The Real Terrorist Threat

While we've been wasting time (and money, and, oh yeah, lives) in Iraq, the Taliban has been having secret planning meetings under our noses in Afghanistan: Taliban Vow Attacks After Mullah Omar Meeting (from Reuters)

Taliban guerrilla commander Mullah Sabir, alias Mullah Momin, told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location that Omar appeared "delighted" by a recent spate of Taliban attacks. At the meeting on September 17, held somewhere in southern Afghanistan, Omar urged around 50 top military commanders and former governors not to slow their activities, Mullah Momin said. President Hamid Karzai told President Bush Tuesday he was concerned some people in the border regions of neighboring Pakistan were preaching support for the Taliban.

Note the names of the two countries mentioned in the article (I added the boldface). Note that neither one of them is named "Iraq". You remember Mullah Omar. He was one of our most wanted in Afghanistan. (You remember Afghanistan, right? The country that hosted Al Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001?) Imagine if the 150,000 US troops in Iraq had been sent to Afghanistan instead. Maybe, just maybe, they could have found Omar, or at least made it more difficult for the Taliban to regroup.

I missed one of Cheney's lies!

That Vice President Dick Cheney. He told so many lies in his "Meet the Press" interview last week I couldn't catch them all. Fortunately Senator Frank Lautenberg was on the ball. He dug up the truth:

Cheney: "Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president I severed all my ties with the company, got rid of all my financial interest."

The Truth: In 2001 and 2002 Halliburton paid Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred salary payments.

Lautenberg was joined by Senators Joe Lieberman and Tom Daschle in calling for a Senate investigation of the Halliburton contracts. No response from the Republican leadership yet. Click here for more.
- posted by truthspeaker    Comments

 

Bush admin suppresses EPA global warming research

If you read this log every week it might seem like the Bush administration spends all their time lying about the war in Iraq. Of course this isn't true. They lie about plenty of other things as well. For example, this article from the Observer, Bush covers up climate research, details efforts by Bushco to suppress EPA findings about global warming, and reveals that they are in cahoots with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a lobbying organization funded by Bush's buddies in the petroleum industry.

Emails and internal government documents obtained by The Observer show that officials have sought to edit or remove research warning that the [global warming] problem is serious. They have enlisted the help of conservative lobby groups funded by the oil industry to attack US government scientists if they produce work seen as accepting too readily that pollution is an issue.

A four-page internal EPA memo reveals that Bush's staff insisted on major amendments to the climate change section of an environmental survey of the US, published last June. One alteration indicated 'that no further changes may be made'. The memo discusses ways of dealing with the White House editing, and warns that the section 'no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change'. A temperature record covering 1,000 years was ... deleted, prompting the EPA memo to note: 'Emphasis is given to a recent, limited analysis [which] supports the administration's favoured message.' White House officials added numerous qualifying words such as 'potentially' and 'may', leading the EPA to complain: 'Uncertainty is inserted where there is essentially none.' The paper then analyses what the EPA should do about the amendments and whether they should be published at all. The options range from accepting the alterations to trying to discuss them with the White House. When the report was finally published, however, the EPA had removed the entire global warming section to avoid including information that was not scientifically credible.

Keep in mind these are EPA scientists, not just a bunch of treehuggers. The Bush administration is suppressing legitimate scientific research because they don't like the results. This continues a pattern we've seen throughout this presidency. Whether it be UN arms inspectors, CIA intelligence analysts, State Department policy experts, military planners, Health Department STD researchers, or EPA scientists, Bush has consistently ignored information from knowledgable experts in favor of suggestions by big donors, political cronies, and idealistic zealots, usually with disastrous results. Clearly the facts do not matter to Bush, as long as he has a press office and Fox News to distort them for the public. And, so far, most of the public seems willing to let him get away with it.
- posted by truthspeaker    Comments

 

