Recently in Weaponsgate Category

"Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened." Judiciary Committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy calls for a "truth commission" to investigate Dubya-era abuses. "'We need to be able to read the page before we turn the page,' Leahy said. 'We need to come to a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past." Ok, sounds grand...but perhaps we should stop perpetuating those abuses while we're at it.

"That it was a forgery can no longer be doubted; that it originated with the White House may be harder to prove. Two former CIA officials -- Rob Richer and John Maguire -- have gone on record as saying they were personally charged with carrying out the forgery, but their marching orders, if they existed, came directly from Tenet (who has fiercely denied the story). The closest thing Suskind has to a smoking gun is Richer's memory, five years later, of 'looking down at the creamy White House stationery on which the assignment was written.'"

In his review of Ron Suskind's The Way of the World, Salon's Louis Bayard tells the tale of the Habbush letter, a forgery fabricated by the CIA to tie Iraq to Al Qaeda (and, thus manufacture a casus belli for the War in Iraq.) In other words, George Tenet -- perhaps on higher authority -- signed off on an illegal black op aimed against the American people. If this goes up the food chain -- and, at this point, who'd be surprised if it didn't -- this is definitely an impeachable offense. Where's the outrage?

Update: Politico has more.

"'The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11, 2001) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,' intelligence committee Chairman John Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report. 'Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false pretenses.'"

In the stating-the-obvious department, the "Phase II" report by the Senate Intelligence Committee -- delayed by the GOP since before the 2004 election -- finds once again that the Dubya administration lied us into war. Y'know, back in the day, this would be considered an impeachable offense.

"'Over that summer of 2002,' he writes, 'top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war...In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage ...What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.'" The other big political story of my move week: In a new political tell-all, former Dubya Press Secretary Scott McClellan turns on his former White House masters, accusing them of ginning up the case for war and lying outright to him about the Plamegate affair. "'Over time, as you leave the White House and leave the bubble, you're able to take off your partisan hat and take a clear-eyed look at things...I don't know that I can say when I started the book that it would end up where it was, but I felt at the end it had to be as honest and forthright as possible.'"

Welcome to the reality-based community, Scott. In the meantime, the White House is claiming McClellan was motivated by "sour grapes" (whatever that means -- why would he want to keep a gig he seemed to hate?) while other Dubya stalwarts, blindsided by the tome, have also gone on the attack. (But, don't fret -- of all people, McClellan knew what was coming.)

"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Do you remember the Iraq War of 2003? Remember those heady days of euphoria when it ended two months later, with only 139 American lives lost? Journey back with me -- TIME-LIFE style, if you will -- to the scene of our triumph: "Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a 'hero' and boomed, 'He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.' PBS' Gwen Ifill said Bush was 'part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan.' On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, 'The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing. This must be very meaningful to the United States military.'"

Well, today marks the five-year anniversary of our glorious victory, the day that "splendid little war" came to a close. Among those honoring the day, and the remarkable achievement of our Commander-in-Chief:

"President Bush believes that every life is precious, and he spends time every day thinking about those who've lost their lives on the battlefield." And well he should: Following soon after our fifth anniversary in Iraq, a roadside bomb kills four soldiers on Easter Sunday, and the American death toll in Iraq reaches 4000, 3863 of which were killed after Dubya's declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003.

I said when the death toll hit 2,000 in October 2005 that " [t]wo thousand US men and women have been killed in the line of duty, and this blatantly amateurish administration still has no plan either to win or to disengage from a conflict they orchestrated, other than 'stay the course.'" Two and half years and 2000 lives later, it's sadly still true. Worse still, Dubya's heir apparent, John McCain, now advocates extending this administration's catastrophic incompetence into another presidential term. This is not a good idea.

It was announced earlier in the week that a new Pentagon study was set to confirm the obvious: "An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network." Big surprise there.

Well, apparently, even the obvious must be suppressed in the Dubya regime. According to ABC News, the report is now being hastily buried. "The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia. It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online." Instead, it seems, the report will be on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard."

Update: ABC News asks for and receives a snail-mailed copy of the report, after which they promptly scan it and post it online as a PDF. Bang-up job suppressing that one, guys.

"The season is about how far individuals and institutions and society in general can go on a lie. And if you think that theme is hyperbolic and that lies...are too big and too outrageous to sustain themselves, I'd simply point to this ugly mess of a war we are in, why we are in it, what was printed and broadcast and declared by the nation's elite and its top media outlets. You look at Iraq and how we got there and McNulty and Templeton are pikers by comparison." David Simon talks with Newsweek about the rationale for Season 5 of The Wire. "The season is about the chasm between perception and reality in American life and how we are increasingly without the tools that allow us to recognize our true problems, much less begin to solve them." Speaking of which, the penultimate episode, "Late Editions", is now available on On Demand.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida...In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

A new study by the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism counts up the staggering number of falsehoods made by the Bush administration in the lead-up to Iraq. "The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period...Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida." (Via Dangerous Meta.)

"Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' to use the constitutional standard." Not to be lost in the New Hampshire shuffle: Former Senator and presidential candidate George McGovern makes the case anew for Dubya's impeachment.

