Thanking the Troops

I just posted a version of this on the White House Facebook page:

Thanking the Troops



Imagine that the troops are actually doing the work that they are popularly claimed to be doing - that is, protecting us from irrational terrorists, (the "bad guys,") whom are bent upon destruction of our way of life (we're the "good guys!") Assuming that's the case, then hell yeah - thanks for protecting us.

But then again, what if it's not so simple—not so clear. What if the truth is something different than that reality as presented so often in mainstream media. What if the troops are actually protecting US access to global mineral resources? What if the troops are actually enabling the execution of a foreign policy of dominance? Should we still thank them if it turns out that they aren't protecting us? What if the truth is that they are actually protecting the interests of oil companies, war contractors, and the likes of Halliburton, et al.?

The reality on the ground—the truth as I see it, is that the USA is pursuing a foreign policy of dominance. That's to say that the goal of the US government is to enable domination of the global economy by US and Western, and other associated interests.

It can also be rightly stated and understood that the US attack on Iraq was unprovoked. And even though the attack of Afghanistan was (arguably) provoked by the 9/11 attacks, it also doesn't mean that the attack was justified (either by law or by legitimate defensive strategy.)

The greatest crime is a foreign policy of dominance as it seeks to employ the means of violence, militarism and aggression in order to accomplish it's oppressive ends. This dominance policy is a foreign policy of might makes right, and it would be absolutely intolerable if it was being practiced against "us" rather than by "us." (''Us" in quotes because of my desire to separate myself from the dreadfully wrong foreign policy of my government.)

The above sign is a sticker as it was seen on the front door of a restaurant in Northern Wisconsin (where, perhaps coincidentally, my long beard received plenty of stares.)

So, Thank You. Thank you to those soldiers who refuse to serve in illegal and immoral imperial wars of aggression. You're the real heroes. You're the ones who dutifully uphold your oath of service, your oath to the constitution.

To those troops who serve either willingly or unwillingly, I am so sad. And I am sorry that you have been thrust into this horrible position. I will continue to work to hold our government accountable so that the military is not used to further aggressive and intrusive foreign policy agendas.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwhitlock/3141396189/

It's Not Too Late to Impeach! Please Call your Congressional Representative

I sent the following note out to some of my contacts today:

I just called the office of my Congressman, Brian Baird, to advocate impeachment. His Washington D.C. office telephone number is (202) 225-3536.

What did I say in specific? Well first I sincerely told the staffer who answered the phone: "good afternoon." Then I asked to speak directly with Congressman Baird: "Is Congressman Baird available?" To which the staffer replied quite rudely: he asked what I was calling about before informing me that Mr. Baird was busy "in a meeting."

I told him that I was calling with a message about impeaching President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

When he said that Baird was busy, I left the staffer a more detailed message. It went something like this:

I urge Congressman Baird to support holding President Bush and the Office of the Executive, including Vice-President Cheney, accountable for various alleged criminal actions, malfeasances, and improprieties relating to the function of their official duties. We need to hold them accountable if we are truly a nation of laws and ideals, and not a nation dictated by the will of men.

I believe that impeachment will benefit all Americans. I urge the Congressman to sign on as a supporter of Congressman Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment. Impeachment will be possible with enough support from Congressional Representatives, like Congressman Baird.

Then I said thank you to the staffer for making sure to deliver the message to the Congressman.

Please try it for yourself, call your Representative, Baird or whoever yours is. Finding the telephone number is as easy as looking it up on the Internet. Please do this today or tomorrow. Make sure to speak with a live person - don't leave a voice mail. Remember to first ask to speak directly with your representative. And be friendly. It helps the staffer to listen to your message.

Finally, please talk to your friends about impeachment, and consider sending a message to people in your network asking them to call Congress on behalf of the cause of impeachment.

Sincerely,

RFWW

It's not too late to impeach! Please call your Congressperson! It will only take a few minutes.

Sign the Kucinich Impeachment Petition

Hello - !!! - Have you signed Dennis Kucinich's petition to impeach President Bush? If not, please sign the petition, http://impeachment.kucinich.us/petition/ - hyperlinked: Kucinich petition to impeach President Bush.

It reads:

WHEREAS, in his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed abuses of power.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and that he be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Signed by me and who knows how many others who are pro-troops, pro-impeachment, pro-justice, pro-peace, pro-nonviolence, pro- rule-of-law, etc....

