Powell’s UN Fiasco: Fresh and Festering
By Ray McGovern on February 6, 2008 at 2:59 AM in Bush/Cheney, CIA, Current Affairs, Gonzales, Hillary Clinton, Intelligence, Iraq, Media, Torture, counterterrorism
February 6, 2008
Powell’s UN Fiasco: Fresh and Festering
By Ray McGovern
Yesterday was a difficult day for Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. It was hard to celebrate the fifth anniversary of our first corporate memorandum, a same-day critique of Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2002 UN address, when we could not escape the reality that this speech greased the skids for death and destruction in Iraq and brought unprecedented shame on our country. We found no solace in the realization that those who saw our analysis should have seen disaster coming.
A handful of former CIA intelligence officers joined me in forming the VIPS movement in Jan. 2002, after we concluded that our profession had been corrupted to “justify” what was, pure and simple, a war of aggression. Little did we know at the time that a month later Colin Powell, with then-CIA Director George Tenet plumped down conspicuously behind him, would provide the world with a textbook example of careerism and cowardice in cooking intelligence to the recipe of his master.
Powell’s Prior Practice
It was hardly Powell’s first display of such behavior.
Those able to look past the medals and ribbons have been able to trace a pattern of malleability back to Powell’s early days as a young Army officer in Vietnam, and then in the 1980s as an Iran-Contra accomplice together with his boss Casper Weinberger, then secretary of defense. Weinberger was indicted for perjury but escaped trial when pardoned by George H. W. Bush on Christmas Eve 1992. [See Chapter 8 of Robert Parry’s new book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, for more on Powell’s proclivity to pander.]
A year before his UN speech Powell winked at the introduction of torture into the Army’s repertoire, rather than confront President George W. Bush personally on the pressure that Vice President Dick Cheney was exerting to conjure up legal wiggle-room for torture. Instead, Powell merely asked State Department lawyers to engage White House lawyers Alberto Gonzales and Cheney-favorite David Addington, in what Powell knew would be—absent his personal involvement— a quixotic effort.
Powell’s lawyers put in writing his concern that making an end-run around the Geneva protections for prisoners of war “could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries.” Well, he got that right.
But when Gonzales and Addington simply declared parts of Geneva “quaint” and “obsolete,” Powell caved, acquiescing in the corruption of the Army to which he owed so much. We know the next chapters of that story—Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Powell’s instincts were right, but he lacked the strength of his convictions. It turns out that this key instance of abject obeisance—important as it was in its own right—was just practice for the super bowl at the UN.
VIPS’ Maiden Effort
When those of us in our fledgling VIPS movement learned that Powell would address the UN on Feb. 5, 2003, we decided to do a same-day analytic assessment—the kind we used to do when someone like Khrushchev, or Gorbachev, or Gromyko, or Mao Tse-dung, or Castro gave a major address. We were well accustomed to the imperative to beat the media with our commentary. Coordinating our Powell draft via email, at 5:15 p.m. we issued VIPS’ first Memorandum for the President: “Subject: Today’s Speech by Secretary Powell at the UN.”
Our understanding at that time was far from perfect. It was not yet completely clear to us, for example, that Saddam Hussein had for the most part been abiding by, rather than flouting, UN resolutions. We stressed, though, that the key question was whether any of this justified war:
“This is the question the world is asking. Secretary Powell’s presentation does not come close to answering it.”
We warned the president of the “politicization of intelligence” and the deep analytical flaws that inevitably follow, for example:
“Intelligence community analysts are finding it hard to make themselves heard above the drumbeat for war…”
“Your Pentagon advisers draw a connection between war with Iraq and terrorism, but for the wrong reasons. The connection takes on much more reality in a post-US invasion scenario. (bold in original) Indeed, it is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat it would enhance it exponentially.”
Dissociating VIPS from Powell’s bravado claim that the evidence he presented was “irrefutable,” we noted that no one has a corner on the truth and ended our memo for President Bush with this observation:
“…after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond violations of Resolution 1441, and beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”
Senator Clinton Knew
Five years later, we take no pleasure at having been right; we take considerable pain at having been ignored. The impending debacle was a no-brainer, and serious specialists like former UN inspector Scott Ritter, to his credit, were shouting it from the rooftops.
