Wearing Out the Troops, Bush Administration Style

This is sickening to have to find out on the Thursday afternoon before a long holiday weekend--thanks for the News Dump, there, Pentagon Office of Public Affairs or whatever. These guys are NOT intended for long deployments and this is an ABUSE of the US Marine Corps.

The Pentagon has extended the tour of 2,200 Marines in Afghanistan, after insisting for months the unit would come home on time.

Marine Col. David Lapan confirmed Thursday that the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is doing combat operations in the volatile south, will stay an extra 30 days and come home in early November rather than October.

Military leaders as recently as Wednesday stressed the need for additional troops in Afghanistan. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has repeatedly praised the work of the 24th MEU in fighting Taliban militants in Helmand Province.

So, all of this talk about war with Iran--is it a pipe dream? Because there are no troops left. The cupboard is bare and we've exhausted our military.

When Bush leaves office, there won't be a single US combat division--Army, Marines, or Reserve/National Guard component--available for combat at 100% strength. That's the worst shape our military has been in since the start of the Korean War. Even during and after Vietnam, we had divisions sitting in Germany that were ready to fight. And in all of their infinite wisdom, they knew this was going to happen and they're deliberately leaving the next President without ANY military forces available to him. NONE.

It's a disgrace unparalleled in our history. A disgrace.

--WS

Attention war architects: If every last one of you was surrounded by idiots...it follows that every last one of you is an idiot

As the Bush administration limps toward the finish, those who enabled the criminal enterprise as it made illegal, immoral and unjust war are scrambling to deflect blame for the clusterfuck in Iraq to anyone but themselves.

We just got done mocking Doug "Stupidest Fucking Guy on the Planet" Feith and now Paul Bremer is weighing in with his two cents worth of revisionist history.

In my view, one of the more unfortunate aspects of having lawyers involved in the project was they determined that under international law, we became an occupying force and that was confirmed by the UN security council resolution.

I used to say to the Iraqis it is also not very fun being an occupier, especially for an American; I always thought it was an unfortunate term.

There was nothing I could do to change the noun, occupation. When Iraqis raised their concerns with me all I could do is sympathise and say "I understand you’re problem but there it is, it’s the international law."

The political ramifications and psychological ramifications I think were in many ways more important because of the implication to the Iraqi’s that we were an occupying and not a liberating force.

For many Iraqis they were delighted we had thrown out Saddam Hussein and his cronies. But they wake up the next day and hear that we’re occupying them and look out the door of their house and see Americans in tanks… I think it had an important, negative political ramification.

I think it was the case that as we were unable to provide security for Iraqi citizens, that’s when the coalition became less and less popular.

We could see in the opinion polls we did starting in September of 2003; there was a steady decline in the Iraqi view of the occupation as their concerns about security rose - you could see a direct relationship.

So it's the lawyers fault that you idiots didn't think through the ramifications of what you were about to do?

But my favorite bit is how he has completely rewritten the part about his decision to disband the Iraqi military. He now says the entire army deserted. Understandable, you see, because they were mostly poorly treated Shia draftees...

But three years ago, he was fiercely defending his decision to disband the Iraqi army, insisting it was the most important step he took in his entire tenure as Viceroy of Iraq in the wake of the invasion.

Read the whole thing - just put on hip-waders first, because it gets pretty damned deep.

This Hand Doesn't Know What The Other Is Doing

h/t to reader and commenter "vstol" for catching this...

Do any of these people know what the hell they're talking about?

First, we heard this:

A top Iraqi official said Sunday there was no "conclusive" evidence that Shiite extremists have been directly supplied with some Iranian arms as alleged by the United States.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraq does not want trouble with any country, "especially Iran."

Al-Dabbagh was commenting on talks this week in Tehran between an Iraqi delegation and Iranian authorities aimed at halting suspected Iranian aid to some Shiite militias.

Then, we heard this:

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh called reporters late Sunday night to clarify remarks he made at a news conference earlier in the day, when he appeared to say that there was no hard evidence that Iran was allowing weapons to come into Iraq. Dabbagh said his comments had been misinterpreted.

"There is an interference and evidence that they have interfered in Iraqi affairs," Dabbagh said in an interview arranged by a U.S. official. When asked how he would characterize the proof that Iranian weapons are flowing into Iraq, he said: "It is a concrete evidence."

The U.S. government has long accused Iran of providing the powerful roadside bombs known as explosively formed penetrators to Shiite militiamen who attack American troops. Iran has denied any such role. [these are the copper bowl-shaped devices, which are crude and can be made literally anywhere and not just in Iran]

Dabbagh said that after Maliki launched an offensive last month in the southern city of Basra, weapons were found that were clearly produced in Iran.

"The truth came out; there is evidence of Iranian weapons in Iraq," he said. "Now we need to document who sent them."

Dabbagh said the high-level committee was formed three days ago and includes officials from the Interior and Defense Ministries.

So which is it then? No concrete proof or so much proof as to provoke all-out war between Iraq and Iran? Why does he use the metaphor of "concrete" when everyone knows that cheap concrete poured in Baghdad is likely to be surrounded by backed up sewage pipes, electric outlets that aren't properly grounded, and shattered windows from the latest car bomb?

A hopeful person might wish that the Iraqis are merely inept and not deliberate when they pull things like this. I'm not hopeful when it comes to the Iraqi government--clearly, there is an iron fist that shakes spokesmen and deputies and ministers until they say what someone wants to hear. You cannot accept what is being said anymore. There are no dissident voices. It's like watching a bad cartoon.

How much of that is being driven by the US is anyone's guess.

Another Reason To Leave Iraq

When you think about it, shouldn't we just pick one side and get it over with? I mean, if we're going to be in Iraq, why not reject the side where all of the untrained, ill-equipped troops are and take up with the heavily armed, motivated and disciplined troops? Sure, they hate us. No, I don't think this is a serious option. But I'm just a little sick and tired of having to prop up a failed Army full of corrupt Iraqi officers who don't take care of their men.

BAGHDAD — A company of Iraqi soldiers abandoned their positions on Tuesday night in Sadr City, defying American soldiers who implored them to hold the line against Shiite militias.

The retreat left a crucial stretch of road on the front lines undefended for hours and led to a tense series of exchanges between American soldiers and about 50 Iraqi troops who were fleeing.

Capt. Logan Veath, a company commander in the 25th Infantry Division, pleaded with the Iraqi major who was leading his troops away from the Sadr City fight, urging him to return to the front.

“If you turn around and go back up the street those soldiers will follow you,” Captain Veath said. “If you tuck tail and cowardly run away they will follow up that way, too.”

Captain Veath’s pleas failed, and senior American and Iraqi commanders mounted an urgent effort to regain the lost ground. An elite Iraqi unit was rushed in and with the support of the Americans began to fight its way north.

This episode was a blow to the American effort to push the Iraqis into the lead in the struggle to wrest control of parts of Sadr City from the Mahdi Army militia and what Americans and Iraqis say are Iranian-backed groups.

Yes--those are American troops having to contend with failed Iraqi leadership and failed attempts at building an Iraqi Army and Security Forces apparatus that will stand and fight. Those are American troops put in danger of being attacked or flanked or ambushed because Iraqi troops wouldn't man-up and fight. This is yet another example as to why you can't force people to build their own country. They have to want it for themselves. You cannot hand it to them. Nation building is a failed, broken, discredited idea as it applies to people who don't want the nation built in the first place.

And we're supposed to like having these clowns on our side?

This is what happens when lackeys staff your administration

In the months before the invasion of Iraq was launched, a congressional fact-finding junket comprised of three Democratic congressmen and members of their respective staffs. The trip was organized by an American citizen who was also a covert Iraqi intelligence agent, and who accompanied the delegation. On Wednesday, the Justice Department unsealed an indictment against Muthanna al-Hanooti , charging him with one count of conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein, one count of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers act, and three counts of making false statements.

The Michigan resident began working for the Iraqi intelligence service without registering with the Justice Department and was paid for his services with 2 million barrels of oil, the indictment said.

The trip was organized by a Michigan charity, Life for Relief and Development, that looked legitimate but in fact was connected to the Iraq government, according to the indictment.

The October 2002 trip included three members of Congress, the indictment said. Between 1999 and 2002, the Michigan man had been providing the Iraqi intelligence service with strategic advice on getting Congress to lift sanctions against Iraq, the indictment added.

The members of Congress were innocent and unwitting victims of the scheme, according to officials familiar with the case.

"None of the congressional representatives are accused of any wrongdoing, and we have no information whatsoever that any of them were aware of the involvement of the Iraqi Intelligence Service,” Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said.

The government did not name the lawmakers. But The Associated Press said the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington and Mike Thompson of California and then-Rep. David Bonior of Michigan.

I am sure that if I went to the right side of the blogosphere, I could find all manner of crowing and squawking about the congressmen who were on that trip. Some slavering simpleton has no doubt pounded out a treatise on why questioning the patriotism of Democrats is now okay; nay, it is it is demanded of all true and noble upright citizens!