Ron Suskind's New Book, White House Lies and Forgery, Congressional Probe: DemocracyNow.org

I just posted at olyblog about Ron Suskind's interview at DemocracyNow.org. Here's a link to the olyblog.net post: olyblog.net/house-judiciary-opens-investigation...

His book is titled, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism. The DN interview is in two parts, over two days. The second interview also includes Representative John Conyers, who is the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. The HJC has recently opened a Congressional Probe into the accusations of forgery contained in the Suskind book.

peace

Constitutional Limits of Executive Power

Link to video of July 25th, 2008 House Judiciary Committee Hearing:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=280000-1&showVid=true

This video is essential viewing. Really, if you care about holding members of the Bush Administration to account for their various improprieties you owe it to yourself to watch this.

Here's a description from the c-span site:

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations" to examine legal and legislative responses to allegations of misconduct and the expansion of executive branch power by the Bush administration. Topics include allegations of: (1) improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys offices, including potential misuse of authority with regard to election and voting controversies; (2) misuse of executive branch authority and the adoption and implementation of the so-called unitary executive theory, including in the areas of presidential signing statements and regulatory authority; (3) misuse of investigatory and detention authority with regard to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, including questions regarding the legality of the administration's surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition programs; (4) manipulation of intelligence and misuse of war powers, including possible misrepresentations to Congress related thereto; (5) improper retaliation against administration critics, including disclosing information concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice related thereto; and (6) misuse of authority in denying Congress and the American people the ability to oversee and scrutinize conduct within the administration, including through the use of various asserted privileges and immunities.

Bush Administration Prewar Deception

Here are some excerpts from recent articles that support the claim that members of the Bush Administration knowingly and intentionally misled the people of the USA in regard to the threat posed by Iraq.

NYT:

WASHINGTON — A long-delayed Senate committee report endorsed by Democrats and some Republicans concluded that President Bush and his aides built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq’s weapons programs and Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda.
...

Washington Post:

As former White House press secretary Scott McClellan wrote in his recently released book, "What Happened," the Iraq Group "had been set up in the summer of 2002 to coordinate the marketing of the war to the public."

"The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," McClellan wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
...

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (Promotional Video with author Vincent Bugliosi): Vincent Bugliosi lays out the case for prosecuting President Bush for murder, based on evidence that the President knowingly distorted the threat posed by Iraq in order to justify the invasion. Thousands of dead US military personnel and Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis later, the case for holding the President accountable for this grievous foreign policy disaster is very strong. No Blood for Oil!

Protesters are right to oppose illegal war

letter to the editor published in today's The Olympian, June 30, 2008:

www.theolympian.com/letters/v-print/story/492269.html

The United States Senate Intelligence Committee recently approved a report that finds members of the Bush Administration have been peddling lies in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Given the knowledge of a lack of military threat posed by Iraq prior to the invasion, the attack can clearly be understood as an act of aggression.

Olympia City Manager Steve Hall wants to go after and persecute protesters who were engaged in a protected act of political speech as they attempted to petition for redress of grievances by preventing a military shipment that was destined to further enable an immoral/illegal war.

Hall should know that in the case of those who resist these enabling shipments, the protesters are the true sheriffs, because Congress is derelict in its duties to exercise appropriate and necessary oversight to put an end to the ongoing war crimes of the executive administration.

Protesters are right to nonviolently oppose and resist operations that enable an ongoing immoral/illegal war of aggression.

When our Congress takes appropriate action to hold members of the Bush administration accountable for flagrant crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace, then perhaps there won't be a need for citizens of the USA to take direct action. But until then, these citizens are right to stand in opposition to the illegal actions of their government.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney are abusing our troops. Protesters are supporting our troops by taking direct action to stop the war.

Robert Whitlock, Olympia

"I" The Impeachment of George W. Bush

John Yoo is questioned by Prosecutor Walter Jones as Chief Justice John Robert presides, in "I" the Impeachment of George W. Bush, a play by Richard Lasser and Bruce Fein.

This photo was taken during a studio (film) production of the play that is scheduled to air sometime on community access television. I played the role of Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA bin Laden unite, who was a witness for the prosecution. He was interrogated primarily about the extraordinary rendition program.

I will be adding more photos to a set on Flickr.
[June 29, 2008, here it is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwhitlock/sets/72157605768293983//June 29, 2008]

Scott McClellan Testifies before Congress

Here's a link to original: http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=161

Connect the dots between McClellan's assertions and the increased imperative to impeach. An interview with Bruce Fein:

Here's more interview with Bruce Fein on the advocacy of impeachment for members of the Bush Administration:

Abusing Our Troops (Trading Blood for Oil)

President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. "Dick" Cheney are abusing the troops.


