The Clobal Impact of Bush's War Crimes in Iraq!

The Global Impact of Bush's War Crimes in Iraq: King Midas in Reverse

Walter C. Uhler

November 25, 2007 Journalist Robert Fisk recently explained the Bush/Cheney abomination in the Middle East quite succinctly, when he asserted: "The world in the Middle East is growing darker and darker by the hour. Pakistan. Afghanistan. Iraq. "Palestine". Lebanon. From the borders of Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean, we - we Westerners that is - are creating (as I have said before) a hell disaster. Next week, we are supposed to believe in peace in Annapolis, between the colorless American apparatchik and Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister who has no more interest in a Palestinian state than his predecessor Ariel Sharon." [Robert Fisk, "Darkness falls on the Middle East," Independent.co.uk, 24 Nov. 2007] On Friday, November 23rd, a bomb exploded in a pet market in central Baghdad. It followed a "brazen attack against U.S.-backed Sunni fighters on the southern belt of Baghdad" and a mortar and rocket attack on the Green Zone a day earlier that constituted "the biggest attack against the U.S.-protected area in weeks." [Bushra Juhi, "Twin bombings Kill at Least 26 in Iraq," Associated Press, 23 Nov. 2007] You might keep such information in mind whenever you hear dishonest Republicans and feckless Democrats shy away from the awful truth about the "hell disaster" in Iraq and the Middle East. And the awful truth is this: During the seven months preceding the Bush administration's reckless, immoral, illegal and incompetent invasion of Iraq, the architects of that criminal war -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle -- lied repeatedly about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and links to al Qaeda, grossly exaggerated both the welcome American troops would receive and the ease with which democracy could be established in Iraq, while fraudulently understating the projected costs of their evil venture. In a word, our "MBA President" and his cronies failed to exercise due diligence with the American people. Yet, while these criminals were preparing to commit their crime, critics of the proposed invasion were struggling to be heard, struggling to penetrate the herd mentality of the mainstream news media - which, except for some reporters at Knight Ridder, found itself shocked and awed by the administration's war mongering propaganda. As we now know, post-invasion facts on the ground vindicated the critics, not only for doubting the Bush administration's bogus claims about Iraq's WMD and links to al Qaeda, but also for questioning the very need for preemptive (actually preventive) war and the very feasibility of forcing democracy at gunpoint. Unfortunately, more than 31,000 American soldiers have been killed or wounded in the course of executing Bush's criminal plans. Add to that figure "at least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan…[now] found with signs of brain injuries." [Gregg Zoroya, "Combat Brain Injuries Multiply," USA Today, Nov. 23, 2007] Moreover, although some 3,875 soldiers have died in Iraq since March 2003, 6,256 US veterans committed suicide in 2005 alone. According to CBS News, the suicide rate among veterans is double that of the civilian population and veterans aged 20 through 24 - those caught up in Bush's war - had the highest suicide rates among all veterans. Finally, consider that almost 8,000 soldiers deserted the US Army during fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Beyond such casualties, Bush's war has strained the U.S. Army to the breaking point. As Army Chief of Staff, Gen. George Casey recently observed, "The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply." According to Senator Jack Reed and security analyst Michele A. Flournoy, "Roughly half of the 2000 and 2001 West Point classes have already decided to leave the Army" citing multiple, back-to-back combat tours as the primary reason. Moreover, "roughly half of the U.S. Army's equipment is in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the harsh environment and the high tempo of operations are wearing out equipment at up to 9 times the normal rate." Then, there's the exorbitant cost of Bush's war of choice. According to Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee, when the hidden costs of Bush's war are considered, the total economic cost has exceeded $1.5 trillion. The surge in the price of oil, from approximately $37 per barrel at the beginning of the war to over $90 in recent weeks, constitutes a major portion of those hidden, but very real costs. Finally, citizens of the United States have seen their liberties subverted by the Bush administration in the name of national security. Through the abuse of signing statements, the use of torture and the embrace of illegal wiretapping the Bush administration has moved America creepily closer to those horrid dictatorships its citizens once derided. Yet, the costs to the United States constitute mere chump change when compared with the price paid by Iraqis. Life in Iraq during Bush's reign of terror has been far worse than life was during the last years of Saddam's brutal regime. Consider the national humiliation associated with America's successful invasion, its brutal occupation and its degrading torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. According to Robert Dreyfuss and Tom Engelhardt, "There are, by now, perhaps a million dead Iraqis, give