What follows is more than a mere footnote. It is not widely known that our Feb. 5, 2003 memorandum analyzing Powell’s speech was shared with the junior senator from New York. Thus, she still had plenty of time to raise her voice before the Bush administration launched the fateful attack on Iraq on March 19.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. A former Army officer and veteran of 27 years in the analytic ranks of CIA, he is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. VIPS’ issuances are listed below; complete texts of all 16 can be found at afterdowningstreet.org/vips.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Issuances
1 Memorandum for the President, February 5, 2003
“Secretary Powell’s Presentation to the UN Today”
2 Memorandum for Confused Americans, March 12, 2003
“Cooking Intelligence for War”
3 Memorandum for the President, March 18, 2003
“Forgery, Hyperbole, Half-Truth: A Problem”
4 Memorandum, March 26, 2003
“Arafat Interviewed by the Christisons on Current Impasse”
5 Memorandum, April 24, 2003
“The Stakes in the Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction”
6 Memorandum for the President, May 1, 2003
“Intelligence Fiasco”
7 Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, May 19, 2003
“On UN Inspectors and Weapons of Mass Destruction”
8 Memorandum for the President, July 14, 2003
“Intelligence Unglued”
9 Memorandum for Colleagues in Intelligence, August 22, 2003
“Now It’s Your Turn”
10 Memorandum for Colleagues in Intelligence, October 13, 2003
“One Person Can Make a Difference”
11 Memorandum for the President, January 13, 2004
“Your State-of-the-Union Address”
12 Memorandum for the President, August 24, 2005
“Recommendation: Try A Circle of ‘Wise Women’”
13 Memorandum for Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader
“Denouement on Iraq: First Stop the Bleeding, March 14, 2007
14 Memorandum, March 29, 2007
“Brinkmanship Unwise in Uncharted Waters”
15 Memorandum, June 17, 2007
“Countering Terrorism—How Not to Do It”
16 Memorandum, July 27, 2007
“Dangers of a Cornered George Bush”
——————————————————
An earlier version of this article appeared yesterday at Consortiumnews.com.
Ray,
Thank you for what you continue to do.
When watching the last dem debate I noticed that when Hillary lied about Saddam kicking the inspectors out of Iraq nobody corrected her.
Many people still can’t handle the truth.
Powell is on CSpan3 right now, CSIS, on Iraq.
“Material Breach.”
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan3_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3
Remember the deft claim he made that Afghanistan and Pakistan were joining us in “a crusade” at the start of this war?
VIPS getting in front of Powell.
IMO he’s the most likely person McCain could choose for VP or run as a shadow post to try and insulate his internal critics.
Loyalty before competency, etc.
Wow, even Brzez was in the Powell audience for the last question.
He was skeptical about a plan that lacked legitmate benchmarks.
It was obvious they were using this as pretext for war, not as a means of political action. That last question established the fact on record.
Gates appears before Committee today.
The most crucial item I’d suggest for contact of Congress members you are a constituent of, is the fact no withdrawal contingencies exist at this time. The Pentagon has helped withold them from the eyes of Congress, enabling the White House.
Without these you cannot get the paperwork or funding necessary to withdraw in place.
That’s why Sen.Clinton has said it would take 60 days to prepare exit plans for Iraq.
I sometimes think we fail to really understand the level of incompetence in the White House;we look for other excuses, “oh, they meant for it to be this bad, they want to destroy everything” or ” Dick Cheney is just a corrupt bastard, he’ll do anything.”
In the end, though, they just don’t understand what they’re doing, they’re as stupid, as inept as Michael Brown, it is far more difficult for us to accept Washington as incompetent, because of the greater implications for our security, our safety.
The idea David Addington would have approved a short term nuclear war is, in retrospect, horrifying, but that is how they think: paranoia, and almost crippling fear, way in over their heads, coupled with almost certain criminal actions. It was, IMO, like movie to them. They never saw themselves as having enemies, operating in a vacuum, never consequences for their decisions, magical thinking, like Obama, sorry to say, just unreal. Our position is untenable? Hope, and a surge, yeah, that will do it. No, it won’t. They needed definitive solutions from the best and brightest, they thought force, and violence would bring the middle east to it’s knees! Simple minded men.
They honestly thought the Iraqis would great them with flowers and candy, that’s garbage. What does that tell you about the neocon thought process?
Delusional.
Why was this allowed to happen?