Never mind that the fault for this lies squarely at the feet of the State Department, who vetted the trip. Let me put it this way - at one point, during the vetting process for a security clearance, the FBI found and interviewed my freakin' prom dates mother during the vetting process for a security clearance. I would expect them to do a better job vetting the trip and it's organizers, especially in that political climate.

When the Detroit News called David Swanson for comment on the indictment, he basically shrugged and said "so?"

Of course, at that time, Hussein was screaming the truth to the world: "I have no WMDs," and an important corner of the world was refusing to listen. Instead, the White House was telling us that Saddam Hussein might blow us all up at any moment, that a "war" with him would take no more than a few weeks and cost no more than $50 billion, and that Iraqi oil would pay for that war. So, if a few congress members unwittingly got Iraq to pay for a trip aimed at saving millions of lives, that's more than Bush has accomplished wittingly or otherwise. He invaded, slaughtered, and is sticking our descendants with a bill for trillions of dollars (including another $102 billion from Congress next month unless we help Congress find a spine).

Well, that works too.

It certainly doesn't reflect poorly on the congressmen. But the lackeys and ideologues who have destroyed every federal agency from a to z? They don't get the same pass.

Now this inspires confidence!

In January, a man was arrested outside the Capitol carrying a loaded shotgun and a sword.

On Tuesday, authorities revealed that the vehicle he arrived at the scene in was carrying explosives, and he planned to set off a bomb.

Here's the kicker - the explosives weren't discovered for three weeks.

According to an indictment filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, Michael Gorbey, 38, of Rapidan, Va., faces charges of planning to set off a bomb. He also is accused of making or transporting an explosive device with the intent of using it against people or property and multiple firearms charges.

Gorbey allegedly tried to manufacture a "weapon of mass destruction, that is, an explosive device capable of causing multiple deaths or serious bodily injuries to multiple persons, or massive destruction of property," according to the indictment.

He was arrested Jan. 18 for carrying the shotgun and a sword outside the Capitol. Gorbey told police he was headed to an appointment at the Supreme Court. No one was injured in the incident, which caused gridlock for hours on Capitol Hill.

U.S. Capitol Police discovered the explosive device three weeks later when they returned with a search warrant to check the truck, which was in a government parking lot.

Terrance Gainer, the Senate sergeant-at-arms, told The Washington Post the device in Gorbey's truck, which was parked about two blocks from the Capitol, "could have caused serious injuries," if detonated.

I swear to a god I don't believe in...if the incompetence doesn't kill us, it will be the only thing that saves us. Fortunately, these idiots couldn't organize a two pony parade. If they could, we would be in a lot worse shape than we are now.

Is our government learning anything?

I hate to bump Blue Girl down the page--the post she has that follows this one is excellent. You MUST read it and feel good about our chances this Fall.

But I have to break in with this tidbit:

A laptop computer with patient information on more than 2-thousand people was taken from a lab official at the National Institutes of Health.

It happened in February.

But the news is just now coming out, according to The Washington Post.

The laptop was swiped at a swim meet in Montgomery County.

NIH officials did not notify the media--or the patients involved--because of fears it would provoke undue alarm, the Post reported.

The information was not encrypted as is standing policy.

Goddamn it, what's it going to take? What's it going to take to get the people who control this administration to stop lying, stop blocking bad news, stop endangering the American people with their incompetence--and to start clearing out the fucking dead wood employees who can't use basic judgement?

And, hello, government employee who no doubt makes an excellent living that most Americans living throughout this country cannot imagine right now because their own standard of living is being driven into the toilet by stagnant wages, high prices and mortgage scams? Can you listen up for a sec? You took your government-issued NIH laptop to a fucking swim meet? You didn't just lock it in your fucking office or your fucking car like everyone else? You didn't spend twenty bucks and get a safety lock cable? And it had a lot of sensitive information about American citizens on it? And you didn't encrypt it, didn't detach the data by storing it on an encrypted and locked removeable drive, didn't fucking LOCK IT or safeguard it? You lost it a fucking swim meet? You just had to sit there and noodle around with it and look at stupid shit, didn't you? Well, aren't you too cool for school. Thanks for your service. What's it like to go through life like that dumbass, I wonder? No, I don't. I don't wonder. I just drop to one knee and shake my head, numb from embarrassment for what this country is turning into.

Pardon my francais, but what's it going to take? Seriously.

What Do You Have To Do To Get Fired Around Here?

There are days when nothing bothers me. There are days when a few things bother me, but I calm down and deal with it, usually by losing my ever-loving mind for a few minutes.

TODAY is a day where everything bugs me.

In a world where we are told that if we don't fix things like the FISA program--a program that was never broken in the first place--we might get "hit" again by the terrorists, you see THIS story:

WASHINGTON - Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.

A Justice Department audit released Thursday blamed the lost connections on the FBI's lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program also allowed one agent to steal $25,000, the audit said.

In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation "was halted due to untimely payment," the audit found. FISA wiretaps are used in the government's most sensitive and secretive criminal investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies.em>

Are you pissed off yet? Because here's the kicker:

"We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence," according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

That's right--we "so desperately need" to take away privacy rights in this country, we're willing to do whatever the government tells us. Don't worry, they say. Everything's fine. So long as you let us do whatever we want, the terrorists won't hit us. And after we've given up those rights, we're told we need to give immunity to the companies who were helping when they weren't supposed to be helping.

NOW we find out they weren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. In fact, they were quick to pull the plug when the money wasn't paid to them in a timely fashion. And the people responsible for doing this? Incompetent.

The result? Lost evidence.

Why does FBI Director Mueller still have a job? Can someone answer a question for me--what do you have to do to get fired from your goddamned job these days?

Blogging at work is not the answer.

Some Radio Dudes Are About to Lose Their Gig

Whoops...

Hillary, however, heard the chant, “Iron my shirt!” from two young twenty-something males who heckled her from at a New Hampshire college today.

Is your BS detector going off yet? It should. These kids who allegedly yelled this taunt are half my age, but are displaying the sexist sensibilities of Archie Bunker, who by the way, would be so old that I doubt that either of them even know who Archie Bunker was.

[SNIP]

Thanks to an alert Boston area reader, it looks like we know who our culprits are. They aren’t troglodyte misogynists. Nor are they Clinton plants. Worse . . . they’re radio shock jocks.

I guess we all gut sucked in to believing the worst that we suspect about others. Feminists assumed that these were legitimate chauvinists, and I presumed a Clinton plant.



The person in the picture above [far left] is apparently “Adolfo” from the “Toucher and Rich” show on Boston station WBCN.

--------
Talk about being "Opie and Anthony" stupid.

The dudes in that picture? Coming soon to a small market somewheres near where ya'll are in rural wherever down along Interstate 20. Say goodbye to Boston, fellows, because Boston is home to some of the most "anti-prank" people imaginable. I highly doubt whether the station owner is going to tolerate having to explain to the US Secret Service why two of his erstwhile employees showed up on thousands of media outlets around the world because someone on a radio show had a brain fart. I also suspect that if you're too goddamned stupid to figure out that Senator Hillary Clinton is protected by aforementioned US Secret Service, and in the middle of a serious, serious campaign for the Presidency, that there won't be a little, ummm, "Pushback" for the distraction this little stunt has caused.

Just a hint to those of you in the broadcasting field--if it sounds like a great idea, the kind that would excite your listeners and piss off the suits who just don't "get" what you're all about, you better back away slowly and make sure none of your interns actually go out and do what you told them to do.

If this is true...

If this is true, it's earth-shattering.

Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator, turned whistleblower. Fluent in Turkish and Farsi, she was recruited by the FBI in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11. In her capacity as a translator, she listened to thousands of hours of intercepted conversations. her employment with the agency lasted a mere six months - she was terminated after alleging that a colleague was acting to cover up illicit activity engaged in by Turkish nationals.

She has always insisted that she was fired for being outspoken and was vindicated by an Office of the Inspector General review of her case three years later. The IG investigation verified her claim, finding that one of the contributory reasons for her termination was that she had made valid complaints.

She claims that at least one well-known and high ranking State Department official has helped foreign governments obtain nuclear secrets. She charges that the official helped foreign governments place moles, mostly doctoral candidates in science, technology and engineering, into sensitive positions, including at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is responsible for the security of the US nuclear stockpile. She charges that some of the moles received high-level security clearances with the help of the still-unnamed State Department official. She also makes the claim that a number of senior officials in the Pentagon had helped Israeli and Turkish agents.

She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents.

“If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials,” she said.

Her story shows just how much the West was infiltrated by foreign states seeking nuclear secrets. It illustrates how western government officials turned a blind eye to, or were even helping, countries such as Pakistan acquire bomb technology.

The wider nuclear network has been monitored for many years by a joint Anglo-American intelligence effort. But rather than shut it down, investigations by law enforcement bodies such as the FBI and Britain’s Revenue & Customs have been aborted to preserve diplomatic relations.

Edmonds has given testimony to closed sessions of congress, as well as the 9/11 Commission. Most of her testimony remains classified.