Photo by Laura Killian

Well, further, and according to Vincent Bugliosi, sending the troops into harm's way without national security imperative, prerogative, or necessity makes those culpable decision makers complicit in the murder of U.S. Soldiers. There was not national security justification for the invasion of Iraq. The justification for invasions/occupation is the policy of global dominance. Access to, and control of, the vast Middle East petroleum resources is a necessary ingredient in the maintenance of global dominance.

So, the essential truth is that the U.S. launched a military invasion - an act of aggression - designed to conquer, extract and exploit the mineral resources of a foreign nation. That is not okay with me. How's it by you?

Permanent Bases in Iraq

I remember President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld saying that there would be no permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq. Now hear this.

from Tom Dispatch dotcom:

posted June 15, 2008 7:46 pm
Tomgram: Why We Can't See America's Ziggurats in Iraq

[Note for TomDispatch readers: Just a reminder. Today's post on the mega-bases in Iraq represents but one of the missing stories of the Bush years that TomDispatch has been dedicated to covering. The site's new book, The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire, just published, is, in essence, a striking history of the missing stories of our mad age, the stories the mainstream media chose to ignore. I urge TomDispatch readers to pick up a copy. It's a great way to support the site and -- if you care to give it to a friend -- to introduce others to a source of information that has, for years, been an "antidote to the mainstream media." If you can, do recommend the book and the site to your private e-lists and suggest, as well, that people consider going to TomDispatch.com to sign up -- in the window at the upper right of the main screen -- for the regular emails indicating that a new post has gone up. There will be surprises galore this summer as TomDispatch explores the Bush legacy and whether what the Bush administration has embedded in our lives can ever be unbuilt. You can also check out a video in which I discuss the issue of the missing mega-bases in Iraq, now finally in the news, by clicking here. Tom]

The Greatest Story Never Told
Finally, the U.S. Mega-Bases in Iraq Make the News
By Tom Engelhardt

It's just a $5,812,353 contract -- chump change for the Pentagon -- and not even one of those notorious "no-bid" contracts either. Ninety-eight bids were solicited by the Army Corps of Engineers and 12 were received before the contract was awarded this May 28th to Wintara, Inc. of Fort Washington, Maryland, for "replacement facilities for Forward Operating Base Speicher, Iraq." According to a Department of Defense press release, the work on those "facilities" to be replaced at the base near Saddam Hussein's hometown, Tikrit, is expected to be completed by January 31, 2009, a mere 11 days after a new president enters the Oval Office. It is but one modest reminder that, when the next administration hits Washington, American bases in Iraq, large and small, will still be undergoing the sort of repair and upgrading that has been ongoing for years.

In fact, in the last five-plus years, untold billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on the construction and upgrading of those bases. When asked back in the fall of 2003, only months after Baghdad fell to U.S. troops, Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer then "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq, proudly indicated that "several billion dollars" had already been invested in those fast-rising bases. Even then, he was suitably amazed, commenting that "the numbers are staggering." Imagine what he might have said, barely two and a half years later, when the U.S. reportedly had 106 bases, mega to micro, all across the country.

By now, billions have evidently gone into single massive mega-bases like the U.S. air base at Balad, about 60 miles north of Baghdad. It's a "16-square-mile fortress," housing perhaps 40,000 U.S. troops, contractors, special ops types, and Defense Department employees. As the Washington Post's Tom Ricks, who visited Balad back in 2006, pointed out -- in a rare piece on one of our mega-bases -- it's essentially "a small American town smack in the middle of the most hostile part of Iraq." Back then, air traffic at the base was already being compared to Chicago's O'Hare International or London's Heathrow -- and keep in mind that Balad has been steadily upgraded ever since to support an "air surge" that, unlike the President's 2007 "surge" of 30,000 ground troops, has yet to end.

