddam’s supply lines. For had the war slipped into a prolonged phase, the “Holy Grail of oil men” would lie firmly under the control of the US army..

During the Clinton years, while the world’s attention was focused elsewhere, there continued to beat the steady drumbeat of the neo conservatives and oil company executives that said: “We should have taken Saddam out when we were there.” Every few months an article would appear in an oil sponsored scientific or international relations journal, decrying the weakness of Americans in bowing to the UN and stopping our campaign where and when we said we would. What was at stake was not our pride. It was their oil. For now, as we enforced on Iraq severe sanctions, and as we baited SAM missile batteries to lock on to our military aircraft, we had ourselves become the antagonist of Saddam Hussein. As things stood then we had no chance of receiving any rights to Iraqi oil. Were ever the sanctions to lift, a long line of suitors had formed way ahead of us to acquire the rights to the richest oil deposit on earth.

However, if we went to war unilaterally, we could simply take it for ourselves.

Enter the Bush administration. Now, not only are the country’s number one and number two spots held by oil men, but the entire cadre of the office, is also possessed by the clean smell of oil. It includes Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz,, Elliot Abrams, and Zalmay Khalilzad, all who were obsessed with the prospect of acquiring Iraq’s oil by force thirty years ago..

Just weeks after Bush was signed in, Cheney convened an informal gathering of oil executives called the Energy Task Force. From that brief gathering, our energy policy was finalized. The evidence that remains from that top secret meeting , is a map showing the oil fields of Iraq, a map showing oil fields in the Persian Gulf, and a map of northern Saudi Arabia, showing oil fields near the northern border. Also accompanying this was a document showing the Suitors for Iraqi Oil, of which the US is not one.

Since these engagements were secret, there is only a premise. But it bears scrutiny. And that premise is in one meeting, the complex Energy Policy of this wide and varied nation, was reduced to simply moving in and taking control of Iraq’s oil that cost only $1.50 a barrel to extract. Nowhere else on this planet can one get so much oil so cheaply, and no other way could the US ever be part of that windfall, except by disposing of Saddam and signing oil deals with the newly formed government.

What bothers me most is that, once one accepts this framework, (that of controlling Iraqi oil ), the individual actions taken by this administration that previously I had assumed were both inept and stupid, suddenly seem to make a great deal of sense.

You have heard them before, but listed in sequence they evoke a pattern that I will leave for you to ponder.

During the campaign against Gore, reports surfaced that Bush , had boasted within the oil industry, that he was gong to get Saddam.

Oil companies contributed record and never before seen amounts of campaign soft money to Bush’s campaign. They have been well rewarded.

Bush delegated Cheney to determine the Vice Presidential Candidates. Cheney said “Myself”. Bush then delegated Cheney to hire the White House staff. Cheney picks the neo-conservatives all who were proponents of taking Iraq’s oil in the 70’s. Bush then picks Eugene O‘Neil, Colin Powell, and Christie Todd Whitman, to give his administration some credibility, but who all eventually resign with bitterness at being railroaded. by Cheney and the neo-cons. An attorney general is chosen who believes the Executive Branch requires no checks or balances, and is free to use America’s resources as it sees fit..

Richard Clarke is marginalized as Director of Terrorism and NSA , FBI, and CIA all turn a blind eye to events leading up to 9/11.

9/11 occurs the day the American New Century is meeting in New York.

There is that weird moment in the classroom as Andy Card tells Bush we are under attack.

Bin Laden family is allowed to fly out of the country, when no one, even American citizens, are.
Richard Perle is heard running around the office on 9/12 saying “it’s Iraq, find the connection to Iraq.”

Anthrax occurs…….The administration immediately feeds the media that it is from Iraq. But if so, why Tom Daschle???? And whatever happened to that investigation? Oops…It was an American strain…..….hmmmm……

Bush gives Tommy Frank the order to draw up plans for an Iraqi invasion, before we even start into Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban.

The drums begin about WMD’s being in Iraq, even while we are fighting in Afghanistan.
When an article appears stating there is no Niger yellow cake in Iraq, a CIA agent is “out-ed” by top administration officials, who are so afraid their invasion plans will unravel, that they willingly risk prosecution to remove that agent’s security clearance and invoke, by law, the signed secrecy exit statements that guarantee her silence.