"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005." Uh, y'know that whole Iran is the new face of evil, imminent-WWIII thing we've been hearing about? Well, never mind. It's time to update those lyrics, Senator McCain: A new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report -- which, it seems, Cheney may have held up for a year -- finds that Iran actually stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. "Even if Iran were to restart its program now, the country probably could not produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single weapon before the middle of the next decade, the assessment stated. It also expressed doubt about whether Iran 'currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.'"

This happy piece of information obviously puts our Saber-Rattler in Chief in a bit of a bind -- In a news conference this morning, he was reduced to spluttering, "'What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?'" What indeed...perhaps we should bomb them anyway, is that your point? Well, probably not. Says Slate's Fred Kaplan of the NIE: "If there was ever a possibility that President George W. Bush would drop bombs on Iran, the chances have now shrunk to nearly zero....Skeptics of war have rarely been so legitimized. Vice President Cheney has never been so isolated." Still, just to keep the timeline in perspective, Dubya made that dubious WWIII comment months after being apprised of this information. So, in effect, he was lying to us yet again.

As for the 2008 contenders, the campaigns are all taking the news pretty much in stride, although Chris Dodd got off a pretty good zinger on Clinton: "It's easy to say 'fool me once, shame on George Bush,' but when she's been fooled twice, shame on her."

"In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld argued that Muslims avoid 'physical labor' and wrote of the need to 'keep elevating the threat,' 'link Iraq to Iran' and develop 'bumper sticker statements' to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war." The WP surveys the "snowflakes" composed by ex-SecDef Donald Rumsfeld during his tenure. "Rumsfeld, whose sometimes abrasive approach often alienated other Cabinet members and White House staff members, produced 20 to 60 snowflakes a day and regularly poured out his thoughts in writing as the basis for developing policy, aides said." Uh, Rummy, get a blog.

"'We screwed up and left Saddam Hussein in power. The president [then George H.W. Bush] believes he'll be overthrown by his own people, but I rather doubt it,' he quotes Wolfowitz lamenting [in 1991]. 'But we did learn one thing that's very important. With the end of the Cold War, we can now use our military with impunity. The Soviets won't come in to block us. And we've got five, maybe 10, years to clean up these old Soviet surrogate regimes like Iraq and Syria before the next superpower emerges to challenge us ... We could have a little more time, but no one really knows.'" According to Salon's Joe Conason, Wesley Clark's new book suggests the existence of a smoking-gun 2001 memo that outlined in full the neo-cons' delusional ambitions for the Middle East before the Iraq War. "'Six weeks later, Clark returned to Washington to see the same general and inquired whether the plan to strike Iraq was still under consideration..."Oh, it's worse than that," he said, holding up a memo on his desk. "Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years." And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.' While Clark doesn't name the other four countries, he has mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan."

"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again." Did Dubya know for a fact that Iraq possessed no WMD prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq? With two CIA sources to back him up, Sidney Blumenthal says so. "'The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused,' said one of the former CIA officers. 'The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear.'"

"In grasping and exercising presidential powers, Cheney has dulled political accountability and concocted theories for evading the law and Constitution that would have embarrassed King George III...As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney's multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify." Former Reagan Assistant Attorney General Bruce Fein makes the conservative case for Dick Cheney's impeachment in Slate.

By a count of 14-0 (Russia abstaining), the UN Security Council votes to shut down their inquiry into Iraq WMDs. Well, so much for that particular casus belli. From the vaults: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." -- Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 29, 2002. (There's another one for the impeachment file.)

"Renzi -- now, was that the guy with the skeezy land deal? Or the woman Paul Wolfowitz promoted?" To help keep track of them all, Slate offers a handy illustrated guide to GOP scandals.

A new report by the Pentagon's inspector general argues that former undersecretary of defense and Dubya war hawk Douglas Feith misrepresented intelligence findings during the lead-up to Iraq. Not a big surprise there, but it's good to get Pentagon confirmation. "Feith's office, it said, drew on 'both reliable and unreliable' intelligence reports in 2002 to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq 'that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration.'"

"'It's a very candid assessment,' one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. 'It's stating the obvious.'" A new classified report written by US intelligence agencies and unearthed by the NYT declares that Dubya's Iraq sideshow has made us weaker in the War on Terror. Gee, you think?

"'Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden,' the former Iraqi foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, told the Federal Bureau of Investigation when he was asked about Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda's leader...'He specified that if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China,' says a passage in the nearly 400-page report." A new Senate intelligence report confirms what has become patently obvious: There was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the war. "Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was 'a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts' to link Saddam to al-Qaida."

"I and my former colleagues trusted the government to protect us in our jobs." Plamegate enters a new phase as Valerie Plame files a lawsuit against Cheney, Rove, and Libby for "leaking Plame's identity to 'discredit, punish and seek revenge against the plaintiffs.'" And for all the rabid right-wingers out there cheering on Paula Jones back in the day, it looks like the chickens have come home to roost: "Cheney and others might be compelled to turn over documents to the Wilsons, as well as give sworn depositions, as President Bill Clinton eventually had to do when Paula Jones sued him for sexual harrassment."

"Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an amb to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?" A new court filing by Patrick Fitzgerald finds Dick Cheney fretting over Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame in his handwritten notes on Wilson's article, further substantiating that the felonious leak likely emanated from the veep's office...if not ordered by the vice-president himself. "Fitzgerald's filing states that Libby learned of Plame's name from Cheney, in the course of discussions by the vice president's office about how to respond to a June 2003 inquiry from Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson's trip to Niger. Fitzgerald asserts that those conversations -- and earlier ones sparked by a May 2003 column about the trip in the Times -- help demonstrate that Libby's 'disclosures to the press concerning Mr. Wilson's wife were not casual disclosures.'"