or take a few hundred thousand. If a typical wounded-to-dead ratio of 3:1 holds, then you're talking about up to 4 million war, occupation, and civil-war casualties. Now, add in the estimated 2-2.5 million who went into exile, fleeing the country, and another estimated 2.3 million who have had to leave their homes and go into internal exile as Iraqi communities hand neighborhoods were 'cleansed.'" As columnist Cesar Chelala recently wrote in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "One child dies every five minutes because of the war, and many more are left with severe injuries. Of the estimated 4 million Iraqis who have been displaced in Iraq or lest the country, 1.5 million are children." Quoting from an assessment by 100 British and Iraqi doctors, Chelala adds: "sick or injured children, who could otherwise be treated by simple means, are left to die in the hundreds because they don't have access to basic medicines and other resources. Children who have lost hands, feet and limb are left without prostheses. Children with grave psychological distress are left untreated." Chronic shortages in electricity persist. And, as Bobby Cain Calvan of McClatchy Newspapers reported on November 18th, "the percentage of Iraqis without access to decent water supplies has risen from 50 percent to 70 percent since the start of the U.S.-led war…The portion of Iraqis lacking decent sanitation…[has been] even worse - 80 percent." Yet, the horrors in Iraq have been grossly underreported by America's mainstream news media. As Dahr Jamail concludes in his new book, Beyond the Green Zone, "If the people of the United States had the real story about what their government has done in Iraq, the occupation would already have ended." [p. 291] One might ask how Bush and his co-conspirators are able to sleep at night, given all this blood and carnage on their hands. Why do they remain in office? Why haven't they been impeached? Why haven't they been thrown in prison? But, then, one also might ask why the many conservative scholars and pundits who got everything so wrong -- especially those despicable neo-cons - still fill opinion pages and the airwaves with their vile excuses for yet more war. Their latest con is to argue that the surge is working. Some dishonest clowns even mention the word "victory." Of course, they spew yet more propaganda designed to maintain or bolster the 70 percent of Republicans who still support Bush's criminal war. (How different are they from Hitler's die-hard supporters during World War II?) For example, one of the more obnoxious and consistently wrong neo-cons, Charles Krauthammer, waxed euphoric in his November 23rd column about just how well the surge was going in Iraq. Yet, the 23rd was the day of the pet market blast, which had followed the previous day's "brazen attack" in the southern belt of Baghdad and the rocket attack on the Green Zone. Those attacks prompted two reporters from the Los Angeles Times to suggest that "insurgents appeared intent on sending a message to U.S. and Iraqi officials that their recent expressions of optimism on the nation's security were premature." But, then, consider the source. This is the very same Krauthammer who wrote in November 2001: [T]he way to tame the Arab street is not with appeasement and sweet sensitivity but with raw power and victory….The elementary truth that seems to elude the experts again and again…is that power is its own reward. Victory changes everything, psychology above all. The psychology in the [Middle East] is now one of fear and deep respect for American power. Now is the time to use it." [Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism, p 93] Tell me, Mr. Krauthammer, how's the "fear and deep respect" playing out in the Middle East and the world in November 2007? How stupid could you be? And why are you still employed by the Washington Post? The Post's Thomas Ricks provides a more honest assessment. "I just got back from Baghdad last week, and it was clear that violence has decreased. But it hasn't gone away. It is only back down to the 2005 level - which to my mind is kind of like moving from the eighth circle of hell to the fifth….I've interviewed dozens of officers and none were willing to say we are winning. What they were saying is that at least now, we are not losing." [Editor & Publisher, Nov. 24, 2007] Yet, if you recall that, on May 12, 2004, General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, told a Senate committee, "There is no way to militarily lose in Iraq. There's also no way to militarily win in Iraq," you might want to question why we're still there. Anthony Cordesman recently published a more realistic appraisal of the surge. Titled, "Violence versus Political Accommodation: The True Elements of Victory in Iraq," Cordesman credits the surge for playing a secondary role in reducing violence in Iraq. But he cautions: "It is still far from clear that US success against al Qaeda in the rest of central Iraq has brought stability and security to any mixed area where there is serious tension and violence. If anything, the fact that the 'surge' has not halted the pace of Iraqi displacements and has often created a patchwork of Arab Shiite versus Arab Sunni divisions in towns and areas that extend far beyond Baghdad, has laid the ground for further struggles once the US is gone." [p. 11] Cordesman adds: "Most of Southern Iraq is now under the control of competing local and regional Shiite gangs," which have become the "equivalent