Frustrated by the lack of movement by authorities in the United States, she is trurning to the foreign press in an effort to draw some attention to the subject. “What I found was damning,” she said on record to the Times of London. “While the FBI was investigating, several arms of the government were shielding what was going on.”

In one conversation Edmonds heard the official arranging to pick up a $15,000 cash bribe. The package was to be dropped off at an agreed location by someone in the Turkish diplomatic community who was working for the network.

The Turks, she says, often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they were less likely to attract suspicion. Venues such as the American Turkish Council in Washington were used to drop off the cash, which was picked up by the official.

Edmonds said: “I heard at least three transactions like this over a period of 2½ years. There are almost certainly more.”

The Pakistani operation was led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, then the ISI chief.

Intercepted communications showed Ahmad and his colleagues stationed in Washington were in constant contact with attachés in the Turkish embassy.

Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks.

The results of the espionage were almost certainly passed to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist.

A.Q. Khan, who ran Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, became a wealthy man selling secrets to rogue states, such as Iran, North Korea and Libya. He also utilized a network of companies in Britaiin and the United States to acquire components and materiel.

Khan caused a whole lot of tresses to spontaneously combust when western intelligence agencies learned about meetings between aides to Khan and Osama bin Laden. “We were aware of contact between A Q Khan’s people and Al-Qaeda,” a former CIA officer said last week.

I have no special knowledge of Ms. Edmonds, nor her credibility, save what a 15 minute Google search reveals. What doesn't pop up if you Google "sibel edmonds" and "credibility" are a bunch of attacks against her character and her credibility. Instead you get Daniel Ellsberg and a hell of a lot of support.

And then there is all the independent corroboration. The IG finding in her favor. The CIA and FBI agents who peripherally supporting her claims.

What I do think is that there is enough "there" there to warrant a call to the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations committees Monday morning. She has made what appear to be credible charges. Charges which demand answers.

[The Times of London states that in researching the article, representatives of the Sunday Times talked to one current and one former FBI agents, as well as two retired CIA officers who worked on nuclear proliferation issues. While none of these sources were aware of specific allegations against the officials she named, they did provide peripheral corroboration of her claims. One of the CIA agents verified that Turkey had obtained American nuclear secrests, then shared that information with Israel and Pakistan. “We have no indication that Turkey has its own nuclear ambitions. But the Turks are traders. To my knowledge they became big players in the late 1990s,” the source said.]

OOOPS!

Something about his story didn't make sense...

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice is investigating whether a former intelligence officer illegally disclosed classified information in interviews he gave on how the CIA interrogated a suspected senior al Qaida member.

In interviews with ABC News and The Washington Post earlier this month, former CIA officer John Kiriakou gave detailed descriptions of how a detainee known as Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded. The procedure produces the sensation of drowning and is widely considered a form of torture, which is illegal under U.S. and international laws.

The interviews were the first public confirmation that Zubaydah, a Palestinian who allegedly helped finance the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, had been subjected to the technique while in secret CIA custody. The CIA surrendered Zubaydah to the U.S. military in September 2006, and he's now being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The department opened the criminal probe of Kiriakou after receiving a "criminal referral" from the CIA, according to officials familiar with the process. The officials requested anonymity because criminal referrals aren't made public.

The investigation comes as the White House and the CIA face congressional investigations and court battles over a 2005 decision to destroy videotapes of Zubaydah's interrogation and that of another al Qaida member while they were being held secretly by the CIA.

A federal judge scheduled a hearing in Washington on Friday on whether the destruction of the videotapes violated his order to the government to preserve evidence in a lawsuit brought by 16 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

* * *

Come on, we already know they've figured out that the only road out of town is paved with destroyed evidence. Does anyone really think that the Republicans in charge of this administration haven't been furiously destroying evidence since the second inaugural? They've long known that this was going to be the Republican Party's last shot at Executive Power for a generation. They've been reading the demographic tea leaves long enough to know that we may well see twenty uninterrupted years of Democratic control of at least the Congress and the Executive. No one is interested in defending this country. They're more concerned with successfully fleecing and raping the country and leaving no evidence behind.

Continuing with the article, this made me laugh:

* * *

CIA Director Michael Hayden has taken a hard line against leaks because he believes national security has been damaged by disclosures of the administration's domestic eavesdropping program and the identity of an undercover CIA officer married to a White House critic.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official, who asked not to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity, said that current CIA officers have "expressed mixed feelings" about Kiriakou's interviews.

They welcomed his defense of their effort to save American lives, "but they are faced with the problem of a guy going out there and talking about stuff that he is not authorized to speak about. You can't send a signal to everybody to go out there and say what you know," he said.

* * *

I honestly don't think Hayden cares about the Plame case. I think they view that incident as their civilian overlords doing whatever was necessary to preserve their lie to start a war. The reason they're going after Kiriakou is that they had everything all sorted out--all of the evidence was neatly destroyed and everything was lined up all dress right dress--and he screwed the pooch for them by opening his mouth.

* * *

The other shoe that drops today is this:

WASHINGTON - A House of Representatives committee issued a subpoena Thursday for Jose Rodriguez, a former CIA official who directed that secret interrogation videotapes be destroyed.

The House intelligence committee ordered Rodriguez, former head of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, to appear Jan. 16 for a hearing. The Democratic committee chairman, Silvestre Reyes, said Rodriguez "would like to tell his story, but his counsel has advised us that a subpoena would be necessary."

Now, why would he be in the process of lawyering up?

Has anyone screamed Executive Privilege yet?

Aside from Peter Hoekstra pretending to care, where is the outrage? Where is the outrage from the Republican Party on this issue? Oh, wait. They won't start caring about this stuff until after Bush and Cheney roll out of town.

So Much For Goodwill Towards All...

The Story of Erla Ósk Arnardóttir Lilliendahl, an Icelandic Woman who figured she could come to this country for a visit during the holiday season and enjoy the best of what America has to offer:

* * *

During the last twenty-four hours I have probably experienced the greatest humiliation to which I have ever been subjected. During these last twenty-four hours I have been handcuffed and chained, denied the chance to sleep, been without food and drink and been confined to a place without anyone knowing my whereabouts, imprisoned. Now I am beginning to try to understand all this, rest and review the events which began as innocently as possible.

Last Sunday I and a few other girls began our trip to New York. We were going to shop and enjoy the Christmas spirit. We made ourselves comfortable on first class, drank white wine and looked forward to go shopping, eat good food and enjoy life. When we landed at JFK airport the traditional clearance process began.

We were screened and went on to passport control. As I waited for them to finish examining my passport I heard an official say that there was something which needed to be looked at more closely and I was directed to the work station of Homeland Security. There I was told that according to their records I had overstayed my visa by 3 weeks in 1995. For this reason I would not be admitted to the country and would be sent home on the next flight. I looked at the official in disbelief and told him that I had in fact visited New York after the trip in 1995 without encountering any difficulties. A detailed interrogation session ensued.

[...]

I was exhausted, tired and hungry. I didn't understand the officials' conduct, for they were treating me like a very dangerous criminal. Soon thereafter I was removed from the cubicle and two armed guards placed me up against a wall. A chain was fastened around my waist and I was handcuffed to the chain. Then my legs were placed in chains. I asked for permission to make a telephone call but they refused. So secured, I was taken from the airport terminal in full sight of everybody. I have seldom felt so bad, so humiliated and all because I had taken a longer vacation than allowed under the law.

They would not tell me where they were taking me. The trip took close to one hour and although I couldn't see clearly outside the vehicle I knew that we had crossed over into New Jersey. We ended up in front of a jail. I could hardly believe that this was happening. Was I really about to be jailed? I was led inside in the chains and there yet another interrogation session ensued. I was fingerprinted once again and photographed. I was made to undergo a medical examination, I was searched and then I was placed in a jail cell. I was asked absurd questions such as: When did you have your last period? What do you believe in? Have you ever tried to commit suicide?

I was completely exhausted, tired and cold. Fourteen hours after I had landed I had something to eat and drink for the first time. I was given porridge and bread. But it did not help much. I was afraid and the attitude of all who handled me was abysmal to say the least. They did not speak to me as much as snap at me. Once again I asked to make a telephone call and this time the answer was positive. I was relieved but the relief was short-lived. For the telephone was setup for collect calls only and it was not possible to make overseas calls. The jailguard held my cell phone in his hand. I explained to him that I could not make a call from the jail telephone and asked to be allowed to make one call from my own phone. That was out of the question. I spent the next 9 hours in a small, dirty cell. The only thing in there was a narrow steel board which extended out from the wall, a sink and toilet. I wish I never experience again in my life the feeling of confinement and helplessness which I experienced there.

I was hugely relieved when, at last, I was told that I was to be taken to the airport, that is to say until I was again handcuffed and chained.Then I could take no more and broke down and cried. I begged them at least to leave out the leg chains but my request was ignored. When we arrived at the airport, another jail guard took pity on me and removed the leg chains. Even so I was led through a full airport terminal handcuffed and escorted by armed men. I felt terrible. On seeing this, people must think that there goes a very dangerous criminal...