"Battered by accusations of a liberal bias and determined to prove their conservative critics wrong, the press during the run-up to the war -- timid, deferential, unsure, cautious, and often intentionally unthinking -- came as close as possible to abdicating its reason for existing in the first place, which is to accurately inform citizens, particularly during times of great national interest." In very related news (as Dan Froomkin pointed out), Salon publishes an extended excerpt from Eric Boehlert's Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over For Bush.

"'The current debate over our national security by a series of retired generals -- some critical, some supportive of the present leadership in the Department of Defense -- is an important exercise of the right to freedom of speech,' he said. 'Another valued tenet is the right of the president to select the members of his own Cabinet.'" Senate Armed Service Committee chairman John Warner (R-VA) makes noise about holding Senate hearings on Rumsfeld. I'll believe it when I see it.

Fifth time's the charm? Karl Rove returns once more to testify before Patrick Fitzgerald's Plamegate grand jury, mainly to discuss his interactions with TIME reporter Viveca Novak. Will this fifth round of testimony of Dubya's consigliere result in an indictment (and finally make Karl a household name?) Hopefully, we'll know sooner rather than later. Update: Make that 2-3 weeks.

"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy." Retired CIA officer Tyler Drumhiller, formerly the highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, calls out the Dubya administration anew for their manipulation of intelligence during the lead-up to Iraq. "'It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure,' Drumheller told CBS' Ed Bradley. 'This was a policy failure. I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time.'"

Add one more lie to the pile: "On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile 'biological laboratories.' He declared, 'We have found the weapons of mass destruction.'...But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true." The Washington Post recounts step-by-step the tale of Dubya's fake WMD trailers, sending White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan into a paroxysm of aggressively circular spin. As it turns out, even though Dubya had been notified the trailers were a red herring two days before his above comments, "for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."

"God may smile on us, but I don't think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen." Although Dubya is personally dismissing the report as "wild speculation", The New Yorker's Sy Hersh argues in a terrifying piece that the administration is actively planning for "regime change" in Iran, and -- no joke -- the use of tactical nuclear weapons (particularly "bunker-busters") is on the table.

No doubt about it, this is trouble. A nuclear Iran would represent a grievous threat to the region (and particularly Israel), and must be prevented by diplomatic means if at all possible. But, after the Iraq WMD debacle, this administration has become the boy who cried wolf, and -- just as the US is facing perhaps its thorniest diplomatic issue yet, neither our European allies nor many US observers trust Dubya's motives or credibility any more, to say nothing of his basic competence. ("Speaking of President Bush, [one] House member said, 'The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.'.") And, needless to say, if Dubya and the neocons screw this one up, the consequences for both the entire Middle East and the war on terror -- as well as our own homeland security -- could be nightmarish. "If we move against Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines. Unless the Israelis take them out, they will mobilize against us...If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle."

Update: ""I'm announcing officially that Iran has now joined the countries that have nuclear technology." The situation darkens with Iran's successful (increased) enrichment of uranium. "Iran had previously enriched uranium to a level of about 2 percent, using a smaller cascade, and separately enriched uranium to about 15 percent during laser experiments in 2002. Bomb-grade uranium must be enriched to a level of well over 80 percent...Though it is technically possible, most nuclear experts agree it is unlikely Iran would be able to make bomb-grade uranium with the[ir current] 164-centrifuge cascade." Still, Russia and Britain are decrying the advance, and Secretary Rice wants "strong steps" by the UN Security Council in reply.

"I think that there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated." In keeping with a recent pattern of talking tough on the Sunday shows (no doubt to impress his independent-minded Pennsylvania constituents) while pretty much folding like an accordion in Senate committee, Arlen Specter says he want answers from Bush and Cheney regarding the recent Libby leak disclosure. Update: Dubya responds.

"The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein." The NYT relates the details of a January 2003 pre-war meeting between Bush and Blair, and it's not pretty. Not surprisingly (and like the July 2002 Downing Street memos, the recollections of Paul O'Neill, and countless other sources), this new material confirms that Dubya and the neocons wanted a war in Iraq, come hell or high water.

Remember "We'll be greeted as liberators"? How 'bout "I think they're in the last throes...of the insurgency"? As the administration reaps the dividends of a severe credibility gap on Iraq, Dubya ventures forth once again to tell the nation about all the progress we're just not seeing over there. "'I understand people being disheartened when they turn on their TV screen,' Bush said, adding that 'nobody likes beheadings' and other grim images."

"> EXAMINE CHAIRS

They are two several chairs arranged around the center of the room, along with two couches. Under one couch you find Clinton's shoes.

> FILL SHOES

You are unable to fill Clinton's shoes."

This may be the funniest political Internet post I've seen since the Cheney poker game: By way of WebGoddess and from the brain of Defective Yeti, it's the George W. Bush text adventure. Beware of lurking grues, special prosecutors, and that goshdarned Constitution.

"I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap." Along the lines of (2006 Oscars host) Jon Stewart on Crossfire in 2004, a driven-to-anger David Letterman goes after guest Bill O'Reilly on Cindy Sheehan, the war in Iraq, and his "fair and balanced" drivel. "I agree to you, with you that we have to support the troops. They are there, they are the best and the brightest of this country...however, that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of 'Why the Hell are we there to begin with?'" (Via Dumbmonkey.)