Five deferments say a lot, how does Dick Cheney function in a war atmosphere? It was psychological taxing to the brave, what about Dick Cheney? Just pretend you have no enemies, the Pentagon will protect you? That isn’t real.
And not to excuse Powell, he is a soldier after all, but from what I remember, the level of menace in the air was extraordinary after 2001, Rove was destroying political careers, they tortured, using the full apparatus of government to intimidate, in the name of the war on terror. It’s part of the FISA fight, even now, retroactive immunity, because the administration started illegally wire tapping upon taking office.
What a mess, like a bad episode of “24,” a badly written script, by a crew of incompetents.
Just my HO.
“I sometimes think we fail to really understand the level of incompetence in the White House;we look for other excuses, “oh, they meant for it to be this bad, they want to destroy everything”…
“In the end, though, they just don’t understand what they’re doing, they’re as stupid, as inept as Michael Brown, it is far more difficult for us to accept Washington as incompetent…
“They honestly thought the Iraqis would great them with flowers and candy…”
Simon, I could not agree with you more if worked hard at it. There are a lot of very smart, well-informed people - many of them not Americans, as a matter of fact - who really do believe the chaos and conflict the Bush regime created in Iraq was intentional.
I can understand why it looks that way to some people, but it has never looked that way to me - quite the opposite. I have watched very carefully as this thing unfolded, starting on the morning of September 11 when, within hours of the twin towers attacks the Bush regime was already trying to plant the idea that Saddam Hussein was behind it. Every step of the way - including during the “marketing” phase - it was like watching Keystone Kops on crack. “Oooops - THAT didn’t work, let’s try this - uhoh, THAT wasn’t such a great idea, let’s do this - holy hell, THAT’s making things worse, let’s run in circles for awhile until we figure out something else to do….” And all the while, of course, smiling, and telling the world they were making progress.
Yes, they really did believe that Iraqis would welcome them with flowers and chocolates and accept having their country and their lives controlled
Ooops - didn’t mean to send that quite so soon, but I think you get the idea.
“In the end, though, they just don’t understand what they’re doing, they’re as stupid, as inept as Michael Brown…”
Michael Brown: B.A. from Central State University, J.D. from Oklahoma City University law school.
Paul Bremer: Phillips Academy, B.A. from Yale, M.B.A. from Harvard, C.E.P. at Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris.
And ten years as managing director of Kissinger Associates. Not as stupid as Michael Brown.
“They” and “Washington” are meaningless categories. Vast numbers of people were involved in this for all kinds of reasons, mostly institutional, but every other kind as well. Only a few chose the path that led us to where we are. Is Bush an idiot? Yes. Is Cheney? Probably not.
For a bunch of fools those few to have gotten a lot of what they wanted. And they are probably not finished.
I’m sorry, your point is an Ivy league education is indicative of one’s overall intellect, rock solid proof Bremer is superior to Brown, Iraq being Bremer’s New Orleans?
Or are you limiting the blame for this mess to Bush, and no one else, “institutionalized” being the key word?
And “they” and “Washington” aren’t meaningless categories, the level of corruption, and intellectual mediocrity is endemic in BOTH parties, all are to blame, period, most of the decision making deriving from the level of ivy league you mentioned, ie Bremer. It took a long time to get to this level of corruption,(how did it happen, why?) a Washington bubble so removed from American life it forgot it was to represent the people, a functioning representative government, as opposed to K Street. This stems to the farm system, even. Look at Obama, Obama’s connections to Rezko, who is connected to the billionaires connected to 9.11, and men like Hastert, and Grossman. Is this the new Congressional farm team? See a problem, or do you simply dismiss it as an aberration?
Why, for instance, are lobbyists writing legislation, legislation that in the end is harmful to the country, harmful even to the survival of the corporate ecosystem, theirs?
This problem isn’t isolated to Bush, it is bipartisan, again, government by mediocre pac, via Harvard. Are you impressed with the level of output in Washington, or do you feel this is simply Bush’s problem? Why haven’t Cheney and Bush been impeached, despite grievous offense to the Constitution? Why haven’t the democrats made any significant changes since regaining Congress? By choice? To me, with all due respect, you are either disingenuous, or uninformed. These problems will not go away, or improve, until they are addressed.
Do you even see a problem?