Cheney's lies continued

Vice President Cheney's Sunday morning lie session is still in the news: Boston Globe: Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged Working for Change: Half-baked whoppers hard to swallow Minnesota Star-Tribune: Truth: Too little of it on Iraq And, finally: Reuters: W.House Distances from Cheney on Iraq-9/11 Link Associated Press: Bush says no evidence that Saddam Hussein involved in Sept. 11 attacks There, Mr. President, you told the truth. That wasn't so hard now, was it? How did it feel, your first time?
- posted by truthspeaker    Comments

 

Cheney piles on the lies

In a rare television interview on NBC's "Meet the Press", Vice President and former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney proved he can lie as outrageously as his boss. See this Washington Post Article for details, or go to MSNBC for the full transcript. Here are some excerpts:

Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11"

The Truth: There is still no evidence of any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, let alone that any terrorists used Iraq as any kind of "base". The 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned in Germany and funded from Saudi Arabia - there is absolutely no Iraq connection to the 9/11 attacks.

Cheney: "We've got a very good man now in charge of the [search for weapons of mass destruction], David Kay. He used to run UNSCOM, a highly qualified, technically qualified and able individual."

The Truth: David Kay never ran UNSCOM. He was chief inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency for one year.

Cheney: "If you go back and look at what we found to date, there's no doubt in my mind but what Saddam Hussein had these capabilities."

The Truth: If so, why doesn't David Kay's team release a report about these findings? See yesterday's entry.

Cheney: "We had intelligence reporting before the war that there were at least seven of these mobile labs that he had gone out and acquired. We've, since the war, found two of them. They're in our possession today, mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack."

The Truth: Nice try, Dick, but we haven't actually found any mobile weapons labs, just a couple of refrigerated trailers.

Iraqi scientist says nuclear program never revived

"Iraq never revived its secret nuclear weapons programme after it was dismantled by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s, a senior Iraqi scientist at Iraq's new Ministry of Science and Technology has said." (Reuters article) Hey, if MI6 and the Pentagon can rely on single-source intelligence, so can I! And in this case Dr. Abbas Balasem's testimony agrees with the evidence: the American and British occupiers of Iraq have found nothing to indicate that Iraq had any kind of nuclear weapons program after 1991.

Iraqi council leaders urge quick end to occupation

(Washington Post article)

BAGHDAD, Sept. 14 -- Five key leaders of Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council have seized upon the debate over a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq to advocate a quick end to the American occupation and a transfer of power to Iraqis, fueling the first significant tensions between the Bush administration and its political allies here.

Basically they want Iraq to be governed by Iraqis. Makes sense, and since the explicit goal of Operation: Iraqi Freedom was to liberate Iraq, you would expect the US government to be in full agreement. But wait:

The [US] administration insists the U.S.-led occupation authority here should retain ultimate control over Iraq's civil and military affairs until the constitution is ratified and an elected government is seated, a process that U.S. officials have said could take until the end of next year.

We need time to award more contracts to Halliburton!
- posted by truthspeaker    Comments

 

Still No Weapons of Mass Destruction

article: Iraq WMD report shelved due to lack of evidence The Iraq Survey Group, a team of 1400 American and British weapons experts, was expected to publish a report this month of the results of their search for evidence of Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. But the report has been delayed indefinitely because they have found absolutely nothing. This team has been able to do everything Hans Blix's teams couldn't: interview Iraqi scientists in private, access CIA and MI6 intelligence, and inspect any site they wanted, with no escorts or advance warning. But they still didn't find anything - no weapons of mass destruction or the facilities to produce them or even weapon systems to deliver them. So either Saddam Hussein had some really, really good hiding places that even his own people didn't know about, or George Bush and Tony Blair are lying sacks of shit. Draw your own conclusions. But first, ponder why the Iraq Survey Group's report is being delayed - if they haven't found anything yet, wouldn't it make sense to publish a report saying they hadn't found anything yet?
- posted by truthspeaker    Comments

 
My hero Molly Ivins published an excellent column yesterday, "How Dumb do They Think We Are?". She said a lot of things I've been saying, only better. I guess that's why she gets paid and I don't:

Well, I ain't gonna take it anymore. I am not shutting up for Bill O'Reilly or anyone else. I opposed our unprovoked, unnecessary invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it would be a short, easy war followed by the peace from hell. I predicted every terrorist in the Middle East would be drawn to Iraq like a magnet. I was right, and I'm not going to apologize for it.