Thanks to more lies emanating from the Dubya administration, the Congressional Research Service is forced to set the record straight: Dubya saw more prewar intelligence than Congress. "The Bush administration has routinely denied Congress access to documents, saying it would have a chilling effect on deliberations. The report...concludes that the Bush administration has been more restrictive than its predecessors in sharing intelligence with Congress."

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." In his final speech on Iraq before tomorrow's elections, (text) Dubya admits the case for war was FUBAR, while insisting it was a good idea anyway. ("The United States did not choose war -- the choice was Saddam Hussein's.") Of course, Bush neglected to mention that it was he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al who cherry-picked through the available intelligence and continued to recite claims they knew to be false. Still, for someone who's seems pathologically incapable of accepting reality at times, this has to be considered a step forward.

"In short, Bush could pull a win-win-win out of this shift. He could pre-empt the Democrats' main line of attack against his administration, stave off the prospect of (from the GOP's perspective) disastrous elections in 2006 and '08, and, as a result, bolster his presidency's otherwise dwindling authority within his own party and among the general population." Slate's Fred Kaplan argues that, despite the administration's demagogic attacks of the past few weeks and recent reports of faith-based blinders, Dubya may well bow to reality and announce a phased withdrawal from Iraq in a speech tomorrow.

Update: Dubya sets the stage: "'We will make decisions about troops levels based upon the capability of the Iraqis to take the fight to the enemy,' Bush said in El Paso, Texas. 'I will make decisions on the level of troops based upon the recommendations of commanders on the ground.'"

Update 2: Dubya makes his speech, and, in keeping with his usual MO, it's basically just "stay-the-course" for now. Although, as suspected, he did argue that Iraqi forces have made great strides of late, which leaves the door open for withdrawal by Election Day 2006, as Murtha, Kaplan, and others have predicted.

"What was striking about Cheney's assault was that while denying critics' charges of manipulation and dishonesty involving prewar intelligence, he resorted to exactly the tactics that inspired the criticism. As he did with the prewar intelligence, Cheney told no outright lies, but he exaggerated the case, picked only evidence he liked, and ignored the caveats." In case it wasn't obvious, Slate's John Dickinson explains how Cheney is still misrepresenting the lead-up to war. (In fact, he did it again today, although at least he didn't join his congressional colleagues in their recent spate of Murtha-bashing.) But, really, can we expect any less from the administration that brought us imaginary WMDs and the phantom Iraq-9/11 connection? Like George Costanza at his worst moments, these jokers have been lying so long they've lost sight of the truth.

"President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence. Neither assertion is wholly accurate." Update: Slate's Fred Kaplan parses Dubya's speech further.

"Why would an experienced lawyer and government official such as Libby leave himself so exposed to prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald?...To critics, the timing suggests an attempt to obscure Cheney's role, and possibly his legal culpability." The Post suggests anew that, in the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak, Scooter Libby fell on his sword for Cheney. Meanwhile, National Journal's Murray Waas reports that Karl Rove's fate rests on Libby's testimony, meaning it may be some time before "Bush's Brain" is indicted, or in the clear.

As McCain calls for changes in Dubya's Iraq strategy, White House National Security advisor Stephen Hadley inaugurates Dubya's comeback plan, which will get more run in a presidential speech today. Step One: Call the Dems out on their pro-war votes. "'Some of the critics today,' Hadley added, 'believed themselves in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein posed a dangerous threat to the American people.'" Well, yes, but if Dems were relying on faulty and doctored intelligence to come to that supposition in 2002, that only brings us back to the $64,000 question: What exactly happened to our prewar intelligence once it reached the White House?

Republicans...they never stop surprising me. The nation discovers that, contrary to our most basic principles, the CIA has a series of secret, illegal gulags around the world, and how do GOP leaders respond? They want to know who told the press. (Mind you, this is after stonewalling investigations into prewar intelligence and the Plamegate leak for many a year.)

To be fair, not all GOP Senators are with them on this. Said Gang of 14 member Lindsey Graham (R-SC): "Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails...I'd like to know why we've got secret prisons and what oversight precautions we have." And Trent Lott (R-MS) believes that a Republican is likely responsible for the leak, after hearing about the prisons from Mr. Torture himself, Big Time Dick Cheney. "'Every word that was said in there went right to the newspaper,' Lott said. 'We can't keep our mouths shut.'" But, perhaps Catkiller knows this, and suspects one of his probable primary opponents? (LA Times story via Quiddity.) Update: Wheels within wheels...Was the leak investigation letter accidentally leaked? Regardless, Pat Roberts has put the kibosh on a congressional investigation...for now.

"After President Bush's disastrous visit to Latin America, it's unnerving to realize that his presidency still has more than three years to run. An administration with no agenda and no competence would be hard enough to live with on the domestic front. But the rest of the world simply can't afford an American government this bad for that long." The NY Times editorial staff come out swinging against Dubya.

"I demand on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted." In a bold and unblockable parliamentary move, Harry Reid closes the Senate doors to push for an inquiry into Libby and Weaponsgate. A blustering and blindsided Catkiller Frist, for one, was shocked -- shocked! -- by the closed-door session. "The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership...They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas." Please, Frist, take it down a notch...your blind panic is hardly presidential. Besides, the GOP don't have any convictions yet either...just plenty of investigations and indictments.