of rival mafias." [p. 13] More significantly, Cordesman concludes: "The US cannot win the war; it can only give Iraq's central government and those leaders interested in national unity and political accommodation the opportunity to do so." [p. 10] [N]o amount of American military success can - by itself - have strategic meaning." [p. 13] Finally, those who propagandize that the "surge" is working are advised to contemplate the work of MIT economist Michael Greenstone. As summarized in the December issue of The Atlantic, Greenstone has examined the financial markets in Iraq, especially the market for Iraqi state bonds. He found that "from the start of the surge earlier this year until September, there was a 'sharp decline' in the price of Iraqi state bonds, signaling a '40% increase in the market's expectation that Iraq will default' on its obligations." The Atlantic article goes on to note: "Since the bonds are sold on international markets (hedge funds hold a large portion), where the profit motive eliminates personal and political bias, the trajectory of bond prices may be the most accurate indicator available for assessing America's military strategy. And the data suggest that 'the surge is failing to pave the way toward a stable Iraq and may in fact be undermining it." [The Atlantic Dec. 2007, p. 26] Consequently, were we merely limiting ourselves to the catastrophes that has bedeviled both the United States and Iraq as a consequence of Bush's war, we'd be forced to conclude that Bush's national security policy has the touch of King Midas in reverse. Everything Bush touches turns to shit! Unfortunately, as serious pre-war scholars and critics feared and predicted, Bush's King Midas touch in reverse has extended far beyond Iraq and the United States. Simply recall their warnings about the war's impact on the price of oil, their fears that such a war might undermine US efforts against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, their concern that Bush's invasion might inflame hatred of America throughout the Muslim world, their suspicions that Iran might be the principal beneficiary of a US-led invasion that placed Iraqi Shiites in power and their worries about how a destabilized Iraq might provoke intervention by it neighbors, Iran, Syria and Turkey, and thus embroil the entire region. Thanks to the perverse King Midas touch of the Bush administration, Iran has indeed emerged as the most influential player in Iraq and Turkey is poised to invade Iraqi Kurdistan. Moreover, as Anne Applebaum has written in the Washington Post: [T] he collateral damage inflicted by the war on America's relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have realized." In support of Ms. Applebaum's assertion, simply recall the words uttered to Condoleezza Rice in October 2007 by Tanya Lokshina, chairwoman of the Demos Center for Information and Research, a Russian human rights organization: The United States had "lost the high moral ground." "The American voice alone doesn't work anymore…The Russians are not influenced by it." [Steven Lee Myers, New York Times Oct. 15, 2007] Finally, mention also must be made of another catastrophe feared and predicted by the pre-war critics of Bush's invasion, one which now looms on the horizon: the destabilization of nuclear armed Pakistan. As Robert Parry wrote in September 2002, "One reason a war with Iraq might increase, rather than decrease, the danger to the American people is that the invasion could spread instability across the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world…[impacting] most notably the dictatorship of Gen. Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan." As Parry observed: "Today, even as Musharraf cooperates with the U.S. war on terror, his regime is confronted by pro-al Qaeda factions both inside and outside his government. Many past and present Pakistani military officers continue to sympathize with the fundamentalists." [Robert Parry, "Bush's Nuclear Gamble," [consortiumnews.com, September 30, 2002] As if describing Bush's reverse Midas touch in Pakistan, Juan Cole has observed: "The pressure the Bush administration put on the Pakistani military government to combat Muslim militants in that country weakened the legitimacy of [military dictator Pervez] Musharraf, whom the Pakistani public increasingly viewed as an oppressive American puppet." Not content with such long-term undermining of its client dictator, the Bush administration then "brokered a deal whereby [Benazir] Bhutto was allowed to return to Pakistan." But, "the huge explosion that greeted Bhutto in her home turf of Karachi…suggests that her arrival is hardly the remedy for Pakistan's instability." [Cole, Salon.com Oct. 24, 2007] Thus, given its profoundly devastating King Midas touch that has rippled around the world, one can confidently predict that the Bush administration will further embolden militant Muslims and secure its legacy as the worst presidency in U.S. history by attacking Iran, thereby bringing America's staggering and tottering empire crashing to the ground. Like Lenin, during the pre-revolutionary period in Tsarist Russia, it would be tempting to say, "the worse, the better" for America. Except: (1) I don't believe the loss of empire will prompt Americans to wake up and (2) America's fervent Bush-supporting crackpot Christians, seeing evidence for their long awaited Rapture and End Times in the calamities actually wrought by Bush, already have a stranglehold on Lenin's dictum.