Building Ziggurats

While American reporters seldom think these bases -- the most essential U.S. facts on the ground in Iraq -- are important to report on, the military press regularly writes about them with pride. Such pieces offer a tiny window into just how busily the Pentagon is working to upgrade and improve what are already state-of-the-art garrisons. Here's just a taste of what's been going on recently at Balad, one of the largest bases on foreign soil on the planet, and but one of perhaps five mega-bases in that country:

Consider, for instance, this description of an air-field upgrade from official U.S. Air Force news coverage, headlined: "'Dirt Boyz' pave way for aircraft, Airmen":

"In less than four months, Balad Air Base Dirt Boyz have placed and finished more than 12,460 feet of concrete and added approximately 90,000 square feet of pavement to the airfield… Without the extra pavement courtesy of the Dirt Boyz, fewer aircraft would be able to be positioned and maintained at Balad AB. Having fewer aircraft at the base would directly affect the Air Force's ability to place surveillance assets in the air and to drop munitions on targets... The ongoing flightline projects at Balad AB consist of concrete pad extensions that will provide occupation surfaces for multiple aircraft of various types."

Or here's a proud description of what Detachment 6 of the 732nd Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron did on its recent tour in Balad:

"'We constructed more than 25,000 square feet of living, dining and operations buildings from the ground up,' said Staff Sgt. John Wernegreen… 'This project gave the [U.S.] Army's [3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment] and Iraqi army [soldiers] a place to carry out their mission of controlling the battlespace around the Eastern Diyala Province.'"

And here's a caption, accompanying an Air Force photo of work at Balad: "Airmen of the 407th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron pavement and equipment team repair utility cuts here June 11. The team replaced approximately 30 cubic meters of concrete over newly installed power line cables." ...

... read the rest, www.tomdispatch.com/post/174944/ why_we_can_t_see_america_s_ziggurats_in_iraq

Articles of Impeachment Against Bush

More impeachment: From afterdowningstreet.org, we have a great resource to highlight the Kucinich Articles of Impeachment against Bush. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/busharticles

And here's a set of youtube videos that capture the Kucinich delivery of the Articles of Impeachment on the floor of the House of Representatives:

Kucinich Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against President George W. Bush

Thank you Representative Congressman Dennis Kucinich. I support bringing articles of impeachment against President Bush...



Here are some videos from the Kucinich delivery of 35 serious and well-researched articles of impeachment.

[update June 15, 2008: please see the complete delivery of all 35 articles of impeachment on the floor of the House of Reps. by Congressman Kucinich (via youtube):
http://robwhitlock.blogspot.com/2008/06/articles-of-impeachment-against-bush.html June 15, 2008/]

link to part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK16IG6jvJY

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4:


Part 5:

27 Gallons of Fuel per Day per Soldier in Iraq

The US military is currently consuming over 27 gallons of fuel per day, per soldier, in Iraq:

go to original

Military feels fuel-cost gouge in Iraq

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Thu Apr 3, 1:27 AM ET

Think you're being gouged by Big Oil? U.S. troops in Iraq are paying almost as much as Americans back home, despite burning fuel at staggering rates in a war to stabilize a country known for its oil reserves.

Military units pay an average of $3.23 a gallon for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, some $88 a day per service member in Iraq, according to an Associated Press review and interviews with defense officials. A penny or two increase in the price of fuel can add millions of dollars to U.S. costs.

Critics in Congress are fuming. The U.S., they say, is getting suckered as the cost of the war exceeds half a trillion dollars — $10.3 billion a month, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Some lawmakers say oil-rich allies in the Middle East should be doing more to subsidize fuel costs because of the stake they have in a secure Iraq. Others point to Iraq's own burgeoning surplus as crude oil prices top $100 a barrel. Baghdad subsidies let Iraqis pay only about $1.36 a gallon.

The U.S. military, through its Defense Energy Support Center, buys fuel on the open market, paying from $1.99 a gallon to as much as $5.30 a gallon under contracts with private and government-owned oil companies. The center then sets a fixed rate for troops, currently $3.51 a gallon for diesel, $3.15 for gasoline, $3.04 for jet fuel and $13.61 for avgas, a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles.

Kuwait does grant substantial subsidies, but they cover only about half the fuel used by the U.S. in Iraq. And the discount is eaten up by the Energy Support Center's administrative costs and fluctuations in the market.

Overall, the military consumes about 1.2 million barrels, or more than 50 million gallons of fuel, each month in Iraq at an average $127.68 a barrel. That works out to about $153 million a month.

Historically, these figures are astounding. In World War II, the average fuel consumption per soldier or Marine was about 1.67 gallons a day; in Iraq, it's 27.3 gallons, according to briefing slides prepared by a Pentagon task force established to review consumption.