Update: The Dems dig in: "We're serving notice on [Senate Republicans] at this moment: Be prepared for this motion every day until you face the reality. The Senate Intelligence Committee has a responsibility to hold this administration accountable for the misuse of intelligence information. They have promised this investigation. We will continue to make this request until they do it." Bravo!

According to National Security Agency historian Robert Hanyok, his recent work outlining a deliberate NSA cover-up following the Gulf of Tonkin incident has been suppressed by the agency since 2001, in part because of Weaponsgate. "He said N.S.A. historians began pushing for public release in 2002, after Mr. Hanyok included his Tonkin Gulf findings in a 400-page, in-house history of the agency and Vietnam called 'Spartans in Darkness.' Though superiors initially expressed support for releasing it, the idea lost momentum as Iraq intelligence was being called into question, the official said."

As Iraq announces the approval of its draft constitution (which passed in a manner Slate's Fred Kaplan has deemed "the worst of both worlds"), the war claims its 2000th US military casualty. (Of these, 357 were under 21, 487 were National Guard, and 1863 -- over 9 in 10 -- have died since Dubya's "Mission Accomplished" fiasco.) We're still well under the casualty rate for Vietnam, true, but what comfort is that to the families of the fallen? Two thousand US men and women have been killed in the line of duty, and this blatantly amateurish administration still has no plan either to win or to disengage from a conflict they orchestrated, other than "stay the course." As with so much else under this president, the conduct of this war from its inception has been shameful and unacceptable -- in short, a national embarrassment.

"'The real anomaly in the administration is Cheney,' Mr. Scowcroft told Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker. 'I consider Cheney a good friend - I've known him for 30 years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore.'" As Cheney consigliere Scooter Libby preps for a likely Plamegate perp walk, the NYT refocuses on the broader question of our entry into the Iraq war. And, as the Scowcroft quote attests (and as Medley also notes), prominent Republicans are starting to pile on. "'Iraq was at core a war of choice, and extraordinarily expensive by every measure - human life, impact on our military, dollars, diplomatically,' said Mr. [Richard] Haass, a former senior State Department official under President Bush."



Or, as former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson puts it, "[T]he case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my study of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy didn't know were being made."

Update: Jeffrey Goldberg discusses his Scowcroft piece, and Slate's Fred Kaplan evaluates it, noting that George H.W. Bush is also something of a Dubya critic in the article. Speaking of Scowcroft, Dubya Sr. says: "He has a great propensity for friendship. By that, I mean someone I can depend on to tell me what I need to know and not just what I want to hear....[He] was very good about making sure that we did not solely consider the 'best case,' but instead considered what it would mean if things went our way, and also if they did not." Listen up, sonny...Papa just learned you.

Was Karl Rove the source who outed Valerie Plame to Novak & others? His lawyer says no, but he's definitely proven himself amoral enough in the past to be capable of it.

Monica who? On the eve of Dubya II, Salon's Peter Dizikes offers a short but comprehensive list of this administration's scandals thus far. Thirty-four and counting...not that you'd know it from watching the evening news.

"'The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House,' said a former senior CIA official...'Goss was given instructions...to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats.'" Newsday reports that the recent spate of resignations at the CIA is no accident, but rather a direct attempt by the Bushies to cleanse the agency of their enemies. Great...now I feel much safer.

"Does anyone really favor an administration that so shamelessly lies? One that so tenaciously clings to secrecy, not to protect the American people, but to protect itself? That so willfully misrepresents its true aims and so knowingly misleads the people from whom it derives its power? I simply cannot think so." Ron Reagan eviscerates George W. Bush in Esquire.

Similarly, GOP Senator Pat Roberts covers Dubya's back by making Tenet the fall guy for the WMD fiasco in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, while preventing any further investigation into White House efforts to arm-twist the CIA into the right conclusions. "'The Republicans ultimately and effectively, at the end of the day, controlled this investigation. There's no doubt about it. And they tried to put a bipartisan patina on it, but anybody who accepts that on face value is out of touch,' said [a] former Democratic aide."

Well, I'm a bit behind on this one, but I finally got out of the apartment to catch Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 yesterday afternoon. And the verdict? Well, it's undoubtedly an extremely powerful piece of cinema. And, judging from the reactions of the afternoon crowd, it looks as if it might do some real good in crystallizing popular discontent with the Bush administration outside of the blog-world echo chamber. Still, even though I know Moore is playing by the rules set by right-wing freak shows like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I found myself wishing at times that he had played F911 a little straighter. Simply put, Dubya and his cronies are guilty of so much blatant incompetence and documentable malfeasance that it's disappointing that Moore feels he has to rely on cheapshots and push-button emotions some of the time.

If you've been keeping up with pretty much any lefty blog since 2000 (including this one), the central and most powerful allegations made here -- that Dubya and the Neocons played bait-and-switch on the American people in Iraq and used 9/11 as a pretext for all kinds of terrible legislation, while doing pathetically little to minimize the actual threat of terrorism -- will not come as a surprise. Still, when the data is laid out before you here like ducks in a row, from the Florida fiasco in 2000 through to the recent stonewalling of the 9/11 commission a few weeks ago, the continued pattern of incompetence and mendacity that has characterized this administration becomes unmistakably clear. As the story unfolds, Moore offers plenty of intriguing footage -- Bush's 7 minutes of Pet Goat superfluousness may perhaps be overemphasized by now, but it's still out-and-out eerie. Equally damning is footage of Dubya at the ranch a month prior to 9/11, in which he has absolutely no clue what his agenda is for the day and, whatsmore, doesn't seem to much care (particularly when contrasted with his obvious enthusiasm for armadillos exhibited a few scenes later.)