Bill Maher: No Crony Left Behind - Politics on The Huffington Post

Bill Maher: No Crony Left Behind - Politics on The Huffington Post

Read More: Bush Education, Education, McGraw Hill, McGraw Hill Testing, Nclb, Neil Bush, No Child Left Behind, Breaking Politics News

New Rule: In the next fifteen months, President Bush has to perform at least one act that doesn't make money for someone he knows.

• Email
• Print

Take "No Child Left Behind." At first it just looked like gentle empty bullshit, a way to neutralize the Democrats edge with voters on education issues. What did it even mean? And how could you be against it? Education. It was a perfect cause that would honor the legacy of any president...'s wife. Which made it even more perfect for pre-9/11 Bush. And who could it hurt? No one. It made Lady Bird Johnson's wild-flowers-by-the-highways project look like the fucking Marshall Plan.

Except, like all Bush ideas, there was more to it. To meet the requirements of "No Child Left Behind" America's public schools have ordered more than eleven million standardized tests in the last two years. (New York State alone ordered 1.7 million.) The cost of the tests -- and the testing industry, including test prep -- now exceeds two billion dollars a year. And 90% of the industry is controlled by five corporations. And the largest of them is McGraw-Hill. And the McGraw family just happens to go back 80 years with the Bushes.

Another beneficiary of No Child Left Behind? Neil Bush's educational software company. The one funded by the United Arab Emirates. The one Barbara Bush said the Katrina victims had to spend her donation on.

Which is, of course, all blood under the bridge. But when Bush does anything, there's always some profit motive behind it. Nothing is free but the hookers. So it wasn't surprising that he announced his post war plans were to replenish the coffers with speeches. But before that, he has to do one purely altruistic thing. Just one.

AND ITS GIULIANI OVER CLINTON BY LESS THAN 1% TO BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT

AND ITS GIULIANI OVER CLINTON BY LESS THAN 1% TO BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT

What luck for the rulers that men do not think.
- Adolf Hitler

In another nail biter election between Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, the newsrooms weren't reporting any winners until late in the morning the day after the election. Then they announced Rudolph W. Giuliani is to be the 44th president of the United States.