Intimidation created by calling a person cowardly in the face of war is levied against any elected official who opposes the direction of this administration, even if that person has lost limbs fighting our previous enemies…..…There is not much argument before the public, when the resolution to use force in Iraq, passes in the Senate.

We begin the buildup of troops in Saudi Arabia, before we finish the Afghan war, leaving that war unfinished even thought the perpetrator of 9/11 was still at large.

We begin the buildup of troops in Saudi Arabia before we go before the UN to state our case.

When we fail to get approval from the international community, for what will obviously be an invasion , unprovoked into another country, we tell those other countries that they will have no part of the oil.

We make plans, before the UN speech to the world, to have KBR, a division of Halliburton, go in after the troops and secure the oil infrastructure for the quick extraction of Iraqi oil. This deal is a no bid contract so that it’s secrecy can be hidden from anyone who might become suspicious if they learned that we were making elaborate plans to extract Iraq’s oil, long before we had the permission to invade. Through this secrecy, KBR begins deployment of equipment into the theater of operations , before either Congress, the UN, or the public weighs in on whether or not we have reason to invade.

Bush insists if the world does not back us, we will invade alone, . The world does not back us.

The argument is made that because of 9/11, we can pre-emptively invade any country we choose to defend ourselves. The argument, later proven false, is also made that Saddam was in definitely in cahoots with Bin Laden. Frequent false and disproved information is paraded as “ slam dunk” evidence. Some uninformed Americans still believe this to be true.

Chalibi and other Iraqi exiles, meet with Exxon Mobile, Chevron, BP, and Shell, and make the case that if they be chosen to run Iraq, that promise to sign over very favorable deals with those oil companies, and exclude the French, German and other oil companies from participating. This precedes the official Bush administration’s sanctioning of Chalibi to head the new puppet government of Iraq, Unfortunately the Iraqi’s themselves, don’t buy it.

The invasion of Iraq occurs with little or no damage to the oil industry. The oil ministry is the first building occupied and fortified by American troops. Meanwhile massive looting and breakdown of order occurs in the American occupied regions. We discover there no plans were made to deal with anything other than oil, once the country was in our possession.

Money designated by Congress for the rebuilding of Iraq, is used instead for first rebuilding of the oil infrastructure by KBR. KBR was given the initial sole responsibility of rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure . They are still in the process of rebuilding and as of yet very little has reached the population at large.

The staff m green college graduates, that were interviewed and sent over to run Iraq, were tested only for their loyalty to the current administration and not on the skills or resources which they could bring to Iraq.

Each time the price of oil stops climbing, someone in this administration creates controversy with either the UAE, Dubai, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, or the Iraq insurgents , anything to keep the oil speculators jittery and the prices high. Marginal attention is given to nuclear weapons in non oil states like North Korea. Every time the prices fall, some oil nation’s crises occurs directly because of something said by this administration.

This is how I see it. The individual events each have their own deniability. But when viewed over the span of thirty years, the unthinkable appears to have happened. Americans got duped into supporting a war just to make a few men rich. It would almost be funny if you didn’t know someone who died.

I am not sure what manic depressive means. But in my limited understanding I have always associated it with experiencing a giddy high in one minute, followed by demoralizing depression, the next.

If so, then probably no other word can describe the emotional roller coaster I rode tonight. And yes, it all occurred here in cyber-space.

Checking out what was being said on line in our cyber community, I stumbled over a diamond, half-buried in FSP. Usually this weekly editorial creates a lot of local controversy, and being human like most of you, controversy too catches my interest. But this week I was stunned by a very honest post that was brilliantly written. It gave a rare introspective view into what I call the “Republican soul”, that is usually hidden behind the facade of a long string of adjectives including “marxist, socialist, clintonesque….” to name a few.

In that brief glimpse I saw something revealing: the realization that they too struggle with what their party represents; they too ponder what future follies, our current actions will portend; they too care religiously about where America is going.

Having always taken the task of exposing their half truths and their secret agendas, it was a pleasant surprise to read a heartfelt confession, that illustrated just the opposite of what I had always understood Republicans to stand for: that “Greed is good”.

