Can a leopard change its spots?

Proving that she has neither lost her touch nor changed course, Condoleezza Rice appeared on the Charlie Rose show last night and lied her ass off.

ROSE: But you didn’t believe it had anything to do with 9/11.

RICE: No. No one was arguing that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11.

ROSE: No one.

RICE: I was certainly not. The President was certainly not. … That’s right. We were not arguing that.

Rachel Maddow had some nice audio records and quotes from official documents to rebut this on her show tonight.

We know there were no links between Iraq and Saddam on the one hand and al Qaeda and 9/11 on the other. Dubya eventually admitted as much. But not from the beginning. Oh no. The whole Bush Gang pushed the theme repeatedly to build that link in the public consciousness, so patriotic soliders were eager to go to Iraq to revenge 9/11. Except, of course, for the inconvenient fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. A vast percentage of the populace still thinks it did.

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003. [BBC]

Putting the case for invading Iraq to Congress:

A letter from the White House to the House Speaker on March 18, 2003, read:

“(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

And this:

Rice was no exception either. On Sept. 15, 2002, she said that Saddam had “links to terrorism [that] would include al-Qaeda.” As late as September 2006, she remarked, “there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime going back for a decade.”

Jon Perr at Crooks and Liars comments:

Of course, as ThinkProgress detailed, President Bush and Vice President Cheney throughout 2002 and 2003 warned of the mythical alliance between Saddam and Bin Laden. For example, on October 14, 2002, Bush announced that "We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade." On the eve of the war, the President told Americans that Iraq "has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda." And as hostilities commenced, Cheney on March 21, 2003 decried Iraq as the "geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

As I documented back in June 2005, President Bush continued to nurture the false Iraq connection to 9/11 long after he grudgingly admitted on September 17, 2004 that "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Bush's intentional conflation of the two included the amazing June 18, 2005 statement that "we went to war [with Iraq] because we were attacked." By December 2008, Bush's linkage had morphed into the "risk we could not afford to take."

Condi, Dick the Dick, Dubya, and their minions are currently all busy trying to re-write history and toss the inconvenient facts of which we are aware into the memory hole.

We must not let them get away with it.

Anyone else remember how brazenly Condi used to lie to Congress? And how incensed she gets when anyone questions her putative "integrity"? Hah, as if the [expletive deleted] had any.

Need I mention that this needless, counterproductive, illegal, and immoral invasion and occupation is really much, much larger than the AIG scandal?



Nürnberg, indeed, Göran.
--the BB

Attention must be paid

Idahospud44 does a serious job of calling us on our societal attention deficit disorder, our distractability, our impatience with issues that matter, our failure to pay attention.

Since, the "successful surge", only 1,194 of our troops have died and only 7,857 have been seriously wounded. That seems to be just dandy to many Americans. A February 2008 Pew Report showed that 48% of us think the war is going well. The death toll has risen to 627 in Afghanistan. Since the start of the war in 2003 to now more than 320,000 brain injuries have been reported. There were 790 attempted suicides among Iraqi veterans in 2007 alone. Eighteen vets commit suicide each month. A CBS report showed that there were 6,256 suicides among those who served in the armed forces in 2005 alone.

Idahospudd44 contrasts this stark, unpleasant, ignored reality with all the attention we give the latest celebutard gossip about Sarah Palin (I'm the one calling her a celebutard, btw). Oh look, a shiny object....

"Successful"? Violence may have gone down (though it's not gone by any means) but the surge was to provide opportunity for the Iraqi government to get its act together. And has that happened?

A disaster from day one.

And why isn't W standing before the bar at the Hague yet?

And why aren't we paying attention?
--the BB

Barking insane

Atrios on the Iraq War supporters then and now.

--the BB

More of the same is not a good idea

SusanG reports today that the Institute for National Strategic Studies (of the National Defense University - the Pentagon's "school") has a new study paper out.

The title is "Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath." (pdf) Here is the opening paragraph:

Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle. As of fall 2007, this conflict has cost the United States over 3,800 dead and over 8,000 wounded. Allied casualties accounted for another 300 dead. Iraqi civilian deaths—mostly at the hands of other Iraqis—may number as high as 82,000. Over 7,500 Iraqi soldiers and police officers have also been killed. Fifteen percent of the Iraqi population has become refugees or displaced persons. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the United States now spends over $10 billion per month on the war, and that the total, direct U.S. costs from March 2003 to July 2007 have exceeded $450 billion, all of which has been covered by deficit spending.1 No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans’ benefits or the total impact on Service personnel and materiel.