Bremer and Brown function at a level of denial that disallows achievement, they are both uninformed, neither critical thinkers. They don’t understand what they purport to have mastered. Do you think, in it’s own way, Iraq is New Orleans, Bremer is Brown, except Bremer got Iraq, and Brown got FEMA? Each rose to their level of incompetence, and hundreds of thousands died. Each was criminally negligent. To me, those are stupid men, one via Harvard, one via OK state.
Both were shockingly ignorant in their inability to recognize and assess the problems they faced, and for Bremer, this is even more inexcusable (he went to Harvard, right?), both highly incompetent and unsuited for their jobs. Why didn’t Bremer first provide for the infrastructure in Iraq? Why wasn’t a plan for reconstruction presented? But because Bremer, or Addington, went to Yale, we say it’s “misjudgement” as opposed to “they’re the fucking morons” out of OK State?
Stupid is stupid.
The ability to recite facts or throw a lot of spin without the ability to really understand ideas or implement them means nothing.
Invade Iraq? And which Harvard or Yale genius thought that was a good idea?
Feith, Addington?
And which opposition Harvard or Yale genius, other than the usual, stopped this plan?
None.
It would seem most of Washington cannot really grasp the complexities of the situations in front of them, and none seem to do anything but follow a tracked, well worn path of ideological, predictable tripe.
Why do we fight asymmetric war this way, for instance? “Well I took a course and it said…” They accept clearly unworkable solutions as gospel, they don’t even question what they see.
Cheney is an idiot. If one, for instance, makes a decision to take on the CIA, thinking he can win, in an attempt to remake the Constitution (the fourth amendment, say) he’s stupid. If one feels the only way to handle the crisis in the middle east is with bombs, he’s stupid. If he feels torture, or force, will bring about compliance, he is stupid, he might as well be Michael Brown. Ignoring greenhouse gases? That will destroy the world left unchecked, that’s stupid. So how are these men different?
Courageous people who have the ability to think and problem solve in a creative manner are ideal, and they are in the ivy league, too, we just have had a bad crop due to certain cultural changes over the past thirty years, manifesting in current day Washington. We seem now to have an ivy league full of tracked thinkers, like John Yoo, or Bremer, both of whom can’t, or won’t, find their asses with both hands, unless everyone else is doing it, and Mark Penn took a poll, and Bill Kristol said it was OK, and Tony Rezko funded it.
I see the choice to be corrupt, to involve oneself in corruption, as inherently stupid, a fully informed choice.
The lack of empathy is appalling, smug identity being invested in a Phd, all of it screaming, “I am insecure, and have no sense of real identity, or integrated richness of intellect. Please love me.”
No.
And no shit.
And, really, how do you explain Washington’s lack of leadership, as a whole?
What is your reasoning for this lack of leadership, this lack of political brilliance, for the corruption, and the decline?
And I’m pushing you, I see a big problem, just playing devil’s advocate, in part, something to think about, no offense meant.
No offense taken. Our fundamental difference is this: you see the disaster of Iraq as a mistake. A terrible mistake, but one of many. I see the disaster of Iraq as meeting the goals of certain powerful groups to such an extent that it is difficult to believe that the disaster was not intentionally provoked. So I look for the people who made the key decisions. I look for patterns over the period of time when Iraq became an issue. I look for the specific decisions that rendered any less unreasonable outcome impossible. Insofar as I can.
Now there is no more corrupt institution than the university system at the graduate level - more dishonest, operating farther from its professed values. And more corrosive to the well being of the country. Witness for instance the courage of Near East Studies departments in opposing this war, which has destroyed the great libraries and museums of Iraq, and erased much of the archaeological heritage of the human race, not to mention the human cost, or the clarity with which the Economics departments have been warning us about the dangers of Collateralized Debt Obligations and the other games the financial markets have been playing with our lives and future. But their blindness is intentional - it is not stupidity, it is willful ignorance, and moral cowardice.
But when it comes to a man like Bremer who made the handful of decisions at the fall of Baghdad which made it certain that Iraq would be destroyed, I don’t see willful ignorance and moral cowardice. He made these decisions in the face of absolutely clear and forceful advice. He worked against the institutional context - against the opinions of Garner and the rest - in disbanding the army and police, and expelling members of the Baath from government, stripping Iraq of all security and the middle class technocrats who made society run. The failure to secure the former regime’s arms depots might have been incompetent, but the institution of a sectarian political system was not.