And so buoyed by hope that perhaps together, Republicans and Democrats could indeed work together and move towards solving problems instead of only winning elections………….I stumbled across this revelation that, perhaps due to the high I had just felt, seemed like the bottom of the abysmal pit.

And that was the depressing news that a German court had just issued indictments against 13 CIA agents for their role in kidnapping and torturing a German citizen. Now if you are a person who knows or loves no Germans, you could attempt to defend the actions of the CIA, and proclaim something about it being our right to defend our country. You could even say that if the Germans won’t help us, that we have the God-given right to do anything possible to protect ourselves from harm. And if this country was about to suffer its deathblow, and surrounded by it’s enemies, you just might have a point. But if anyone personally knows at least one or two Germans, when they hear this news they have no choice but to wonder “what horrible things are they thinking about us right now.”

War is not pretty. Anyone who has seen it, smelled it, been there,….. knows. But when one is boxing on a world stage, one not only has to box well, but also has to “carry” himself as well. Metaphorically, what we have here, is someone so wrapped up in himself, that to pull himself out of a losing match, he stoops to bite off the ear of his opponent in the last desperate chance to win a “draw.”

How could my country stoop to this level? This is not the same United States of America on which I was fed throughout my formative years of public education. This is not the same United States of America of which I am so proud, that I vote in every single election. This is not the same United States of America that I and my friends pray for in church every Sunday. What has happened? Can you tell me? Where has the once moral United States of America, the once great hope of all oppressed peoples, the once icon that stood for all that is right and true, where has it gone wrong? Tell me again, how our current actions are more moral than those grainy videos we saw of people taken against their will, then tortured horrifically? If we both commit the same actions, why is that when we do it, we are champions of democracy, but when they do it, they are abject terrorists?

Yes, I know there is gray. Our solutions are not all in black and white. But when one’s best friends and once strong allies, are actually indicting your agents for breaking their laws; when a friendly country like Italy indicts 25 of one’s CIA agents for crimes committed against their lovely nation, and one’s next door neighbor Canada awards 10 million dollars for their misplaced complicity, in allowing us to kidnap and torture one of their citizens, then one must take note. …………The fight is over. The bell is rung. The referees are intervening. It is time to go home.

It is important for all to know what is going on in their State Legislature. The link to Delaware’s is posted to the left side of my blog, if you wish to access it.

I accessed it and was surprised to see that several bills have been offered this first week. I was most impressed by the “Poop” bill, originated by Booth and co-sponsored by Senator Adams.

This poop bill insures that when you go into a retail outlet, that they will let you use the employee’s bathroom if you ask. For if they refuse you twice, they can be fined up to $100.

At first glance, one says “fine, stick it to ’em. Those high tootin’ retailers have gotten too uppity lately.” How dare they deny me access to their bathrooms. But as you start looking at its “cons”, this “poop” bill has some serious implications, some so severe, that only someone who has never run a business could consider this bill seriously.

Let’s start with this scenario. In you home, you hear a knock, and at your door is a smelly man or woman, unkempt, asking if he could come in and use your bathroom.

“No, sorry can’t do it.” The answers are obvious as to why. So why does a retailer, have to allow a stranger into his inner sanctum? Because Booth and Adams want it so?

These two “Poop” sponsors need to address these issues or their bill will be laughed off the floor, if it get’s laughed out of the House Administration Committee.

Issues that need to be addressed:

Retailers security: with back of house access to anyone, how does one protect his assets from a “poop”er with a gun?

Retailers reputation: with the possibility of a “poop”er showing up, extra care must be made to protect the retailer from liability. Boxes on the floor during deliveries, areas that are safe for employees with special non skid shoes, may be quite dangerous to casual “poop” candidates.

Retailers employees: quite often, personal effects are stored in and around employee restroom area. Who will patrol the area while the “pooper” does his deed?

Who cleans up the mess? I won’t go into detail, but…………….has anyone else walked into a “public” restroom stall and gone “eughhh………….”? Is the boss responsible or can he mandate to a retail specialist, hired to sell, that she needs to clean the mess, with what,…………..does he even carry gloves?

All I know, is if I am a competitor, and I need to get some “soft” intelligence on my competition, I just have to feign menstral cramps and I am in.