But while there are plenty of blows landed, I ultimately thought that Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been much more impressive if it had focused more closely on the facts and avoided the more obvious attempts at sentiment. For example, instead of examining in detail the clear civil liberties transgressions occurring at the Gitmo Gulag and elsewhere under the Patriot Act, or noting the discrepancies in its enforcement (no gun checks?) under Attorney General-cum-balladeer John Ashcroft, Moore spends too much time interviewing an aging weightlifter and various Fresno peace activists -- all of whom have run afoul of goofy anti-terrorist inquiries -- for laughs. Similarly, instead of talking about Dubya's spiking of the Nunn-Lugar act or his continued cutting of First Responder funding, the film dinks around Western Oregon with two underfunded deputies - as a result, I thought the larger point about Bush's failure to protect the homeland was lost.

As the film moves overseas, the problems with F911 become more evident. Regarding the war in Afghanistan, Moore talks about a proposed UNOCAL pipeline to the exclusion of virtually anything else, which I think invites charges of shrillness (Exhibit A: The Bonanza riff) and blurs one of the most serious charges against this administration - that it gave up a chance to catch Osama Bin Laden in order to play regime change in Iraq. Speaking of Baghdad, I think Moore would have done better to talk more about missing WMD and lies to the UN and spent less time with Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a deceased US soldier. This last section of the film is undeniably powerful, but it also feels extremely manipulative, particularly as it's hard to envision very many situations where a mother's grief wouldn't be harrowing to behold. (The same goes for the grisly scenes of charred bodies and horrifically wounded Iraqi children.)

Still, what do I know? Perhaps Fahrenheit 9/11 needs these human touches to get its point across to a larger audience, a goal which it so far seems to be accomplishing with great aplomb. The fact is, Michael Moore can undoubtedly be a blowhard with grating populist pretensions, but if we had any semblance of a functioning national media these days, Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been a non-event. In the absence of anything like an independently critical television press, and given the existence of such a well-oiled, well-funded right-wing propaganda machine these days, perhaps somebody out there had to co-opt conservative talk-radio techniques to get the message out. I'm more of a "destroy the ring" than a "use the ring" kinda guy, but, as I said, what do I know? I could write in this space a hundred times over and still never reach an infinitesimal fraction of the people who will see this film and be newly angered by the idiotic and unethical behavior of this administration.

In short, if a picture is worth a 1000 words, this film is worth 10,000 blogs - by stringing so many of the Bush-bashing beads together in such entertaining and moving fashion, Fahrenheit 9/11 should bring the heart of the anti-Dubya critique right to the Heartland. I just wish it had covered its flank a little better by sticking to the cold, hard facts about the national embarrassment of historic proportions that is George W. Bush, rather than indulging every so often in cheap laughs and reflexive sentiment.

"Editors: Can you show us your cards? Cheney: Sure. One of them's a six." By way of Value Judgment, experience the tribulations of poker with Dick Cheney. "Cheney: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed." Update: In semi-related news, the Supreme Court bails out Cheney 7-2 on the energy task force documents, although they also decided to punt the case back to a lower court. Hmmm.

Dubya jumps in the polls after Reagan's photo-op funeral, and decides to celebrate by lying about Iraq and 9/11 all over again. C'mon, y'all Republican moralists out there...Where's the outrage? Clinton was impeached for far less, and we already know the Baptists won't put up much of a fuss.

What does $340,000 a month buy you? Treason. Ahmed Chalabi, until very recently the Neocons' favorite Iraqi, apparently tipped off Iran that we'd broken their codes. "U.S. intelligence officials two weeks ago had told CNN that Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, gave intelligence secrets to Iran so closely held in the U.S. government that only 'a handful' of senior officials knew them." So...which of the Bushies was it? Between this and the Plame affair, the Bush administration has now displayed a pattern of disregarding and betraying our intelligence community.

So the word emerging from Cannes on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is very positive so far. I'm very curious to see what kind of reaction this film will get stateside, once the distribution situation has been resolved. Hopefully, it'll end up doing more than just preaching to the converted in arthouses across America, as it sounds like it has the potential to be very big.

"Woodward reports that in July 2002 Bush ordered the use of $700 million to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, funds that had not been specifically appropriated by the Congress, which alone holds that constitutional authority. No adequate explanation has been offered for what, strictly speaking, might well be an impeachable offense." Sidney Blumenthal sees the behavior underlying Reagan's Iran-Contra fiasco revived, while law professor Cass Sunstein delves deeper into the illegality and unconstitutionality of Dubya's likely misappropriation of funds.

Once again, it seems, the Bush administration is falsifying records to cover up their shadiness. This time, the Pentagon deleted key remarks made by Rumsfeld to Bob Woodward on the certainty of the Iraq war. (Regarding an invasion of Iraq, Rummy told the Saudis in Jan. 2003, two months before operations commenced, that they could "take that to the bank.") Given the other times the Bushies have been caught doing this, their withholding of Reagan and Bush Sr. papers, and the general moral turpitude of this administration, one has to wonder how snarled up the historical record is at this point.