Bremer is Kissinger’s man. No one who has been around since the sixties would call Kissinger stupid, I think. Twisted perhaps, but not stupid. Not naive, to understate it. It is not possible to imagine him believing that the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers and sweets (however much others might have). It is not possible to believe that he believed that the Iraqis, after we had devastated their country in the first Gulf War, then killed a million of their people and wrecked their middle class with sanctions, then devastated their country again, then thrown their army and police and middle class out on the street, and instituted a sect based political system that had no basis in Iraqi history - would love us. Not Kissinger. And not Bremer.
As for the why - as I have posted before - in my view the long term interests of the military industrial complex/national security state, the most irredentist of the Israeli right, and the dominionist wing of the evangelical movement all come together here. Add the acceptable, if vicious, anti-muslim and anti-arab racism, American exceptionalism, institutional self interest, and you have a situation where a very small group of people at the center of power can set forces in motion that determine events on a global scale.
So when we talk about ‘Washington’ and ‘them’ I believe that it is essential to discriminate to some extent at least among the many groups and interests contained in those categories. Some are stupid and incompetent, some are venal and racist, some are fighting the good fight against huge odds, and some are truly evil.
I’ve been watching too
9/11 inquiry head ‘tried to shield George Bush’
By Tom Leonard in New York
The book says Mr Zelikow, a former academic, once tried to push through wording in a draft report that suggested a greater tie between Osama bin Laden and Iraq, in line with White House claims but not with the views of the commission’s staff.
The book seeks to raise new questions about the independence of the bipartisan commission, which was created in 2002 to investigate government mistakes that led to the Sept 11 attacks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/05/winquiry105.xm
In terms of the Bush administration, I think it is drip drip drip.
It has VASTLY improved since 2001, in terms of Constitutional restoration, though the idiots still push back, as a reflexive action.
What has disappointed me so much about Obama’s supporters is the inability to recognize Obama as Bush, same BS, no substance. We want a President who gets it, honors the Constitution, first and foremost, sees it as a responsibility, not a quaint document.
Ego wars among the mediocre just ain’t gonna cut it.
“What has disappointed me so much about Obama’s supporters is the inability to recognize Obama as Bush, same BS, no substance.”
You don’t hear it because the local kid makes good story line sells so well for the media conglomerates. This tale may be a bit long in the tooth but it is a part of our collective mythology that resonates. That makes it a cash flow item.
It is possible that you linked Bush and Obama not only on a conscious level but also because the mythic aspect pulled them together in your thoughts. Bush got a similar free media ride because his prodigal son story line resonated within American mythology. We know how very well that story sold.
Psychobabble aside,
“You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.”
———Mario Cuomo
Gates to this point is quite well stated.
“If you were to graph the costs going to the military in the modern era it would look like a printout for a defibrulating heart.”
Sen.Reed(D-RI)Mentions a “47 Billion” shortfall for “civilian use” of the national guard.
So much for disaster relief.
The guard here in northeast Ark. again has a guard deployment for Iraq.
Gates addresses this and arrives at the current assessment 77% army, air guard 90% of capability
Those numbers have got to be inflated.
So much for having America safer at home….
I am left wondering how 47 billion dollars was reallocated and the Governors have not made more of a co-ordinated push back.
One manifestation of the guard not being online in the event of a disater is civil disorder.
Supply side moral corruption at the top trickles down to the street and is used as an excuse for acting on the self preservation instincts of our primal self.
“Who so Pulleth Out This Sword of this Stone and Anvil,….” is the test we put to our choices for leadership. All comers who claim this mantle will fail.
Sen. Webb notes to Sec.Gates that every dollar spent to upgrade the professional capacity of those in service is returned sevenfold.
Interesting numbers, I’d argue the net result is much higher. You cannot place prices upon the intellectual, moral and morale capacity of persons in uniformed service. It exponentially increases the return on investment. Helping develop a cyclical mechanism for return on said investments, as Sen.Webb directly states, is itself but one benefit and side effect of the effort to cultivate the resources our military can call upon in the field of applied knowledge.
So - the real question is: who would you vote for in either of the below cases?
McCain/ Huckabe vs Clinton
or
McCain/Huckabe vs Obama
You people do realize that the Dem. ticket is going to be Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton. They HAVE to join up to guarantee enough votes to take the Presidency. I can’t wait for you Obama smearer’s to have to start laying on the love.