Preach it, Sister. More:

The biggest bait-and-switch move of this whole administration has been to substitute Saddam Hussein for Osama bin Laden. Iraq had nothing to do with the acts of terrorism perpetrated against the United States. The real villains, both Al Qaeda and the Taliban, are now regrouping in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, while we're stuck in the quicksand in Iraq.

Such an obvious observation, but no one in Congress and few in the press are making it. Molly Ivins isn't the only one whose predictions about Iraq proved accurate. According to this Washington Post article, "Spy agencies foresaw Iraq resistance":

U.S. intelligence agencies warned Bush administration policymakers before the war in Iraq that there would be significant armed opposition to a U.S.-led occupation ... the intelligence agencies' concerns about the degree of resistance U.S. forces would encounter have proved broadly accurate in the months since the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his inner circle.

Before the war, the CIA passed on intelligence that some members of Hussein's Republican Guard military units and his Baathist Party had plans to carry on resistance after the war, according to one senior intelligence official. "They had been given instructions should the regime fall," the official said. U.S. military and civilian leaders in Iraq have said they believe the daily attacks against U.S. forces are being carried out by Hussein loyalists. CIA analysts last summer also expressed concerns that the "chaos after war would turn [Iraq] into a laboratory for terrorists," according to another former intelligence analyst.

It's good to know there were people in the federal government doing detailed analysis of the situation in Iraq. Too bad nobody listened to them.
- posted by truthspeaker    Comments

 

Still No Weapons of Mass Destruction

BBC article Remember those? Bush claimed we had to invade Iraq because of the danger that Saddam Hussein would supply terrorists with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said he knew where the weapons were. Well we've occupied Iraq for six months and haven't found any such weapons, facilities to make them, or delivery systems for them. There is also still no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any contact with terrorist organizations. We're still waiting, Georgie.
- posted by truthspeaker    Comments

 

Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff Agree with Me - Iraq Quagmire Caused by Poor Planning

This article on MSNBC, Iraq unrest tied to poor U.S. planning, contains excerpts from a classified report from the Joint Chiefs of Staff which blames the Defense Department for not planning adequately for the occupation of Iraq:

The classified report on lessons learned in the war says U.S. commanders were so busy preparing to defeat Iraq’s military and directing the fight that they were given too little time to properly prepare for “Phase IV” peace, according to the officials.

This is inexcusable. The Defense Department staff are supposed to be experts, and they had eight months to plan the invasion and occupation. And the State Department had warned them about the strong possibility of guerilla warfare and sabotage following a successful invasion. Now let's take a break from news about the Bush administration's poor planning, and move on to some outright lies:

EPA Inspector general says White House changed EPA statements about safety at Ground Zero

In this article EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley says the White House changed press releases from the EPA to "add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones." Specifically:

Sept. 13: The EPA draft release — never released to the public — said: EPA “testing terrorized sites for environmental hazards.” The White House changed that to EPA “reassures public about environmental hazards.” Sept. 16: The EPA draft said: “Recent samples of dust ... on Water Street show higher levels of asbestos.” The White House version: “New samples confirm ... ambient air quality meets OSHA [government] standards” ... and “is not a cause for public concern.” And the White House left out entirely the warning “that air samples raise concerns for cleanup workers and office workers near Water St.”

I guess making the citizens feel good is more important than their health and safety. And here I had thought I was running out of Bush lies to expose.
- posted by truthspeaker    Comments