This is the scenario that the Rothschilds have scripted for you, the American sheeple. The Diebold voting machines are being programmed for these results, it matters not who you vote for. Giuliani's involvement in 9-11 will ensure the coverup continues with the next administration. Neocons are swarming all over him like flies on s___ (literally). Yes, he's the chosen one folks.

This farce will continue until the warrior class regains control of the government as outlined in P.R.Sarkar's Law of Social Cycles

For more on Giuliani see the Neocon Section
Related Articles:
Rudy Giuliani and Ehud Olmert - Terrorist Partners PDF By: Christopher Bollyn 4 December 2007
Who runs the electronic voting machines? PDF

How Bush and the GOP Stole 200 & 2004 Elections and is planning to steal 2008

Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
October 26, 2005

As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage. Click here for GAO Report

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.

Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received "more than 57,000 complaints" following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that "public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines." The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. "It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. "Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level." 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

In essence, the GAO study makes it clear that no bank, grocery store or mom & pop chop shop would dare operate its business on a computer system as flimsy, fragile and easily manipulated as the one on which the 2004 election turned.

The GAO findings are particularly damning when set in the context of an election run in Ohio by a Secretary of State simultaneously working as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Far from what election theft skeptics have long asserted, the GAO findings confirm that the electronic network on which 800,000 Ohio votes were cast was vulnerable enough to allow a a tiny handful of operatives -- or less -- to turn the whole vote count using personal computers operating on relatively simple software.

The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:

The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility. A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the ballot-making machine in Auglaize County Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry's name saw Bush's name light up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems in Franklin County (Columbus). Kerry's margins in both counties were suspiciously low. A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25 million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed. In Gahanna Ward 1B, at a fundamentalist church, a so-called "electronic transfer glitch" gave Bush nearly 4000 extra votes when only 638 people voted at that polling place. The tally was allegedly corrected, but remains infamous as the "loaves and fishes" vote count. In Franklin County, dozens of voters swore under oath that their vote for Kerry faded away on the DRE without a paper trail. In Miami County, at 1:43am after Election Day, with the county's central tabulator reporting 100% of the vote - 19,000 more votes mysteriously arrived; 13,000 were for Bush at the same percentage as prior to the additional votes, a virtual statistical impossibility. In Cleveland, large, entirely implausible vote totals turned up for obscure third party candidates in traditional Democratic African-American wards. Vote counts in neighboring wards showed virtually no votes for those candidates, with 90% going instead for Kerry. Prior to one of Blackwell's illegitimate "show recounts," technicians from Triad voting machine company showed up unannounced at the Hocking County Board of Elections and removed the computer hard drive. In response to official information requests, Shelby and other counties admit to having discarded key records and equipment before any recount could take place. In a conference call with Rev. Jackson, Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others, John Kerry confirmed that he lost every precinct in New Mexico that had a touchscreen voting machine. The losses had no correlation with ethnicity, social class or traditional party affiliation---only with the fact that touchscreen machines were used. In a public letter, Rep. Conyers has stated that "by and large, when it comes to a voting machine, the average voter is getting a lemon - the Ford Pinto of voting technology. We must demand better." But the GAO report now confirms that electronic voting machines as deployed in 2004 were in fact perfectly engineered to allow a very small number of partisans with minimal computer skills and equipment to shift enough votes to put George W. Bush back in the White House. Given the growing body of evidence, it appears increasingly clear that's exactly what happened. GAO Report Revised 10/27/05 Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, available via http://freepress.org and http://harveywasserman.com. Their WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO, with Steve Rosenfeld, will be published in Spring, 2006, by New Press.

SIEGELMAN SPEAKS! EX-GOV CALLS '02 ELECTION "STOLEN" BY THE WHITE HOUSE!