The surge in demand can be attributed in part to the military's expanding aviation fleet, including helicopters, and its reliance on planes to shuttle cargo and troops between the U.S. and Iraq. Vehicles, too, are more heavily armored and require more energy to run. Another major contributor is the widespread use of generators to cool troops.

The Pentagon's demand for fuel in Iraq has had little if any effect on global oil prices. Frank Verrastro, director of the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the military's use of 1.2 million barrels a month — or roughly 40,000 barrels a day — represents a small chunk of the 86 million barrels demanded each day on the global market.

Instead, Verrastro says, the hike in oil prices since the 2003 invasion is more likely due to a "fear factor."

"Prices rise when Iran saber-rattles, or there's a disruption potential in Nigeria," he said. An even larger driver of fuel costs is global demand, fed by robust economies in Asia and the lack of available alternative fuel sources, according to Verrastro.

Still, some lawmakers say the U.S. is paying too much to secure an oil-rich nation that resides in a neighborhood swimming in the natural resource.

Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was shocked last December to watch U.S. troops in Kuwait filling diesel tanks at higher prices than he would have paid to fill up his boat in Mississippi.

"The Kuwaitis have been good allies. But let's face it, that nation would not be there if not for the American liberation of Kuwait," he said, referring to the 1991 conflict.

When Taylor pressed Pentagon and embassy officials on the matter, he was told Kuwait was actually offering a rare discount. Unlike other oil-rich allies, Kuwait is estimated to have saved the U.S. government $1.2 billion in four years, from 2002 to 2006, U.S. Embassy officials told the congressman in a Jan. 3 letter.

Under the current agreement, the Kuwait-owned company supplies 7,000 gallons per day of free fuel to U.S. forces operating inside Kuwait. For troops in Iraq, Kuwait offers 860,000 gallons of jet fuel a day at less than half the market price. This discounted fuel represents more than half the fuel the U.S. uses in Iraq each day.

The rest of the fuel — about 100,000 to 200,000 gallons a day — is sold to the U.S. military at market rate.

When Taylor asked whether more could be done by Kuwait and other oil-rich allies in the Middle East, a senior Pentagon official said the U.S. wants to see an even bigger reduction in prices from Kuwait but indicated there was no guarantee that would happen.

"It is our view that all of those forces, whether they are semi-stationed in Kuwait ... or those transitioning into Iraq, should receive that fuel at a reduced rate, and that is continuing dialogue that goes on between our government and the government of Kuwait," Mark Kimmitt, deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, said in a January hearing.

It's unlikely the U.S. has pressed Saudi Arabia, Qatar or other oil-rich allies recently to help subsidize the cost of fuel in Iraq. The Defense Department referred questions about such negotiations to the State Department, where a spokesman said the agency was not aware of any.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., also a member of the Armed Services Committee and a vocal advocate pushing the military to pursue alternative energy solutions, said he doubts such talks would be fruitful anyway because of the impression by many in the Middle East that the U.S. invaded Iraq for its oil to begin with.

"I'm not sure they're as convinced we're fighting for them, as they were in the first Gulf war," Bartlett said.

He said he hopes instead that the war will spur military development of hybrid technologies and alternative fuels at a time when private companies are lacking the financial incentive. So far, the price of oil hasn't restricted combat operations, but it has inspired the military to hunt for new ways to conserve energy.

Development of more energy-efficient equipment will take time. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, who co-chaired a policy panel on the Pentagon energy study, said operations in Iraq and elsewhere are forcing the military to take the burden of fuel costs more seriously.

"The combination of $100-a-barrel oil and the terrorist situation and the dependence on the Middle East are really, I think, waking them up very fast," he said.

In the meantime, other lawmakers say they want to see the high costs of the war defrayed by Iraq dipping into its own oil revenues, which are projected to be substantial. Independent auditors estimate that Iraq is headed this year toward a massive surplus because of as much as $60 billion in oil revenues — a consequence of increased production paired with the sharp rise in prices.

"It's totally unacceptable to me that we are spending tens of billions of dollars on rebuilding Iraq while they are putting tens of billions of dollars in banks around the world from oil revenues," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "It doesn't compute as far as I'm concerned."

Administration and military officials say Baghdad hasn't been able to spend its oil revenues so far because the newly formed government is still learning how to manage its revenues. They say Iraq's lack of spending isn't due to corruption or laziness, but rather Baghdad's inability to determine where its money is needed most and how to allocate it efficiently.