Good question. I think Ray’s piece indicates that Clinton has a lot to answer for in terms of her conduct in the run-up to the war and its early days. But OTOH, I don’t think that either Clinton or Obama is willing to face (at least publically) the true cost of American empire. Ron Paul was the only candidate willing to even broach the subject. He may be nuts on things like the gold standard, but this is the real question that’s in front of us, and the MSM wants to make it just go away, but the hollowing out of America under these militaristic priorities has been going on for a lot longer than these last seven years. The current bozos have just speeded up the process. And until we have leadership that’s willing to face this reality, we’re going to continue our slide.
And one more thing: with the exception of Bush, most of them aren’t actually innately stupid. Some of them are quite intelligent. But they’re so blinded by their arrogance and hubris that they act with supreme idiocy.
Once again, my favorite aphorism of the last seven years, from Nietzsche: “Power makes stupid.”
I think on a certain level the need to examine this greed, the need for empire HAS been addressed. (Why? whom?, historical precedence, say, and current actors).
Correction doesn’t occur overnight, it takes years, even decades.
Dwight’s warning about the IMC was right, motivated more by greed and paranoia, than intellect. The wonderful thing about America, though, is the talent and principle available to counter this simplistic anxiety driven greed, people who believe in something more than football, or profit or pornography.
Bush and Cheney are a product of democracy, but so are those who will work to save the patient. I KNOW there are good people out there, who do stand up to Cheney when Middle Eastern children are tortured, when anyone is tortured. They risk their careers, they risk harassment by stupid men. But they love their country, and they are good, moral individuals.
And with all do respect, despite his many flaws and mistakes, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, were the type to work to save the patient. Hillary will, too. Despite their attempts to play world leader, the Bush white house is not competitive, if they didn’t have the war on terror, they’d be nothing.
They don’t understand the factors that comprise successful government, not any idiot can run the United States.
“there are good people out there, who do stand up to Cheney when Middle Eastern children are tortured…”
…….
“Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, were the type to work to save the patient. Hillary will, too.”
For eight years Bill Clinton and Al Gore and their administration, with Hillary Clinton’s unwavering support, tortured by means of systematic starvation and deprivation of the basic human necessities (including but not limited to water, electricity, vaccines, medicine, education) millions of Iraqi children. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children under the age of five years died as a result of this form of torture, which was conducted and maintained as a means of “regime change”.
Israel also has a decades-long documented history of imprisoning and in some cases torturing children as young as ten years old. Where have Bill, Hillary, and Al been while their ally Israel has been torturing those Middle Eastern children?
Hillary Clinton has for decades been a strong supporter of Israel’s systematic torture of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children, most recently by imprisoning them in Gaza without access to food, medicine, electricity, and water, among other necessities of life. I believe the silence from Bill and Al while this is going on has been deafening.
Hillary Clinton gave her full support to Israel’s 33 day torture of Lebanese children during the summer of 2006, and the ongoing torture they suffer as a result of the destruction of vital infrastructure and homes, and medical facilities. I don’t recall hearing a single squeak from Bill or Al. To the best of my knowledge, none of them - not Bill, not Al, not Hillary, found any problem at all with Israel’s spending two days carpeting southern Lebanon with millions of cluster bomblets - the gift that keeps on killing and maiming mainly children for years - AFTER the ceasefire had been agreed upon.
I also do not recall hearing even the tiniest squeak of a suggestion from Bill, or Al, or Hillary that maybe, just maybe, it would be kind of nice if Israel would provide mine removal teams with a map showing where they planted landmines - another gift that keeps on killing and maiming mainly children - during their 18 year occupation of southern Lebanon.
So, you will understand, I hope, why I have a great deal less confidence in the likelihood that Hillary will suddenly start caring enough about Middle Eastern children to stand up to anyone when they are tortured, starved, or deprived of the basic necessities of life.
Hillary opposed banning these types of weapons.
Hillary Clinton voted against the Feinstein-Leahy amendment restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas
http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/ten-reasons-not-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton/
Of course, I won’t just take your word for it, but you do present interesting information I will research.
Why did Clinton do these things, support these ignominious actions?
So, thanks, it helps me make a better decision about the candidates.