SIEGELMAN SPEAKS! EX-GOV CALLS '02 ELECTION "STOLEN" BY THE WHITE HOUSE! EXCLUSIVE TO NEWS FROM UNDERGROUND

Here is some amazing video: a very candid interview with Don Siegelman, who spoke to Julie Sigwart of Take Back the Media on Sept. 13, 2004--months before the Governor was finally put away on trumped-up charges by the Alabama GOP.

As he himself makes clear, Siegelman's ordeal began back in 2000, when he came out early on, and publicly, against the presidential bid of his fellow governor, George W. Bush, and backed Al Gore instead. It was a move that Karl Rove never did forget, and never would forgive, says Siegelman.

Rove's long drive to destroy the Alabama governor resulted in the theft of the 2002 election for Republican Bob Riley. Here Siegelman describes that theft--which took place primarily in Baldwin County--and also talks about his handling of that matter.

So far, the mainstream press coverage of Don Siegelman's ordeal has pointedly ignored the theft of the 2002 election. Clearly, Siegelman himself does not regard that theft as a side issue, but as a major crime, and one that is quite relevant to his whole story.

Today, the Alabama governor is not allowed to speak up on his own behalf. He's locked away inside a federal prison cell, and, for good measure, has been silenced by the Alabama courts. As Scott Horton has so aptly put it, Don Siegelman is the Man in the Iron Mask.

So let's do everything we can to get this interview played far and wide, so that his fellow citizens can finally hear him, and see him, talk about the criminal campaign against him.

MCM

PART ONE

Updated: Gang-Rape Cover-Up by US, Halliburton / KBR

Updated: Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton / KBR

by gooderservice

Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:23:15 PM PST

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

I'm just going to add a few blockquotes with a link to the story. She was drugged, raped multiple times, and held captive. Will the perpetrators pay? Nope. More snippets below the fold.

• gooderservice's diary :: ::
• 
  

"It felt like prison," says Jones, (snip) "I was upset; I was curled up in a ball on the bed; I just could not believe what had happened."

Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.

"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.

She was 20 years old working as a civilian in Iraq. Oh, and when she did finally get to see the Army doctors (after the congressman called the State Department, who rescued her) the Army doctors confirmed she had been raped... in more than one fashion. Evidence. But not so much, since the rape kit was turned over to KBR security officers, where it subsequently disappeared. But then again, isn't that standard protocol when a crime takes place, the doctor at the hospital executes the rape kit to collect evidence, and then turns it over to an employee of the victim's company.

A United States citizen works for the American people, gets brutally assaulted, is held captive, and Gonzo looks the other way

UPDATE:
As suggested, and the link provided, by Dissento, YOU can tell KBR how you feel.

h/t to borkitekt for suggesting I update this diary to include that link.

UPDATE 2:

h/t to gatu

From Jamie Leigh Jones' Journal

In regards to the missing pictures and doctor's notes that were taken in Baghdad Lynn Falanga and I both called the doctor that performed the rape kit. The doctor stated to both of us that "I have no idea which rape victim you are because so many young contractor girls were raped after drinking with the guys" she also stated that "I performed so many rape kits in the six months that I was stationed there that there would be no way to recall whom yours was."

So what is the date that this doctor will testify under oath at a Congressional hearing?

Jamie's Foundation

What is Peace?: Remembering John Ono Lennon"

Saturday, December 8th, 2007
'What is Peace?: Remembering John Ono Lennon' ...by Cindy Sheehan

Is peace just an absence of war?

That question begs another question: What is war?

Is war a “hot” conflict with bombs raining down on civilians? Is it covert action with undercover agents fomenting unrest and electoral rebellion? Is it crippling sanctions that target unarmed and un-protected civilians who become desperate for medicine when their child is dying of dysentery or hungry for food to fend off starvation?

Is war maintaining a large standing army and an over-bloated Ministry of War even in peacetime? Is war destroying our precarious environment for the sake of a comparative few to the detriment of the many? Is war recklessly using natural resources when there is a limited supply and many people are killed or enslaved so others can have diamond engagement rings or cheap crap at Wal-Mart?