[Emphasis mine]

There is more (see SusanG's article for a few more quotes) and our invasion and occupation do not come off well in the assessment.

For the view of the American people, SusanG turns to a new ABC poll that reports:

POLL: Iraq as a Must-Win Now Rejected by 2-1
Record Number of Americans Say Winning in Iraq Is Not Necessary for Defeating Terrorism

So Pentagon experts aren't sold on what we've done. The People aren't sold on it anymore. That leaves George W. Bush and John W. McBush telling us it's just the swellest thing since sliced bread and let's have more!

We need to repudiate their insanity loud and clear.

--the BB

Fragile and reversible

Those were the words we heard from Petraeus and Crocker yesterday, when speaking of "progress" in Iraq.

Juan Cole gives Gen. Petraeus some props today while outlining the utter failure of the Maliki government.

Gen. Petraeus is clearly convinced that Iraq needs US troops to shore up the government and security. He has done the most responsible job yet seen by an American official in Iraq in trying to end the carnage. He has made bazaars no drive zones to stop the car bombings. He has surrounded city districts with blast walls to keep out insurgents. He has reached out to the Sunnis (though alas the Shiite government has not). He has done what he could, but it hasn't been enough. There really is little sign of political reconciliation.

Al-Maliki started out with a national unity government. He had Sunnis in his cabinet. He had Sadrists in his cabinet. Islamic Virtue Party. Iraqi National List. All gone. His government is more fractured and less representative than before the surge began!

Cole then shares this sobering fact:


So I found myself wondering what would be comparable to this in the US? I took a quick look at population estimates for Iraq and the United States. Then I did the quick calculation.

We have tut-tutted about nastiness in political campaigning. Well....

What if there were 3,266 deaths in political violence in the United States last month?

That is what life in Iraq is like these days.

Oh, and we don't have a tenth of our population living as refugees at the moment.

--the BB

Five a day

I don't think I either noticed this when it came out on February 3, or it failed to register with me.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every day, five U.S. soldiers try to kill themselves. Before the Iraq war began, that figure was less than one suicide attempt a day.
[CNN]

--the BB

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - Updated

From Think Progress:

Violence continues across southern Iraq today, as radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is threatening to end his crucial cease-fire by calling for the “downfall of the U.S.-backed government.”

In response, the administration has gone on a desperate PR blitz to label renewed violence in Iraq as “byproduct of the success of the surge.” “It’s “what critics have wanted to see,” said White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, calling it a struggle led by Iraqi security forces.

Today — as rockets rain down on the Green Zone and two American soldiers died — Bush cast the activity as a “very positive moment” in an interview with the Times of U.K.

I would love to give Inigo Montoya a few moments with George W. Bush.

UPDATE:
I spent the time to read Bush's speech in Dayton, Ohio. Some highlights:

The surge is doing what it was designed to do. It's helping Iraqis reclaim security and restart political and economic life. It is bringing America closer to a key strategic victory in the war against these extremists and radicals.

Moving goal post. It was supposed to do more than "help." They were supposed to achieve certain benchmarks.

In Baghdad, we've worked with Iraqi security forces to greatly diminish the sectarian violence and civilian deaths. We've broken the grip of al Qaida on the capital. We've weakened the influence of Iranian-backed militias. We've dramatically improved security conditions in many devastated neighborhoods in what some have deemed a "re-liberation."

Diminished sectarian violence and civilian deaths? Has he looked lately?

It's becoming clear that Anbar has not been lost to al Qaeda -- that al Qaeda has been -- has lost Anbar. And that's important, because this is the place where al Qaeda leadership has said they will find safe haven from which to launch further attacks against the United States of America.

Mmmm, George? Al Qaeda wasn't anywhere near Anbar province until you shattered the nation. Just sayin'. Asshat.

There's a strong commitment by the central government of Iraq to say that no one is above the law.