I haven't spoken much about it here, but obviously the situation in Iraq is getting much, much worse. I think it's now safe to assume that our war president's June 30 pullout date is an election-year fantasy. Who the hell's running this half-assed outfit? You'd think that after getting us involved in this unnecessary sideshow of a war, Bush and the neocons would at least have the decency to execute it properly. But, no, they're still prattling on about a peaceful transfer of power and hoping we ignore the unmistakable signs of an incipient civil war, and all the while the US casualties mount. What's the plan? (War prez link via Medley.)

Hmm...I've been so busy this week that I've completely missed out on the Clarke 9/11 testimony, but it sounds like he's not only fighting mad at the Bushies for their Iraq sideshow and failures on the terrorism front, he's deflecting their usual smear tactics quite swimmingly. Good stuff.

Hey did you hear the one about Dubya looking under a chair and asking, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere?" Chuckle, chuckle. Yeah, well I can think of almost 600 Americans (to say nothing of their families) that don't find Dubya's snickering all that goddamn funny. The Prez hasn't been in such lousy taste since the day he scampered across the WTC rubble playing fratboy with a bullhorn.

Did the awful 3/11 train bombing decide the recent Spanish election? Not so fast. My friend Luke of Expats against Bush happened to be visiting Barcelona during the recent attack, and his experience conforms closely with this Post article. Namely, it was Aznar's lousy spin job as much as the bombing which decided the election. And, let's be real -- Given that 90% of Spain was against continued involvement in the Iraq war prior to the attack, it's not as if the new government is coming out of nowhere with its decision to withdraw Spanish troops. Obviously, this act of terror didn't help matters for the Popular Party, but the foundation of this decision by the electorate was paved long before by George W. Bush's amateurish diplomacy. Instead of seeing common cause with our nation after a horrible terrorist attack, the Spanish people have been more repelled by Dubya's preemptive sideshow and his continued insults to international intelligence. At this point, if Bush really wants to figure out which world leaders would prefer John Kerry, all he has to do is look around.

The Senate Intelligence Committee moves toward subpoenaing Bush for various documents regarding the lead-up to war, documents which the administration has tried to withhold on the grounds of executive privilege. Hmm, I wonder...will the shrill echoes of Dubya's gay-baiting be enough to mask the whirring of the shredders? Somehow, I doubt it.

Building on the recent revelation by Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that the administration started planning a war in Iraq immediately upon taking office -- a revelation that dovetailed all-too-well with the recent Carnegie Endowment report on the administration's WMD deceptions -- Senator Ted Kennedy puts the war in perspective. "President Bush said it all when a television reporter asked him whether Saddam actually had weapons of mass destruction, or whether there was only the possibility that he might acquire them. President Bush answered, 'So what's the difference?' The difference, Mr. President, is whether you go to war or not. No President of the United States should employ misguided ideology and distortion of the truth to take the nation to war. In doing so, the President broke the basic bond of trust between government and the people. If Congress and the American people knew the whole truth, America would never have gone to war." Quite a good speech and worth a read, if nothing else than because no less a right-wing freak show than Tom De Lay found it "sad" and "disgusting."


In related news, Rick Perlstein examines Dubya's electoral exit strategy: "George Bush is selling out Iraq. Gone are his hard-liners' dreams of setting up a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic republic, a light unto the Middle Eastern nations. The decision makers in the administration now realize these goals are unreachable. So they've set a new goal: to end the occupation by July 1, whether that occupation has accomplished anything valuable and lasting or not. Just declare victory and go home...Such is the mess this president seems willing to leave behind in order to save his campaign."

From out the mists of history, Watergate figures weigh in on Felonygate and this administration's total lack of credibility: Nixon counsel John Dean calls the Bushies worse than his old employers, while Daniel Ellsberg argues that the Plumbers are back. Says Ellsberg of the Plame situation, "I see an almost identical pattern here [between his own experience and Plame's]. Really, I don't know of any analogy so close in the 30 years between now and then. This is not an everyday occurrence." In related news, it turns out that the Bushies have lied again -- this time, Wolfowitz & co. drastically overstated the health of the Iraqi oil industry, despite a Pentagon report to the contrary, so as to minimize the cost of Iraqi reconstruction for American taxpayers. Typical.

A CIA inquiry delves into the Bush administration to ascertain which [Karl Rove]Dubya flunky[/Karl Rove] was motivated by petty revenge and political calculation to compromise the identity of an agent. Just like the Bushies to play political games with both our collective and individual security...Hopefully the Agency will get to the bottom of this White House felony more thoroughly than they did WMDgate.

Facing the lowest numbers of his presidency and a increasingly troubling lack of WMD, Dubya fails to garner any new international support for the reconstruction of Iraq. And what did he expect, after waltzing into the UN and insulting the intelligence of the world? Amateur hour continues at our nation's peril.

While Dubya tries in vain to muster international support for his "save the US" Iraq bailout plan, the NY Times portray the chilling consequences of his blunt unilateralism. For, in only two short years, the administration has completely squandered the considerable reservoirs of international goodwill that followed the wake of 9/11. It's troubling to think what a President with some understanding of the art of diplomacy could've accomplished in this time. Instead we've had a rank amateur at the helm, poisoning the image of our nation in the eyes of the world. In so doing, the Bushies have done America -- and American values -- a great disservice.