I believe there is always an undeclared war on poor people all over the world and the establishment’s goal is to use any means violent, covert, or criminal to make the poor, poorer; the rich, richer; and to eliminate an educated, healthy, and vibrant middle class that is a threat to the fascist-elite way of life but essential for true freedom and democracy.

So then what is a meaningful definition of peace? Peace is an existential state where individuals are not only free from bombs raining down on their heads and an absence of planes flying into buildings, but where every person enjoys the basic human rights of security, prosperity, a good and free education, plentiful food, accessible healthcare, clean water and a clean planet free from catastrophic global climate change and overwhelming pollution.

John Lennon, who was so wrongly taken away from us 27 years ago today, is an icon for peace who strived and struggled for a true peace with his talent and with his resources. His songs, and refrains particularly: Power to the People, Imagine, and War is Over, and Give Peace a Chance are anthems for our modern peace movement. Imagine (on which I have written before) is a manifesto to a Utopian world where true peace is the paradigm and constant war as a foreign policy tool is abolished.

It is a tragedy in our world that we oftentimes marginalize or kill our peacemakers. I often dream of where our world would be today if people like Gandhi, John Lennon, MLK, Jr., or Bobby Kennedy (a later in life convert to peace) would not have been assassinated, or what would happen if we, their survivors, had made more meaning out of their violent, meaningless and senseless deaths. Would we be closer to state of utopia (or Nutopia) that John Lennon dreamed of?

John’s widow, Yoko Ono Lennon, has been very tireless in striving for world peace and in continuing her husband’s legacy. I know that my work for peace began when I wanted to make meaning out of my son’s senseless and violent death at the hands of the war pigs.

We cannot let their deaths be in vain!

It was in the season of peace that John Lennon was killed, when instead of a frenzy of shopping and an orgy of eating, we should all be reflecting on elevating the situation of our less fortunate brothers and sisters to bring peace to our part of the world that will have a ripple effect that spreads worldwide.

At the request of Yoko, let’s make today a day of reflecting on true peace. Take a few moments at 11:15 (your local time) and remember John and what he gave the world and what his legacy should be.

Imagine peace, then go out and make peace.

Please visit Imagine Peace sometime today for inspiring videos and downloadable artwork.

"People before Politics"
Support Cindy for Congress!
www.CindyforCongress.org

Top 10 Bushisms

From Daniel Kurtzman,
Your Guide to Political Humor.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

The Stupidest Things President George W. Bush Has Ever Said

10) "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." —LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000 (Listen to audio clip)

9) "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." —Greater Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000(Listen to audio clip)

8) "I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." —second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004 (Listen to audio clip)

7) "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000 (Listen to audio clip)

6) "You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." —to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005 (Listen to audio clip)

5) "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004 (Watch video clip; listen to audio clip)

4) "They misunderestimated me." —Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

3) "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

2) "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 (Watch video clip; listen to audio clip)

1) "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 (Watch video clip; listen to audio clip)

Read More Bushisms

US Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003 !!!

December 5th, 2007 1:23 am
U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003

By Mark Mazzetti / New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting a judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely to keep its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is intended for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

But the new report essentially disavows a judgment that the intelligence agencies issued in 2005, which concluded that Iran had an active secret arms program intended to transform the raw material into a nuclear weapon. The new estimate declares instead with “high confidence” that the military-run program was shut in 2003, and it concludes with “moderate confidence” that the program remains frozen. The report judges that the halt was imposed by Iran “primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”

It was not clear what prompted the reversal. Administration officials said the new estimate reflected conclusions that the intelligence agencies had agreed on only in the past several weeks. The report’s agnosticism about Iran’s nuclear intentions represents a very different tone than had been struck by President Bush, and by Vice President Dick Cheney, who warned in a speech in October that if Iran “stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences.”

The estimate does not say when intelligence agencies learned that the arms program had been halted, but officials said new information obtained from covert sources over the summer had led to a reassessment of the state of Iran’s nuclear program and a decision to delay preparation of the estimate, which had been scheduled to be delivered to Congress in the spring.