The Iraqis have a "genuine mechanical problem in drawing up national budgets (and) executing those budgets, particularly when it comes to capital infrastructure," said David Satterfield, the State Department's senior adviser on Iraq. But, he added, the government is improving with time and should be able to do more in the months to come.

__

On the Net:

The Defense Science Board Task Force report: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-02-ESTF.pdf

Five Years of Lies on Iraq

On the occasion of the 5th year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq:

How President Bush and his advisors have spent each year of the war peddling mendacious tales about a mission accomplished.

By Juan Cole

Mar. 19, 2008 | Each year of George W. Bush's war in Iraq has been represented by a thematic falsehood. That Iraq is now calm or more stable is only the latest in a series of such whoppers, which the mainstream press eagerly repeats. The fifth anniversary of Bush's invasion of Iraq will be the last he presides over. Sen. John McCain, in turn, has now taken to dangling the bait of total victory before the American public, and some opinion polls suggest that Americans are swallowing it, hook, line and sinker.

The most famous falsehoods connected to the war were those deployed by the president and his close advisors to justify the invasion. But each of the subsequent years since U.S. troops barreled toward Baghdad in March 2003 has been marked by propaganda campaigns just as mendacious. Here are five big lies from the Bush administration that have shaped perceptions of the Iraq war.

Year 1's big lie was that the rising violence in Iraq was nothing out of the ordinary. The social turmoil kicked off by the invasion was repeatedly denied by Bush officials. When Iraqis massively looted government ministries and even private shops, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld joked that U.S. media had videotape of one man carrying off a vase and that they kept looping it over and over again. The first year of the war saw the rise of a Sunni Arab guerrilla movement that repeatedly struck at U.S. troops and at members and leaders of the Shiite-dominated Interim Governing Council appointed by the American government.

[...]

...Bush set the tone for Year 3 with a speech at Fort Bragg on July 28, 2005, in which he said, "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 ... if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi .. and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden." The previous week, Bush had said that the U.S. was in Iraq "because we were attacked." Zarqawi was the perfect plot device for an administration who wanted to perpetuate the falsehood that the Iraq war was directly connected with Sept. 11 and al-Qaida...

[...read more]

A Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

I advocate for the impeachment of members of the Bush Administration. There are various examples of malfeasance that are worthy of, and indeed - that necessitate impeachment. Here's a excerpt from Elizabeth de la Vega's book United States v. George Bush et al.. A trial might look something like this:

[go to original]
...

11. Pursuant to the Constitution, their oaths of office, their status as Executive Branch employees, and their presence in the United States, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL, and their subordinates and employees, are required to obey Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.

12. As used in Section 371, the term "to defraud the United States" means "to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful government functions by deceit, craft, trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." The term also means to "impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful function of any department of government" by the use of "false or fraudulent pretenses or representations."

13. A "false" or "fraudulent" representation is one that is: (a) made with knowledge that it is untrue; (b) a half-truth; (c) made without a reasonable basis or with reckless indifference as to whether it is, in fact, true or false; or (d) literally true, but intentionally presented in a manner reasonably calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence. The knowing concealment or omission of information that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding an issue also constitutes fraud.

14. Congress is a "department of the United States" within the meaning of Section 371. In addition, hearings regarding funding for military action and authorization to use military force are "lawful functions" of Congress.

15. Accordingly, the presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371.

The Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

16. Beginning on or about a date unknown, but no later than August of 2002, and continuing to the present, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,

GEORGE W. BUSH,
RICHARD B. CHENEY,
CONDOLEEZZA RICE,
DONALD M. RUMSFELD, and
COLIN M. POWELL,

and others known and unknown, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to defraud the United States by using deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, false and fraudulent representations, including ones made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, and omitting to state material facts necessary to make their representations truthful, fair and accurate, while knowing and intending that their false and fraudulent representations would influence the public and the deliberations of Congress with regard to authorization of a preventive war against Iraq, thereby defeating, obstructing, impairing, and interfering with Congress' lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations.

17. The Early Months of the Bush-Cheney Administration: Prior to January of 2001, BUSH, CHENEY, and RUMSFELD each demonstrated a predisposition to employ U.S. military force to invade the Middle East, including, specifically, to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein.

18. Since 1992, CHENEY has endorsed a "bold foreign policy" that includes using military force to "punish" or "threaten to punish" possible aggressors in order to protect the United States's access to Persian Gulf oil and to halt proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ("WMD"), a term that is customarily used to describe chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
...

link to original [read the rest]