In addition to all the tripe Colin Powell put out at the UN, consider all the evidence he willfully ignored - all for the benefit of his generous buddy, Prince Bandar bin Sultan:
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
Unlike his speech at the UN, this evidence has withstood the test of time. Yet the same befuddled mainstream media which helped pimp the bogus case against Iraq continues to largely ignore it. I guess they’re still waiting for Dick Cheney and Karl Rove to give them permission.
Some people feel all those attacks have to do with the illegal arms trading in the Middle East, the information for which Sybil Edmonds was gagged.
Politicians don’t always act in the best interests of their country, when money and the perception of power is at stake.
…..In addition to all the tripe Colin Powell put out at the UN, consider all the evidence he willfully ignored - all for the benefit of his generous buddy, Prince Bandar bin Sultan: http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com…..
The article indicates that Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) visited Iraq in June 2005 where he spoke privately with military and intelligence officials on the ground. Upon his return he reported that a disproportionate number of the foreign insurgents in Iraq were from Saudi Arabia.
Well, it makes PERFECT sense to ME why Joe Biden chose THAT date to visit Iraq.
The article also talks about two Saudi banking families — Kamel and al-Rajhi. KAMEL is also a wonderful name for the husband of a woman from “Jordan” who had five female children but decided to return to Saudia Arabia with her husband. It seems this woman also had several siblings who kept going back and forth from Jordan to Saudi Arabia. And RAJHI is such a wonderful name for a Persian Cat!
Thanks, Mr. McG, as always.
Ironic, is it not, that when we look for progressive analyses of the world we look to so many former CIA and allied folks - you, Larry, the Christisons, Valerie, Mr. Agee (RIP), etc.
Keep on keepin’ on. Catherine
Re: Clinton’s VP vs Obama’s VP. I can see where Obama would agree to the VP position, but I kind of doubt Clinton would agree to be VP. Obama is 45, young enough to be VP and eventually a great President, while HRC is about 61. Why would HRC want to be VP, she can be more effective in the Senate? The Democrats need her in the Senate. Obama needs seasoning, needs time to flesh out all the visionary “hope” in his message. HRC wants to start bringing home the troops in 60 days, not so much for Obama. That gets her my vote.
If Obama is the nominee, who will he select as VP? Some suggest Edwards(my first choice), but I don’t see any VP he can choose that will provide Democrats with the boost they will get with the Clinton/Obama combination.
The emotion Obama garners from young people needs to be replaced with more understanding of the needs of the Democratic party, and more importantly of those of the nation. I can’t see any downside to a Clinton/Obama ticket, no matter how much the smear artists try to swiftboat her. And Obama will make a great presidential hopeful for Democrats in 2016.
It would be a wonderful thing if Obama would taylor his message to incorporate these concepts, but of course he can’t. Can he?
I don’t think both of them will be on the same ticket. I think that whichever one ends up getting the nod, the party’s controllers will decide that the novelty of having either a woman or a black man as the nominee requires that the number two slot goes to a white male. They’re going to decide that it’s hard enough as it is.
“HRC wants to start bringing home the troops in 60 days, not so much for Obama. That gets her my vote.”
Actually, Obama’s plan regarding Iraq is pretty much the same as Hillary’s - start reducing the number of troops within a month or two, reduce them by 1-2 brigades a month, which would leave 40,000-70,000 troops at the close of 2009 to, in Hillary’s words, continue the United States’ “military as well as political mission”, which includes its mission against “Al Qa`eda in Iraq” (read combat), countering Iran’s influence (probable combat sooner or later), supporting Iraq’s military (would inevitably involve combat), protecting the Kurds (would probably involve some combat), “preventing a failed stated” (read continuing the imperial project), and of course, keeping the Baghdad Regional Imperial Command and Control Center - oh, sorry, “embassy” - safe (possible combat).
That’s both Hillary’s and Obama’s version of “bringing the troops home”.
That amounts to continuing the occupation with a reduced force.
How can they even begin to make a decision with out being familiar with facts on the ground, the larger US position?
The problem is we’ve had stupid morons making decisions in regard to Iraq, let’s see what happens when smart people are put in charge.
The idea, of course, is to remove US troops, eventually, it is a matter of how, in a way that is fair to the Iraqi people, while maintaining US strategic position.
The American military isn’t in Iraq to support a small group of illegal arms dealers, or Dick Cheney’s business friends.