The new report came out just over five years after a 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq concluded that it possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program. That estimate was instrumental in winning the Congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, but it proved to be deeply flawed, and most of its conclusions turned out to be wrong.

Intelligence officials said the specter of the 2002 estimate on Iraq hung over their deliberations on Iran even more than it had in 2005, when the lessons from the intelligence failure on Iraq were just beginning to prompt spy agencies to adapt a more rigorous approach to their findings.

The 2007 report on Iran had been requested by members of Congress, underscoring that any conclusions could affect American policy toward Iran at a delicate time. The new estimate brought American assessments more in line with the judgments of international arms inspectors.

Last month, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reported that Iran was operating 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges capable of producing fissile material for nuclear weapons, but he said inspectors had been unable to determine whether the Iranian program sought only to generate electricity or to also to build weapons.

Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the Senate majority leader, portrayed the assessment as “directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran” and called for enhanced diplomatic efforts toward Tehran. Democratic presidential candidates mostly echoed Senator Reid, but also emphasized that Iran’s long-term ambitions were still a great concern to the United States.

In interviews on Monday, some administration officials expressed skepticism about the conclusions reached in the new report, saying they doubted that American intelligence agencies had a firm grasp of the Iranian government’s intentions.

The administration officials also said the intelligence findings would not lessen the White House’s concern about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The fact that Iran continues to refine its abilities to enrich uranium, they said, means that any decision in the future to restart a nuclear weapons program could lead Iran to a bomb in relatively short order. While the new report does not contrast sharply with earlier assessments about Iran’s capabilities, it does make new judgments about the intentions of its government.

Rather than portraying Iran as a rogue, irrational country determined to join the club of nations that possess a nuclear bomb, the estimate says Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”

The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran this year when Mr. Bush suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III.” Mr. Cheney also said that month that as Iran continued to enrich uranium, “the end of that process will be the development of nuclear weapons.”

Yet even as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were making those statements, analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency were well under way toward revising the earlier assessment about Iran’s nuclear arms program. Administration officials said the White House had known at the time that the conclusions about Iran were under review but had not been informed until more recently that intelligence agencies had reversed their 2005 conclusion.

In September, officials said, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, and his deputy, Stephen R. Kappes, met with Iran analysts to take a hard look at past conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program in light of new information obtained since 2005.

“We felt that we needed to scrub all the assessments and sources to make sure we weren’t misleading ourselves,” said one senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The estimate concludes that if Iran were to restart its arms program, it would still be at least two years before it would have enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. But it says it is still “very unlikely” Iran could produce enough of the material by then.

Instead, the report released on Monday concludes that it is more likely that Iran could have a bomb by the early part to the middle of the next decade. The report states that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve this goal before 2013, “because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.”

The estimate concludes that it would be difficult to persuade Iran’s leaders to abandon all efforts to get nuclear weapons, given the importance of getting the bomb to Iran’s strategic goals in the Middle East.

Intelligence officials presented the outlines of the intelligence estimate two weeks ago to several cabinet members, along with Mr. Cheney. During the meeting, officials said, policy makers challenged and debated the conclusions. The final draft of the estimate was presented to Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney last Wednesday.

Officials said they now planned to give extensive briefings to American allies like Israel, Britain and France. Israel intelligence officials for years have put forward more urgent warnings about Iran’s nuclear abilities than their American counterparts, positing that Iran could get a nuclear bomb this decade.

Intelligence officials had said just weeks ago they were ending the practice of declassifying parts of intelligence estimates, citing concerns that analysts might alter their judgments if they knew the reports would be widely publicized.

But in a statement on Monday, Donald M. Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, said that since the new estimate was at odds with the 2005 assessment — and thus at odds with public statements by top officials about Iran — “we felt it was important to release this information to ensure that an accurate presentation is available.”