* * *

This is a person--and no, it doesn't matter what color she is or how much she weighs or whether she's young or old--who came to this country, presented their passport at the airport, and was caught in the so-called "Homeland Security" dragnet that is supposed to stop people from coming to this country who should not be coming to this country. Her crime was that she committed a minor offense twelve years ago that amounted to what, exactly? She overstayed her visa, but left the country. Did she commit any felonies here? More importantly, did she shoot and kill anyone with a firearm? Use explosives? Take partial flight lessons? Try to attend a Republican political rally wearing an Obama t-shirt?

It doesn't matter what she looks like--and I post her picture here for a reason. If YOU don't look as good as she does, just wait til you see what they do to you when they think YOU'RE a threat. And that's what is so startling about putting a face with the crime. If you hear that some Eurotrash was accosted at the airport and chucked out of the country, you can tut-tut and go about your business. But when you see what that person looks like and read what was done to them, it's a whole different ball of wax. And nothing strikes me as sensationalized about this, which is why I tend to buy what she is saying. Nothing about it strikes me as being out of line for spending time in a big city lockup or jail, does it?

Anyway, I think the American people need to read about this type of story this Christmas. YOUR government is waging an all out battle of ridiculous proportions with tens of thousands of incompetent, misguided bureaucrats to keep people with Irish surnames from getting through airports, making sure no one takes the wrong kind of fluid on a plane, and jailing people for nothing.

There is, and there was in this case, NOTHING that would have prevented this government from seizing that person and putting that person in Guantanamo. Nothing. No Habeus Corpus, no right to a lawyer, nothing in the way of accountability. They could have rammed things into this person and taken lurid videos of it and no one would have ever found out about it.

As the political season ramps up, I try to be optimistic. Then I read stories like this and all I'm trying to do now is check my E-mail once in a while and just avoid the news. I mean, what the fuck?

What the fuck is this country coming to?

Victor Davis Hanson - Lancing the Boil

VDH wrote a column called "Lancing the Boil" in 2005. It's important to note that there's nothing wrong with making predictions and for someone to go around taking what a pundit says and having a laugh at their expense because they turned out to be wrong is kind of a childish exercise.

EXCEPT when that pundit is just, well, completely and utterly wrong and should have his pundit privileges taken away from him for being so goddamned ridiculous in public. Just when you think VDH has done enough damage at NRO, you can always find Derbyshire. A little Derbyshire goes a long way, though. And I definitely do not have the requisite fourteen hours per day to parse the insanity of a John Derbyshire and expose it to the light of reason.

I won't do the whole thing--no one has that kind of free time--but here's a few classic examples from "Lancing the Boil" that are good for a laugh. Click the link and go find others if you are so inclined. That's what comments are for.

VDH:

--For some time, a large number of Americans have lived in an alternate universe where everything is supposedly going to hell. If you get up in the morning to read the New York Times or Washington Post, watch John Murtha or Howard Dean on the morning talk shows, listen to National Public Radio at noon, and go to bed reading Newsweek it surely seems that the administration is incommunicado (cf. “the bubble”), the war is lost (“unwinnable”), the Great Depression is back (“jobless recovery”), and America about as popular as Nazi Germany abroad (“alone and isolated”).

Now, VDH probably couldn't have forseen the collapse of the ownership society, the devaluation of the dollar, and the beginning of a long march towards seeing entire neighborhoods abandoned because the homes are built on debt and lies, but he should have forseen that if we continued with our policies in Iraq, we would see a decline in our stature. He knew in 2005 that we were torturing people, and when you go down that path, you lose your soul.

--But in the real adult world, the economy is red-hot, not mired in joblessness or relegating millions to poverty. Unemployment is low, so are interest rates. Growth is high, as is consumer spending and confidence. Our Katrina was hardly as lethal as the Tsunami or Pakistani earthquake. Thousands of Arabs are not rioting in Dearborn. American elderly don’t roast and die in the thousands in their apartments as was true in France. Nor do American cities, like some in China, lose their entire water supply to a toxic spill. Americans did not just vote to reject their own Constitution as in some European countries.

Notice how he looked at Katrina in 2005 and predicted that, because several hundred thousand people weren't killed, it wouldn't be considered a real "disaster." Well, the incompetence that was apparent in 2005 has reared its ugly head, and he should have forseen that it is still an issue. It's just not an issue anyone talks about in the media. American cities may not be losing their water to chemical spills, but Atlanta might lose its drinking water because the governor would rather pray for rain than actually change public policy (you know, raise taxes to fix the crumbling infrastructure? heard of doing that?). And interest rates are low because the Fed has enacted a policy of rewarding bad behavior. They simply can't go much lower. You can't have interest rates at zero.

--The military isn’t broken. Unlike after Vietnam when the Russians, Iranians, Cambodians, and Nicaraguans all soon tried to press their luck at our expense, most of our adversaries don’t believe the U.S. military is losing in Iraq, much less that it is wise now to take it on. Instead, the general impression is that our veteran and battle-hardened forces are even more lethal than was true of the 1990s — and engaging successfully in an almost impossible war.

Our veteran and battle-hardened forces are desperate for any kind of relief, and the most pressing relief they need is support from a medical support infrastructure that isn't meeting their basic needs. Their suicide rates are skyrocketing and are being hidden from view, covered up, and barely reported upon. When an Army wins a war, the injured and sick need to be taken care of just the same as when they lose or when they're caught in a perpetual meat grinder. Generally, homelessness, poverty, mental illness and suicides don't go through the roof when someone is winning and doing a good job of running things. Every time someone tries to get them relief--more funding, equal time at home for time deployed, etc., the Republican Party fucks over the Democratic Party in order to win a trivial political point.

On a side note, VDH says that the military isn't broken. Well, certain people know that it is, and they're taking advantage of it to line their pockets.

One egregious example, Borochoff said, is Help Hospitalized Veterans, which was founded in 1971 by Roger Chapin, a veteran of the Army Finance Corps and a San Diego real estate developer. The charity, which provides therapeutic arts and crafts kits to hospitalized veterans, reported income of $71.3 million last year and spent about one-third of that money on charitable work, the philanthropy institute said.

In its tax filings, Help Hospitalized Veterans reported paying more than $4 million to direct-mail fundraising consultants. The group also has run television advertisements featuring actor Sam Waterston, game show host Pat Sajak and other celebrities.

Chapin, 75, the charity's president, received $426,434 in salary and benefits in the past fiscal year, according to a filing with the Internal Revenue Service. His wife, Elizabeth, 73, received $113,623 in salary and benefits as "newsletter editor," the Post's review of the tax filing showed.

Generally, scams that prey on the generosity of the American people come and go with the times. It's scary how many are able to use the lies surrounding the Iraq war to make a nice profit. And it looks like they've turned over a barrel full of rats by looking at the charities that are taking advantage of the Iraq war. So many of them get "F's" that there isn't time to look at all of them.

Anyway, back to VDH:

--Nor are we creating new hordes of terrorists in Iraq — as if a young male Middle Eastern fundamentalist first hates the United States only on news that it is in Iraq crafting a new Marshall Plan of $87 billion and offering a long-oppressed people democracy after taking out Saddam Hussein. Even al Jazeera cannot turn truth into untruth forever.

Stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The war in Iraq has created scads of new terrorists and that "Marshall Plan" you're talking about has been pissed away by the most corrupt government in the world. Iraq's ministries are more corrupt than anything we've ever seen before. They're setting new standards for blatant thievery and corruption.

--Like it or not, wars are usually won or lost when one side feels its losses are too high to continue. We have suffered terribly in losing 2,100 dead in Iraq; a vastly smaller enemy in contrast may have experienced tens of thousands of terrorists killed, and is finding its safe havens and money drying up. Panic about Iraq abounds in both the American media and the periodic fatwas of Dr. Zawahiri — but not in the U. S. government or armed forces.

VDH didn't know anything about asymmetrical warfare in 2005, and it shows. It doesn't matter what the body count is. It never matters how many of them you kill versus how many of yours gets killed. It's a discussion about political solutions versus military solutions, and we're over four years down the road, and trying to save the egg by hitting it as hard as we can with the hammer, and it's not working any better today than it was in 2005.

I'll skip the rest--it's just boilerplate anyway--for this kicker:

--Donald Rumsfeld’s supposed gaffe of evoking “Old Europe” is trumped tenfold and almost daily by slurs that depict Abu Ghraib as worse than Saddam, Guantanamo as the work of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, Bush as the world’s greatest terrorist, the effort to democratize Iraq as unwinnable, and American troops terrorizing Iraqi women and children.

"Old Europe" sure looks a hell of a lot smarter than we do. Are they bogged down in the war? Of course not. The British and the Poles are abandoning the Iraqi theater as quickly as they can. Those aren't "slurs" that are being used to describe what is actually going on in Iraq. Unfortunately, those are the proceedings from various courts martial, and they become all too familiar each day. As in, more unnecessary bombings from the air, more unnecessary shootings from skittish guards who are forced to drive politicians and VIPS everywhere for dog and pony shows.