Now if Britney Spears asked to use my bathroom, I would say “sure”, even if it went against my better judgement. I don’t know why I would let her, I just know I would. But should Donald Rumsfeld stop by, provided he wasn’t escorting Britney Spears, I would say “no”, and we all know why.

Who we let into our private areas is our most private choice. It is probably one that the two “poop” legislators, should leave alone.

But, in both of their defense, with all the serious shit floating around government these days, it is nice to know that there is someone who actively cares and is legislating against those retailers who are “poop” party poopers. Our tax dollars are finally paying off.

Recently the Bush administration has come under a lot of criticism over the war in Iraq. However there is a hidden twist that does not meet first glance. One could say that there was a hidden agenda, like a video game and that if those codes were followed, they would thereby illuminate the Iraqi adventure as a success.

I want to be quite clear. This is not spin. This is a “what if” scenario that has been played out beneath our noses. It is a story of what we were led to believe versus of what the real agenda was. Once we understand this agenda, the onus of “incompetence” that has been thrown loosely at the Iraq mess, takes on Reichstagian proportions, leading one to admit that most of us have been outfoxed by a fanatic regime more intent with taking care of it’s own, than furthering the greater American good.

When the war was proposed, here is what we were led to believe. The argument went as follows:

The war in Iraq is necessary to:

Find and destroy the weapons of mass destruction.

Oust Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people to establish their own democracy.

Allow Iraqi businessmen to establish a free market.

Use profits from Iraqi oil to build the infrastructure for the people of Iraq.

Allow Iraq to become a shining example ofliberty, free markets, and democracy in the Middle East.

These are generally progressive goals which explains the broad support for the Iraqi invasion. After all it is progressives who champion international aid, the protection of human rights, and the ideal that the proceeds 0f a country’s rescources should go to the prople of that country.

However there are strategic goals that were understood and opposed by far too few progressives. It was the understanding of these strategic goals and the practical realization that the humanitarian goals would never be met, that led those too few progressives to oppose the war.

Among the Bush administration’s strategic goals of the Iraqi invasion:

Show that globial order can be reshaped to our advantage by preemptive military means, and show enough force to intimidate other countries in the Middle East.

Use the war, linked to the war on terror, to establish domestic war powers and much greater political control for the president and the administration.

Shift domestic spending from social programs to the military, as shift domestic wealth and power to defense contractors and the oil industry.

Establish a controllable “client state” government in Iraq

Gain access to the world’s second-largest oil reserve

Establish permanent military bases in the heart of the Middle East to gain a strategic position, particularly with regard to Iran.

Use the war as a rallying call for electoral advantage in America

Allow american corporations to take control of a signifigant portion of Iraq’s economy

Privatise military functions in order to 1) maximise the effect of fighting forces, 2) increase profits for military contractors, and 3) remove accountability from the military for such actions as torture and bribery.

Establish the dominance and independence of the United States in world affairs by ignoring the will of many of our NATO allies and the UN.

None of those is a progressive goal which is why the war proponents do not often state them. Americans are just too progressive to accept them. However many of these goals can be found in think-tank publications and right-wing magazines. Many of the architects of the war, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield, World Bank President and former undersecretary for defense Paul Wolfowitz, US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby ( former chief of staff for Cheney), William Kristol (editor of The Weekly Standard) and governor Jeb Bush of Florida, among others– explicitly endorsed such an agenda as part of the Project for the New American Century in 1997.

If we recognize that these stratigic goals are the important focus of the Iraq invasion, then what we see in Iraq, is not “incompetence” as I have often decride, as well as has the majority of the progressive voices. The conservative architects of the war, and those in charge, were less interested in the humanitarian mission of the war than in these strategic goals.

One does not need a “kristol” ball to determine that most of these strategic conservative goals were met. One has subsequently to realize that the progressive mantle in which the war was wrapped was only a snake oil sales pitch to persuade our purchase of the package whose sole “raison d’etre” was to make it’s seller rich.

(My thanks to George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute for writing and sponsoring the book Thinking Points , particularly page 104, portions of which were used herein.)

It has been one year since Murtha stepped forward to call a directional change in Iraq. If you enjoy seeing hypocrites squirm, then you must read this in the daily koz.

It is all in the quotes.

(If I were a republican, I would begin to worry whether my man Bush would bump Herbert Hoover off the bottom rung.)