While he's still abusing the terrorism angle to hoodwink us on Iraq (As Howard Dean noted yesterday, the only indisputable thing Iraq has to do with terrorism is that we've now chosen it as the place where terrorists can attack us), Dubya at least admitted on nationwide television that unilaterally, we're in over our head, which I suppose amounts to what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. Yet, with the necessary Iraq funds -- even lowballed as they are -- threatening to blow the deficit to $525 billion, I do hope that the Bushies realize that the responsibility and sacrifice they're expecting from the American people, our somewhat skeptical allies, and everyone but themselves in prosecuting this war should preclude any more discussion of a tax cut in the coming year. After all, why shouldn't America's wealthiest citizens also have to pay the heavy price for Dubya's blundering, incompetent, and hubris-ridden diplomacy on the road to war?

True to form, the Bushies tried to make everyone accept the false Iraq-Niger claim by dint of sheer repetition. Strange how Tenet is supposed to take the fall for this even after explicitly removing the claim from one of Dubya's speeches.

In a tortured press conference in which he also came out firmly against gay marriage, Dubya finally admits he's to blame for the Iraq-Niger claim in the State of the Union (while letting Condoleeza Rice cry "mea culpa" on Newshour.) Why on Earth did it take him so long to state the obvious? As President, he is in fact responsible for his own utterances.

Two interesting editorials in today's Globe: Derrick Jackson wonders aloud about the GOP's double standard on Presidential lies, while H.D.S. Greenway laments the diplomatic damage wrought by Dubya's ill-advised "axis of evil" rhetoric. Dishonest and incompetent...the total package.

Speaking of ugly, Drudge points the way to new poll numbers that show Dubya's numbers dwindling to pre-9/11 levels. It's about time.

Weaponsgate fallout continues, with Ted Kennedy decrying Dubya's foreign policy, John Kerry lambasting Homeland (in)Security under Bush, and Dean and Lieberman calling for Tenet's head. Whether or not Tenet continues to fall on his sword for the Bushies, the buck stops with the White House, and the GOP Senate can only play defense for so long. What did Dubya know, and when did he know it?

Try as they might to contain it, Dubya's role in the Iraq-Niger component of Weaponsgate continues to leak under scrutiny. Worse still for the White House, many irate columnists are examining the larger pattern of deceit that has characterized this administration. Whatsmore, the I-word is now getting thrown around. How, I wonder, will the Bushies manage to lie their way out of this one?

Perhaps taking a page from the Governor of Vermont (whom he declined to attack), Kerry turns up the heat on Dubya and Weaponsgate, as do the Congressional Dems. Good...the pressure from now herein should be furious and unrelenting. And under no circumstances should the Bushies be allowed to get away with lying to America by pinning it on John Bull.

As the Bushies finally admit the Iraq-Niger link was bogus, the Dems call for an investigation into what the White House knew and when. I think it might just be independent counsel time.

"Democracy, more than any other political system, depends on a modicum of honesty. Ultimately, it is much at the mercy of a leader who has never been embarrassed by himself." Norman Mailer weighs in on the Iraq War, Weaponsgate, and Dubya's aircraft carrier stunt.

This is a week old, but I didn't see it until Meet the Press yesterday: Conservative columnist George Will tries to account for the missing WMD. "But unless America's foreign policy is New Age therapy to make the public feel mellow, feeling good about the consequences of an action does not obviate the need to assess the original rationale for the action. Until WMD are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done."

The perennial question: Is George W. Bush a liar or a moron? The answer: Yes, says Slate's Tim Noah.

Salon examines the reasons for Dubya's continued public support despite the WMD shenanigans. "Just imagine how much shock and complaining there would be if we learned that 'American Idol' had been rigged. But Bush and his comrades can use deceptive means to launch a war and to pass trillion-dollar tax cuts that bust the bank -- and then skate away." In related news, the New Republic offers a concise overview of the story to date.

With the Weaponsgate furor still simmering (Dean has now called for an investigation), Dubya and his cronies try to confuse cause and effect in Iraq...apparently it no longer matters if WMDs are found or not, because Saddam was a bad man. In other words, the Bushie plan is, as per usual, to keep spouting the same propaganda until people start overlooking their leap in logic. Hmm...well, it seemed to work for the Iraq-9/11 connection, didn't it?

Weaponsgate update: While Dubya rails against "revisionist historians" (what, then, was he doing in Poland?), the British parliamentary inquiry into WMDs heats up. I'm going to be supremely annoyed if Blair goes down for this and Dubya doesn't.

Typical. While the term "WMD" gets more and more broadly defined by Dubya, Fleischer et al, the GOP issues a lockdown on joint and open hearings into the Bushies' use of CIA intelligence, since "criticism of the intelligence agencies has been divisive and could hurt national security." Um...wouldn't misuse of intelligence agency information to start a war compromise national security too?

Whether or not WMDs are ever found in Iraq at this point, it has become increasingly clear that the Bushies were contradicting their own intelligence last September and overstating the WMD capabilities of Iraq to the UN, the international community, and the American people. Lying to America? Falsifying intelligence? As John Dean points out for CNN, we're now entering Nixon territory. (Second two links via Pigs and Fishes and Medley.)