Waterboarding Did NOT Save Anyone's Life

The only way to approach this is to expose the lie they're using to hide the fact that all of them are complicit in something that should drive them out of public life forever. When you had the chance to speak up, you didn't do it. When you had the chance to step up, you hid in the shadows. There's only one piece of advice I can give you--GET OUT OF THE WAY of people who CAN lead. Russ Feingold and James Webb can do the job better than you can. And Speaker of the House Waxman and Majority Leader Conyers has a nice ring to it.

Juan Cole told us all about this in September. He spelled it out for us. But the trail goes back all the way to 2002 and has some interesting twists and turns. Bear with me, and if you click the links, I'm sure you'll find some good stuff.

To expose the lie, look at this headline on MSNBC.COM:

Waterboarding ‘probably saved lives’
Ex-CIA officer says technique worked, but he now considers it torture

BULLSHIT.

When you see bullshit, call it what it is and never back down. Waterboarding did NOT save the life of one single, solitary person. Bad main stream media, bad! You're no better than a puppy that piddles everywhere and won't learn to actually do your business outside where it is socially acceptable. With patience, we will teach you.

----------------------------------

The article continues:

A former CIA officer who participated in the capture and questioning of the first al-Qaeda terrorist suspect to be waterboarded said yesterday that the harsh technique provided an intelligence breakthrough that "probably saved lives," but that he now regards the tactic as torture.

Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein abu Zubaida, the first high-ranking al-Qaeda member captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, broke in less than a minute after he was subjected to the technique and began providing interrogators with information that led to the disruption of several planned attacks, said John Kiriakou, who served as a CIA interrogator in Pakistan.

Abu Zubaida was one of two detainees whose interrogation was captured in video recordings that the CIA later destroyed. The recent disclosure of the tapes' destruction ignited a recent furor on Capitol Hill and allegations that the agency tried to hide evidence of illegal torture.

----------------------------------

First of all, John Kiriakou is a liar. Plain and simple. When there is "closed circuit" video system in place, it generally means someone has also installed a goddamned recording device. Pretty much anyone who walks upright and can chew gum knows that. What a ridiculous, bald-faced lie:

Kiriakou said he did not know that the interrogations were videotaped, although there often were closed-circuit video systems in the rooms where questioning took place. He said he also had no knowledge of the decision to destroy videotapes of the interrogations. Officials said there are hundreds of hours of recordings, but most are of Abu Zubaida alone in his cell recovering from his injuries.

Yes, after he'd been shot, we denied him treatment and we denied him painkillers. We're just batting a thousand when it comes to decency and compassion, aren't we? Of course, to prove we're tough, we have to remember that this guy was a "terrorist."

This controversy over who was told what is ridiculous. You can go to the archives of the Washington Post and see that this was all well-known and spelled out in great detail. As far back as 2002, the foundation of a policy of torturing detainees was laid by men who have never worn the uniform, never stood a watch and never been held accountable for anything in their lives. And we will be paying the price for that for a generation or more.

----------------------------------

An August 2002 memo by the Justice Department that concluded interrogators could use extreme techniques on detainees in the war on terror helped provide an after-the-fact legal basis for harsh procedures used by the C.I.A. on high-level leaders of Al Qaeda, according to current and former government officials.

The legal memo was prepared after an internal debate within the government about the methods used to extract information from Abu Zubaydah, one of Osama bin Laden's top aides, after his capture in April 2002, the officials said. The memo provided a legal foundation for coercive techniques used later against other high-ranking detainees, like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, believed to be the chief architect of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, who was captured in early 2003.

So we've now established that anyone with a brain knew that Zubaida and Khalid Shiekh Mohammed were tortured in 2002. The government told everyone what they were doing and dared people to challenge them. This was all spelled out again and again in 2004 when the CIA had to put their efforts on hold and wait for legal justification to be dishonestly concocted by the White House and the Justice Department. What people did not know is that it was videotaped. And, as Abu Ghraib shows, it's one thing to talk about naked monkeypiles of people. It's a whole other thing to show people what it looks like.

You can go into those same archives and see things from 2002 like this little chestnut:

While the U.S. government publicly denounces the use of torture, each of the current national security officials interviewed for this article defended the use of violence against captives as just and necessary. They expressed confidence that the American public would back their view. The CIA, which has primary responsibility for interrogations, declined to comment.

"If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job," said one official who has supervised the capture and transfer of accused terrorists. "I don't think we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this. That was the whole problem for a long time with the CIA."

Sorry, chumley. We don't back your view. And respecting human rights means we have a thing called moral authority. And that moral authority is now long gone. Long gone.

----------------------------------

We also know that, in 2004, it was reported that:

The interrogation methods were approved by Justice Department and National Security Council lawyers in 2002, briefed to key congressional leaders and required the authorization of CIA Director George J. Tenet for use, according to intelligence officials and other government officials with knowledge of the secret decision-making process.

When the CIA and the military "started capturing al Qaeda in Afghanistan, they had no interrogators, no special rules and no place to put them," said a senior Marine officer involved in detainee procedures. The FBI, which had the only full cadre of professional interrogators from its work with criminal networks in the United States, took the lead in questioning detainees.

So where's the story in all of this? The story that they're trying to concoct is that there was a need to torture Zabaida and that the Congress was briefed. That gives them their plausible deniability. Because we're long past "discussing" whether people should go to jail. We need to discuss things like "hard time" and "Leavenworth" and "shower privileges."

----------------------------------

And what they certainly don't want anyone to know is that Abu Zabaida is delusional and insane, and had no useful information. It was known at the time that he was not to be trusted. But they tortured him anyway. This is where the lies get really interesting, and go virtually unchallenged. The first thing people should know is that we tortured a crazy person and he gave up nothing useful. Seems like that's the part we should "focus" on as we figure out how we pissed away our soul for 35 seconds of torture. You know, our "soul?" The thing that used to make us proud? America's soul is now an Amsterdam hooker with one leg, standing in front of a dirty window with a thousand yard stare. It's not easy to get your soul back when you've given it away:

He described Abu Zubaida as ideologically zealous, defiant and uncooperative — until the day in mid-summer when his captors strapped him to a board, wrapped his nose and mouth in cellophane and forced water into his throat in a technique that simulates drowning.

The waterboarding lasted about 35 seconds before Abu Zubaida broke down, according to Kiriakou, who said he was given a detailed description of the incident by fellow team members. The next day, Abu Zubaida told his captors he would tell them whatever they wanted, Kiriakou said.

"He said that Allah had come to him in his cell and told him to cooperate, because it would make things easier for his brothers," Kiriakou said.

Kiriakou's remarks came a day before top CIA officials are to appear before a closed congressional hearing to account for the decision to destroy recordings of the interrogations of Abu Zubaida and another senior captive, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Last Thursday, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden announced that the recordings were destroyed in 2005 to protect the identities of CIA employees who appear on them.

----------------------------------

What did Zubaida give them?

Nothing. He was nuts.

"The interrogations of Abu Zubaida drove me nuts at times," Downing said. "He and some of the others are very clever guys. At times I felt we were in a classic counter-interrogation class: They were telling us what they think we already knew. Then, what they thought we wanted to know. As they did that, they fabricated and weaved in threads that went nowhere. But, even with these ploys, we still get valuable information and they are off the street, unable to plot and coordinate future attacks."

Really? Here's Juan Cole, writing about what is in Ron Suskind's book The One Percent Solution:

Ron Suskind's One Percent Solution discusses Abu Zubayda. His sources in the intelligence community revealed to him that Abu Zubayda turned out not to have been a high level planner, as Rumsfeld had announced. He was more like a low level travel agent for the families of al-Qaeda operatives.

And he could barely pull off that basic job, since he seems to suffer from multiple personality syndrome. The CIA captured his diary. The entries were by his three distinct personae, Hani-1, Hani-2 and Hani-3 (a boy, a young man, and a middle-aged man).

The entries contained exhaustive detail about making travel arrangements for his clients. It was useless, junk detail, compulsive in nature and completely unhelpful. It went on forever. Dan Coleman, then the FBI's lead man in fighting al-Qaeda said the diary was about "what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said. . . This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality."

So where's the discussion about how fucking nuts this guy was? Buried deep in the articles being used to give the administration cover? Forgotten?

How about putting it in the goddamned FRONT of the story, where it fucking belongs?!? I think I'm gonna blow a gasket, and it's only Tuesday.

----------------------------------

And, no. Bill Clinton did NOT do it, too:

According to present and former officials with firsthand knowledge, the CIA's authoritative Directorate of Operations instructions, drafted in cooperation with the general counsel, tells case officers in the field that they may not engage in, provide advice about or encourage the use of torture by cooperating intelligence services from other countries.

"Based largely on the Central American human rights experience," said Fred Hitz, former CIA inspector general, "we don't do torture, and we can't countenance torture in terms of we can't know of it." But if a country offers information gleaned from interrogations, "we can use the fruits of it."

Bush administration officials said the CIA, in practice, is using a narrow definition of what counts as "knowing" that a suspect has been tortured. "If we're not there in the room, who is to say?" said one official conversant with recent reports of renditions.