At this point my puke-meter shattered. HOW ABOUT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES MAKING IT CLEAR THAT NO ONE, INCLUDING THE CRIMINAL IN THE OVAL OFFICE, IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW?
I know, I was shouting. He has that effect on me.

As the news of the success in Anbar has spread, similar grassroots movements have sprung up all around the country.

All this pointing to Anbar as a success, mentioned in discussions of the "surge" to imply that it's related. But Anbar had calmed down before the "surge" ever happened. It's rather like mentioning Iraq and al Qaeda in the same paragraph so often that people think they have something to do with each other.

In other words, people have stepped up and said, we're sick and tired of our families having to live in violence. We can't stand the thought of people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives, and we intend to do something about it. And they have. (Applause.)

I'd like to see something done about "people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives" too, and yes, George, I'm talking about you.

Iraq also wants to solidify its relationship with the United States. Last year, Iraqi leaders came to us with a request to form a long-term strategic partnership. This partnership would help assure Iraqis that political and economic and security cooperation between our nations will endure. This partnership would also ensure protections for American troops when the U.N. mandate for Multi-National Forces in Iraq expires this December. Now, this partnership would not bind future Presidents to specific troop levels. This partnership would not establish permanent bases in Iraq. It would be similar to partnerships that we have with Afghanistan and other free nations around the world. My administration will work to complete this strategic partnership in the coming months. The Iraqi people have chosen to stand with America against our common enemies. And it's in our interest that we stand with them. [emphasis mine]

Quick translation: This is the positive spin I put on making long-term commitments without calling it a treaty and having to consult with the Senate (heehee).

all this progress from the surge
...
achievements of the surge

Cf. Inigo Montoya comment in header.

But there's one thing that is consistent. No matter what shortcomings these critics diagnose, their prescription is always the same -- retreat. They claim that our strategic interest is elsewhere, and that if we would just get out of Iraq, we could focus on the battles that really matter. This argument makes no sense. (Applause.) If America's strategic interests are not in Iraq -- the convergence point for the twin threats of al Qaeda and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden's deputy has called "the place for the greatest battle," the country at the heart of the most volatile region on Earth -- then where are they?

What threat does Iran currently pose to the United States? Not Bush's fevered imagination; actual, imminent threat. Who is responsible for the al Qaeda junior varsity in Iraq? That would be GWB, because Saddam loathed al Qaeda. He had a secular dictatorship and al Qaeda is an organization of theocratic religious extremists.

But the best way to honor the fallen is to complete the mission, and lay the foundation of peace.

Damn. My replacement puke-meter exploded.
What effing mission, you )$()($)($&*#)^&*$)(!!!???????

Oh yes, this one:

...helping the Iraqis defeat their enemies and build a free society would be a strategic victory that would resound far beyond Iraq's borders.

That was what we were told back in 2002-2003, right? We were going there to help defeat Iraq's enemies and build a free society.

No, wait. That wasn't it. It was to topple Saddam and find and disarm the WMDs. Well, one out of two....

Hmm, if we toppled Saddam and there weren't WMDs, then we did what we set out to do, we've already accomplished what we went there to do, and we can declare victory and get the hell out of there.

Unless someone's constantly redefining the terms.

Bush is a master of Calvinball. ["The only consistent rule is that Calvinball may never be played with the same rules twice." Wikipedia]

--the BB

Bush's War

Juan Cole has this:

Contrary to the glowing depictions of Iraq in the US press, Baghdad is engulfed in a lake of sewage so big it can be seen on Google Earth, many neighborhoods lack water, and electricity supply is insufficient and spotty. Although the Iraqi government crows about building clinics, the fact is that most nurses and physicians have fled, and medicines are in short supply. Last I knew, water purification was being impeded by US blockades on chlorine trucks coming in from Jordan. Some 70% of Iraqis do not have access to clean water, and there have been 100 recent cases of cholera in the capital, especially in the slum of Sadr City.

In nearby Baquba to the northeast, most children cannot go to school because of the poor security and some of those who can faint from hunger. The lack of services, poor security and perceived US favoritism to Shiite have stirred anger and resentment in Baqubah against the US.

--the BB

Get a clue, Commander Codpiece

From the Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON -- Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year.

Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.

And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.

Imagine that. You can read it all here.
h/t to Hoffmania
--the BB