The Clinton administration pioneered the use of extraordinary rendition after the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. But it also pressed allied intelligence services to respect lawful boundaries in interrogations.

After years of fruitless talks in Egypt, President Bill Clinton cut off funding and cooperation with the directorate of Egypt's general intelligence service, whose torture of suspects has been a perennial theme in State Department human rights reports.

"You can be sure," one Bush administration official said, "that we are not spending a lot of time on that now."

----------------------------------

That's right. We were warned. Nothing to see here, folks. Continue to not pay attention to what your government is doing in your name. Move along.

The soul of this country is under siege. The soul of this country and what it stands for is being stripped away from us. Don't let the bastards do it.

Dershowitz Caught With His Pants Around His Ankles...

This is the kind of article or column that I expected--wingnuts and uninformed people are going to claim there's a bias in the intel community.

Alan Dershowitz claims bias and fraud. And he claims to know what is going on in the intelligence field. And then he goes on to claim there’s some sort of bias within the intelligence community against going to war against Iran. Uh, no. The possiblity that unfiltered bias could once again get through was removed through institutional changes. Those cherry-picked mistakes, you know--the ones that embarrassed Colin Powell at the UN--were there because the White House, which is run by Dick Cheney, suppressed all of the dissenting views that should have gone into that NIE. The intel community just wants to get it right.

And I can’t emphasize this one salient point enough—if there WAS dissent, it would be heard. If there WAS a credible piece of intelligence that pointed to a credible Iranian threat to the United States, Israel, or any other country, the intelligence community would get behind that piece of information and stand behind it. Dershowitz and his ilk cannot fathom this point.
------------------------------------------
Dershowitz:
Stupid Intelligence
The recent national intelligence estimate that concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 is just about the stupidest intelligence assessment I have ever read. It falls hook, line and sinker for a transparent bait and switch tactic employed not only by Iran, but by several other nuclear powers in the past. The tactic is obvious and well-known to all intelligence officials with an IQ above room temperature. It goes like this: There are two tracks to making nuclear weapons: One is to conduct research and develop technology directly related to military use. That is what the United States did when it developed the atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project. The second track is to develop nuclear technology for civilian use and then to use the civilian technology for military purposes.
------------------------------------------
I had no idea that this was the preferred activity and field of expertise of Alan Dershowitz—reading the intelligence products that have been declassified for public consumption produced by our intelligence agencies. And to cite the “Manhattan Project” in a discussion about modern nuclear weapons proliferation is to demonstrate complete ignorance of what the likes of what Abdul Qadeer Khan have been doing for years. Khan claims he has been supplying Iran with knowledge. The NIE deals with that information accordingly. Nowhere does Dershowitz deal with the issue of what Khan has or has not been doing with Iran.

Here’s a takedown of the involvement of AQ Khan from 2005, and it is extremely prescient and details exactly why Dershowitz is completely rabid and wildly mistaken in virtually all of his opinions:

This raises an interesting question: In a post-AQ Khan world, is uranium conversion the chokepoint for would-be bombmakers? Alex Montgomery…argues that converting uranium is a difficult technical barrier for entrants into the nuclear club:

Although A.Q. Khan supplied both plans and parts, it appears that without the tacit knowledge required to develop nuclear weapons, successfully developing a capability requires much trial and error. ... Iran is building a yellowcake-to-UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) conversion plant at Isfahan based on Chinese blueprints. Yet Iran has had difficulties producing high quality UF4 (uranium tetrafluoride) and turning it into UF6. Although less evidence is available from Libya’s program, the lags in time and difficulties seem to indicate that similar problems were encountered there.

If you want to enrich uranium with a centrifuge, you have to convert uranium yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas, a process that requires the element fluorine. Fluorine is not user friendly.

Dr. Khan’s nuclear Wal-Mart sold finished UF6 gas, but not the uranium conversion facility (UCF) for the hardcore DIY bombmaker. Libya’s experiments were apparently unsuccessful. Libya attempted to buy secretly a modular UCF (from Japan), but never received all the modules. Ultimately, Tripoli just bought UF6 from Khan.

Iran, we now know, has also had a tough time. US nonproliferation policy probably deserves much of the credit for creating the technical problems that Iran is experiencing in attempting to create uranim hexafloride.

Woo hoo! We got SOMETHING right! But, sadly and without shame, Dershowitz goes on:
------------------------------------------
"Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran's, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors -- all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?
"...the halting of its secret enrichment and weapon design efforts in 2003 proves only that Iran made a tactical move. It suspended work that, if discovered, would unambiguously reveal intent to build a weapon. It has continued other work, crucial to the ability to make a bomb, that it can pass off as having civilian applications."
------------------------------------------

First of all--oil. Iran's oil industry is collapsing, not prospering:

At first glance, Iran looks like an energy superpower. It is the second largest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). It owns 11 percent of the world's conventional oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia. It also sits on 16 percent of the world's gas reserves, the largest reserve after Russia. With rising oil prices, Iran's oil export revenues have increased steadily, from $32 billion in 2004, to $47 billion in 2006. Finally, its geographic position on the world's most important energy corridor, the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world's oil traffic passes, gives Iran the ability to disrupt the flow of oil to global markets.

A closer look, however, reveals that Iran's energy sector is a house of cards. It is neglected, crumbling and underinvested. Many of its oil and gas fields are in dire need of foreign technical expertise to help reverse their natural decline. An analysis published last year in Proceedings, a journal of the National Academy of Sciences, asserts that, "Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues, income could virtually disappear by 2015." Iran's deputy oil minister, Mohammed Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian, confirmed recently that, "if the projects for increasing the capacity of the oil and protection of the oil wells will not happen, within ten years there will not be any oil for export."

Oil may be Iran's greatest strength, but it is also Iran's greatest weakness. As such, the debate in the West on how to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons should focus less on the risky military option, or the seemingly ineffective diplomatic option, and more on a comprehensive economic warfare strategy that targets Iran's energy sector. With oil exports accounting for half the government's budget and around 80 to 90 percent of total export earnings, the surest strategy to bring down Tehran's Islamic regime is to break its economic backbone.

Here’s what Fox News had to say in 2005 about the facility at Arak, and maybe you can pick up on what Dershowitz is saying (and maybe who he gets his misinformation from):

PARIS — A heavy water reactor in central Iran should be able to produce enough plutonium for a nuclear bomb by 2007 — years ahead of its official completion date, an exiled Iranian opposition group claimed Thursday.
The National Council of Resistance said the site near Arak was already producing heavy water. Nuclear experts consider heavy water reactors a danger because they provide for a simpler way of producing bomb fuel than units using light water.
Mohammed Mohaddessin, head of the group's foreign affairs committee, said work on a 40-megawatt heavy water reactor is "near an end" and should be ready in 2006 or 2007. When that reactor is completed, the Arak facility will capable of producing up to 22 pounds of plutonium, enough for a nuclear bomb, he said.
Heavy water is used in nuclear power plants and can be used to produce plutonium for weapons.
Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that the reactor near Arak would be finished in 2014.
"The Iranian regime is engaged in an all-out race against time" to finish construction, Mohaddessin told a news conference in Paris. The objective is "to obtain plutonium to build a nuclear bomb," he claimed.

Doesn't that perfectly encapsulate how wrong these people have been? Since 2005, at least, they have been lying, whining, and spreading disinformation around in order to further some other agenda. That small snippet from the Fake News site is a crystal clear and perfect example of your Republican Crime Syndicate at work. Arak won’t be operational until 2009, at the earliest, by the way. Some say it won’t be ready for many years after that. The IAEA is now allowed to inspect it and monitor it. But who are you going to believe? Reality or the hysterical cries of so-called resistance movements (see Curveball) and Alan Dershowitz, who has apparently bought this line of reasoning hook, line and sinker?

If you get into the details, you find that the people who want war are usually the ones who can’t be bothered to deal with the details. And that’s why this country is so fucked up right now—no one pays attention to detail. But they damned sure pay too much attention to Fox News.

GAO Blasts Department of Defense on Iraqi Police

They put out the NIE on Iran today in order to keep people from paying attention to what came out on Friday--the GAO Report on the Iraqi police forces.

The report, filed under the subject heading Operation Iraqi Freedom: DOD Assessment of Iraqi Security Forces’ Units as Independent Not Clear Because ISF Support Capabilities Are Not Fully Developed, highlights a critical fact of what is going on in Iraq. The Iraqi police can't do anything independently, but the Bush Administration by way of the Department of Defense is doing everything it can to keep you from figuring that out. And it sent General Petraeus to testify before Congress about some things that weren't, ahem, not quite true. Oh my goodness, has St. David of the General Rank of Petraeus been caught lying to Congress? Perish the thought. And by the way, that was him walking on water a little while ago.

The GAO goes on at length in their report, and I can't do it justice. I can't adequately parse all the polite doublespeak in a way that adequately expresses how outraged we should all be.

A few things stand out. The GAO says:

...the Administration’s September 14, 2007, Benchmark Assessment Report stated that although some Iraqi Army and police forces were operating independently, it also stated that the greatest constraints on independent operations were a shortage of trained leaders and an immature logistics capability, and that for the present time Coalition partnership and support remained necessary for most ISF operations.

"Independently." Remember when this was an issue? Let's get in the way-way back machine and travel all the way back to 2005:

Sep 29, 2005 - from USA Today:

WASHINGTON — The Iraqi military has only one battalion — about 500-600 soldiers — capable of fighting on its own, U.S. commanders told lawmakers Thursday.
Many Iraqi police are not being paid, and insurgents are infiltrating Iraqi police and military forces, the commanders acknowledged. Even so, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq, said U.S. troops could start leaving next year if Iraqi voters back a proposed constitution and form a government.
"I do believe that the possibility for condition-based reductions of coalition forces still exists in 2006," Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

[snip]

In his final appearance as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retiring Gen. Richard Myers told McCain that he never said "things are going very well in Iraq" and that the United States is not developing a "cut-and-run strategy."
"This is a win strategy," Myers said, adding that Iraqis were making progress toward forming a government. "In a sense, things are going well."
The commanders didn't say how many qualified Iraqi troops would be necessary to allow U.S. withdrawals.
In June, the Pentagon said three of 100 Iraqi battalions were capable of acting on their own, Casey acknowledged. Thursday morning, that estimate changed to one.
After a recess, Casey said the new assessment of Iraqi readiness stemmed from a new, more demanding standard U.S. commanders use to judge Iraqi forces.

---------------------------------------------------------------

So, in just over two years, the Iraqi police are in the same shape today that they were then. In other words, they've made no progress whatsoever in any of the important areas they needed to improve. In 2005, we were told that they have tens of thousands that don't show up, that the insurgents have infiltrated the forces, that there is inadequate training and the units can't fight independently.

According to the GAO, not a damned thing has changed. I guess Generals Petraeus and Hunzeker--two individuals, who you'll recall, once were given responsibility for training the Iraqi police forces--did a bang-up job training the Iraqi police--so much so that they got promoted and were given great new jobs. If there was any accountability whatsoever in the United States Army, the only assignment these two generals would have right now is a temporary billet at Fort Living Room with a future engagement planned at Camp Golf Course.

Just a few highlights--and the intrepid Blue Girl will tell us more when time permits--

...As of July 2007, the Iraqi Army was short 18,000 corporals, 14,500 sergeants, and 7,500 sergeants first class. With MNSTC-I advice and assistance, the Iraqis are working a number of initiatives to address this leadership shortage.

...the MOI is facing the fundamental challenge of not being able to accurately account for its personnel. According to DOD’s June and September 2007 reports to Congress, there is currently no reliable data on how many Coalition-trained personnel are still serving in the MOI’s forces. Moreover, DOD has also reported that the MOI has hired a significant number of police beyond those trained by the Coalition. According to testimony by the former MNSTC-I commander, the MOI’s payroll accounts for about 60,000 to 74,000 more personnel than the number trained and equipped by the Coalition. However, he also stated that about 20 percent of this overage are “ghosts,” meaning personnel whose names appear on the MOI’s payroll but who are not actually serving.

...According to both the former and current MNSTC-I commanders, the National Police are also beset with widespread sectarianism. In June 2007, the former MNSTC-I commander testified that the Iraqi National Police was the “single most sectarian organization in Iraq.” Two months later, the current MNSTC-I commander echoed his predecessor’s assessment, stating that the National Police were “overly infiltrated with militia elements” and that “there’s no doubt that in the National Police the sectarian influence remains and will be hard to eradicate.” Finally, evidence indicates that the Iraqi Police Service is also heavily infiltrated with sectarian elements. The former commander of the Iraq Assistance Group13 characterized the Iraqi Police Service as the ISF element most vulnerable to sectarianism, despite the MOI’s removal of over 3,000 members considered to have a sectarian bias in January 2007.

...Since January 2007, the Iraqi government has replaced 70 percent of senior commanders in the National Police due to their sectarianism, a list that includes 2 division, 7 brigade, and 17 battalion commanders. These high level command changes are especially significant given that the National Police are facing a critical officer shortage; by the summer of 2007 they had filled fewer than half of their officer positions. Despite these officer changes, however, according to a July 2007 DOD report, there continues to be a sectarian bias in the appointment of senior Iraqi police commanders.

---------------------------------------------------------------

What did General Petraeus tell Congress? Well, the GAO weighs in on that, too:

For example, in its most recent report to Congress, issued in September 2007, DOD stated that 95 Army, Special Operations Combat Forces, and Iraqi Army Infrastructure units; an indeterminate number of MOD logistics enablers; 7 National Police Combat Battalions; and 3 National Police Brigade Headquarters were all “capable of planning, executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations independently or with Iraqi or Coalition forces.” Although in none of these reports does DOD distinguish between those forces that are capable of operating independently and those that require Coalition or Iraqi assistance, the tables in which DOD’s data are presented lead one to believe that at least one if not more than one of the units was rated as independent. This was underscored during the MNF-I commander’s September 10 and 11, 2007 testimony, during which he briefed the Congress that in every month since November 2005, with only one exception (February 2006) the Coalition has assessed at least one ISF unit as “fully independent.”

The GAO has a disturbing finding on this--

However, despite DOD’s reports and the MNF-I commander’s recent testimony that a certain number of ISF have been assessed as “fully independent,” after March 2006 it was no longer possible for a Coalition transition team member to rate the readiness of an ISF unit using these terms. Previously, in guidance provided to Coalition transition teams for use in evaluating Iraqi Security Forces, a level 1 unit was said to be “fully capable of planning, executing, and sustaining independent operations.” However, in the spring of 2006, MNC-I removed the words “fully” and “independent” from the definition. When we asked DOD officials for the reason for this change they were not able to provide us with an explanation. Therefore, according to the current guidance, a level 1 unit is one that is “capable of planning, executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations.” It is important to note that, according to the guidance, a Coalition transition team cannot judge an ISF unit as “independent.” However, in its most recent report to Congress, DOD asserted that an “independent unit is one that is capable of planning, executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations.” Thus, DOD’s continued reporting that some ISF units are “independent” or “fully independent” is not congruent with MNC-I’s instructions for filling out the Operational Readiness Assessments on which DOD’s assertions and reports seem to be based. If independence is still a relevant descriptor of ISF unit capabilities, then why was the term removed from the definition of a level 1 unit in 2006?
---------------------------------------------------------------

So did General Petraeus lie to Congress? Did he commit perjury?

My reaction to all of this is...[sigh].

Another day, another outrage. And we don't have a working press to tell all of this to the American people.

Too Little, Too Late

Just a few words about General Ricardo Sanchez.

Yes, it's nice that he noticed that the war hasn't been going well. It's nice to have him actually speak up about what he thinks should happen.

I file it all under "Too Little, Too Late." The time to be courageous would have been when you were still in uniform. That is, you tell your superiors that the policies they want you to carry out and the orders they've given you are wrong and you quit on the spot. I don't know why this is so difficult--all Sanchez had to do was quit. He held on to his command, hoping for that 4th Star, and they screwed him out of it.

Sanchez needs to shuffle off to retirement and get out of the way of people who are actually speaking out. I'd rather hear from General Batiste any day.

And here is an excerpt from an an excellent article by retired USAF LTC William J. Astore:

So let me be clear: If we lose in Iraq, the American people will not be to blame. We cannot be accused of lacking a will that was never wanted or called upon to begin with. Yet the stab-in-the-back myth gains credibility precisely because so few high-level people either in government or the military are being held accountable for failures in Iraq.

In World War II, Thomas Ricks reminds us, our military relieved seventeen division commanders and four corps commanders of duty. With the possible exception of Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinski of Abu Ghraib infamy, has any senior officer been relieved for cause in Iraq? Since none apparently has, does this mean that, unlike the spineless American people, they have all performed well?

To cite just one typical case, Major General Kenneth Hunzeker served as the commanding general, Civilian Police Assistance Training Team, from October 2006 to July 2007 in Iraq. Surely, this was a tough job, especially for a man with no proficiency in Arabic. Yet, by all accounts, Iraqi police units to this day remain remarkably corrupt, militia-ridden, and undependable. Does this mean Hunzeker failed? Apparently not, since he was promoted to lieutenant general and given a coveted corps command. Interestingly, his most recent official biography fails to mention his time in Iraq leading the police assistance team. Even if Hunzeker was indeed the best man for the job, what kind of progress could have been possible in a ten-month tour of duty? By the time Hunzeker learned a few painful lessons, he was already jetting to Germany and command of V Corps.

The kind of fate that awaited MG Hunzeker is what Sanchez figured was in the cards for him--a 4th Star and a nice post somewhere. When the Bush Administration abandoned him, he decided to find his courage to speak out.

Interestingly, Batiste is linked to Hunzeker, Petraeus and Sanchez. But where was the promotion and cushy job for Batiste? Did they offer it to him? Did he turn it down? Hunzeker was the one who took over the 1st Infantry Division from MG Batiste in a ceremony presided over by LTG Sanchez. Go figure.

And, I thought General Petraeus was responsible for training Iraqi police, a job which later went to...get ready for it...MG Hunzeker.

See how all of this relates to itself?

Given that the Iraqi police are incompetent, can't protect their citizens, and have been infiltrated by insurgents, why are we promoting two of the men who were directly responsible for using US resources to train them and equip them? Has anyone found all of that missing gear yet?

This is how we do things now--if you're an incomptent General, and you disagree with the Bush administration (Sanchez), then you get nothing.

If you're an incompetent General who fails in his primary mission to train Iraqi police (Petraeus and Hunzeker), you get promoted and handed more responsibility.

Who know when Petraeus and Hunzeker are going to announce their candidacy for President and Vice President?

Sure Would Be Nice to Have a State Department Right Now

If you lived through the time when we faced the Soviet bear--and it seems like a lifetime ago, I know--then when you see stories like this, it should make your blood boil:

MOSCOW - Former chess champion Garry Kasparov was convicted of leading an opposition protest and sentenced to five days in jail by a Moscow court Saturday.

Kasparov and dozens of other demonstrators were detained hours earlier after riot police clashed with Kremlin opponents following a protest rally that drew several thousand people.

The former chess champion was forced to the ground and beaten, his assistant Marina Litvinovich said in a telephone interview from outside the police station where Kasparov was held."What you've heard is all lies," Kasparov said after the sentence was read. "The testimony is contradictory. There was not a single word of truth."

Two riot police testified in court that they had been given direct orders before the rally to arrest Kasparov, one of President Vladimir Putin's harshest critics. One of the policemen acknowledged that the two reports he had filed were contradictory.

Kasparov was charged with organizing an unsanctioned procession "of at least 1,500 people directed against President Vladimir Putin," of chanting anti-government slogans and of resisting arrest.

It sure would be nice to have a goddamned State Department right now, wouldn't it? Because we need a tough legion of diplomats to start going after the Putin regime on all fronts, in all areas, and in every way possible. We need to start squeezing them and engaging them and putting them in check, pun intended.

Unfortunately, we have a "Soviet" expert who has never gotten one thing right about Russia. We have Secretary Rice, shoe-shopping expert and blame shifting expert. Besides shoes and ducking responsibility for her inept management of the State Department, what is she good at? Piano? Sycophantic statements?

We have a serious problem brewing in Russia--who will succeed Putin? What will Russia continue to morph into?

Kasparov warned the world about Russia earlier this year when he told CBS News:

"We're facing a very dangerous regime that is threatening not only the future of my country but the stability of the whole world," Kasparov says.

And:

"I would probably say that Putin doesn't run the country, he runs a corporation. Call it KGB Incorporated," Kasparov says. "He is working on behalf of the ruling elite that wants to benefit from looting the country."

So--again. What the fuck? Why do we continue to see nothing but incompetence from our State Department? Why are they not seriously engaged on this issue? Why have we not recalled our ambassador or done something-anything-to respond to this type of incident?

People say that if a Democrat is elected next year, that Ambassador Holbrooke will be the next Secretary of State, and that, somehow, that's a bad thing. Well, Holbrooke's worst day as Secretary of State will be better by a mile than Rice's best day.

A hundred bucks a barrel by the end of the day?

[Updated Below]

Anyone feel like wagering?

CNN just reported that for the first time ever, the price of light, sweet crude oil has topped $99 a barrel, and hundred-dollar oil is "the next target to hit," said Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Singapore.

The surge in the price of oil, in a short trading week, underscores the bull-run on oil, and winter, with higher consumption of heating oil isn't even here yet.

This might be an opportune time for a trip down memory lane...

In January 2001, when Bush took office, OPEC convened a meeting in Houston where the biggest concern of the member nations was a price collapse and they took steps to institute a price band that would maintain the price between $22 and $28 per barrel.

If OPEC were to narrow the price band, political expediency on the home front would probably result in a price band centered around $25 per barrel. Unfortunately for OPEC nations this price band would likely come under threat within a year. The last report had non OPEC production up by 700,000 barrels per day and non OPEC production will continue to increase as long as prices remain much above $20 per barrel. If these increases are accompanied by weaker world economies OPEC will have to reduce its market share to maintain prices. At some point OPEC will have to make the decision that it usually faces twice a decade. It must choose price or market share, but it cannot have both. A price than can be maintained with market chare is closer to $20 per barrel than to $25.

What's left to say? "Heckuva job, Bushie"?

I need a valium and a drink...and it isn't even noon...

Update:

Oil topped at $9929, but the Dow Jones fell 211.10 points, or 1.6%, and the decline was matched by the Standard & Poors. The dollar fell to $1.48 against the Euro.

From the New York Times:

“This is an ugly week,” said James Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Wells Capital Management. Indeed: the Dow lost 2.9 percent of its value in the last three days alone.

Some market watchers suggested that lower trading levels during a holiday week make the market more volatile, but at least one analyst disputed that notion. “I don’t know of anyone taking a day off today,” said Dennis Davitt, who oversees equity derivative trading for Credit Suisse. “Not in these conditions.”

Crude oil futures briefly rose above $99 in overnight trading and an Energy Department report showed that inventories fell slightly last week, leaving investors wondering how soon oil will be nudged above its inflation-adjusted record of $102. Crude settled in New York trading at $97.29, down 74 cents.

The recent run-up in oil prices, which threaten to curb consumer spending, dovetails with a shaky economic outlook released by the Federal Reserve yesterday, which predicted a slowdown in growth over the coming months.

So...Happy Holidays, y'all...

Another Run of Joementum?

William the Bloody Kristol decides to weigh in on who should run for Vice President on the Republican ticket:

William Kristol [from the issue dated] 11/19/2007:
If a senator gives a speech, and no major newspaper reports it, does it matter? Joe Lieberman spoke in Washington Thursday on "the politics of national security." The next day, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today ignored his talk. Most Democrats will ignore it. But five guys named Rudy, John, Fred, Mitt, and Mike will read it. So should you.

Think about that for a minute--Kristol is a fairly influential commenter. He probably has what some would call "influence" among the 23% of Americans who are "dead enders" and still think we can salvage victory after all of these years of being bled dry in Iraq. Kristol is suggesting that Republicans consider Senator Joe Lieberman for the VP slot next year.

I say, go for it. I say, run, Joe, run! Nothing would drag the Republican ticket down more than a healthy dose of the same "Joementum" that failed to gain any traction at all in the 2004 Democratic Presidential primaries. Nothing would solidify the break that is long overdue between Lieberman and the Democratic Party. I know he has this "Independent" tag thing going--please. The man's career exists as a Democratic Party politician. Without them, he's nothing.

Are they any Democrats who want to hang on to Joe? And try to bring him back into the fold? I say, hell no. Joe, you gotta go. If you go and it makes for a Republican Senate, so be it. (Of course, if the Republicans ever do take back the Senate, they'll go back to whining about filibusters, won't they?)

Here's what Joe said the other day:

Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving. . . .

Well, where to start?

1. Ending the war is essential for preserving America's military
2. The Iraqi people have either fled the country or are acquiescing to full blown civil war
3. al Qaeda in Iraq is a figment of someone's feverish imagination as a credible threat
4. Iran has already gotten more than they ever could have hoped from this war
5. General Petraeus' actual strategy was to wait until the ethnic cleansing was complete because that would be followed by a drop in violence AND to give money and guns to Sunni leaders to get them to stop killing our troops
6. Democrats are "emotionally invested" in doing the right thing by stopping the war
7. We are pounding sand, not making any real progress
8. So long as the Mahdi Army stands down, the violence in Iraq will appear to be lessening
9. 2007 is the bloodiest year of the war
10. Even when he says "and" and "the" in a sentence, he's wrong


'Bye, Joe. Keep giving speeches that reveal your true affiliation--for Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and a failed war that you are clueless and confused about, from the strategic sense to the essential details. Keep telling us what you really think--which can't hide the fact that if the American people ever figure out why this war was started and why it was kept going and what your part was in the effort to ensure that the Republican Party could use a war, and use the troops who would have to fight that war, as a wedge issue against the Democratic Party to hold on to the power of the purse and to enrich wealthy donors to the Republican Party, well, would you ever be man enough to admit your guilt? Would you ever be man enough to admit you were party to a crime of monstrous proportions? Would you have the decency to admit that you shouldn't be considered for any post of responsibility?

Yes, enthusiastically, do I say, pick Lieberman. Run him as your VP, Republicans. He will serve as a reminder of just how insane your party really is. He would wrap himself and the Iraq War around your necks and drag you down. Lieberman has been a national candidate twice now, and both times, he was a barely competent disaster in the making. He failed to even win the endorsement of Al Gore in 2004 after serving as Gore's pick for VP in 2000. Gore picked Dean, and while Dean didn't get the nomination, Dean was a huge part of the resurrection of the Democratic Party. Lieberman's 2004 run is a study in self-delusion. "Joementum" turned into the turd no one wanted to find in their swimming pool.

If you want, you can let the door hit you on the ass on your way out...