The "Ticking Time Bomb" Was Iraq?

McClatchy has an article based on the newly released Senate Armed Services report on torture in GITMO, Afghanistan and Iraq that probably explains why KSM and Zubaydah were waterboarded so many times. It turns out that at least part of the reason Dick Cheney and Dick Rumsfeld pushed for torture was an attmept to get detainees to verify a link between Iraq and al Qaida that never existed.

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

Such information would've provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam's regime.

The use of abusive interrogation — widely considered torture — as part of Bush's quest for a rationale to invade Iraq came to light as the Senate issued a major report tracing the origin of the abuses and President Barack Obama opened the door to prosecuting former U.S. officials for approving them.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and others who advocated the use of sleep deprivation, isolation and stress positions and waterboarding, which simulates drowning, insist that they were legal.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that intelligence agencies and interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.

"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubeida at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document.

"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.

"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."

Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.

Treason

This is a very disturbing report from Gareth Porter in IPS. If ANY of this is true, President Obama should summarily and expeditiously bring all of these bastards from General Petraeus to General Odeirno to anybody in between and shit can their asses and publicly repudiate them. I will withhold final judgment until this story is more fully vetted but right now I am fucking appalled that anything like this could possibly be going on right now. Just to give you a sample.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy. A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.

snip

The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was "open to alternatives".

The Times reported that Odierno had "developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama's campaign timetable" and had suggested in an interview "it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly".

The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama's withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama's pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months". He asserted that it would jeopardise the "stable political situation in Iraq" and called that risk "not acceptable".

The assertion that Obama's withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus's strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning.

snip

The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy.

If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the "collapse" they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops.

That line seems likely to appeal to reporters covering the Iraq troop withdrawal issue. Ever since Obama's inauguration, media coverage of the issue has treated Obama' s 16-month withdrawal proposal as a concession to anti-war sentiment which will have to be adjusted to the "realities" as defined by the advice to Obama from Gates, Petreaus and Odierno.

snip

Keane had operated on the assumption that a Democratic president would probably not take the political risk of rejecting Petraeus's recommendation on the pace of troop withdrawal from Iraq. Woodward quotes Keane as telling Gates, "Let's assume we have a Democratic administration and they want to pull this thing out quickly, and now they have to deal with General Petraeus and General Odierno. There will be a price to be paid to override them."

I don't know about you but that looks clearly like a plan for out and out treason. Firing their asses would be the least I would advise President Obama to do if this is found to be true. Prosecutions would be and should be on the table. I would love to see what the wingnuts would say if they EVER got wind of this kind of a conspiracy against a Republican President. I would bet the words "drawn and quartered" would enter the conversation.

I would say there were a few bright spots in the article for those who irrationally believe that President Obama is a pushover.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

Still this kind of a story demand that some kind of action be taken to get to the validity of it. Hopefully somebody will get to the bottom of it and if its found to be true appropriate action will be taken.

Like Nostradamus

Over at FireDogLake emptywheel has a post up about the Bush Department of Justice's decision not to prosecute White House Chief of Staff Andy Card's cousin for acting as an agent of Iraq before we started the war. Now I kinda figured that this post was just another in a long line exposing the cronyism inherent with President Bush's administration. But as I usually do I ended up clicking through the links and I ended up reading the letter that Card's cousin, Susan Lindauer, wrote to Card and Secretary of State Colin Powell that got her in trouble in the first place. Emptywheel's post in and of itself is an interesting read and you should definitely check it out, but I think what Lindauer writes in the letter about the prospects of negotiating with Saddam to avoid the war as well as her predicitions about what would happen in the aftermath is a must read. I wish I could excerpt it here but its not set up in that kind of format as it was scanned into a pdf instead of being typed in. For that reason I am asking that you click the link and read her letter. I think you will thank emptywheel for providing this info if you hadn't already heard about it like I hadn't.

And They Have The Nerve To Call Themselves Patriots

From CBS News we learn that there are other casualties of the unfounded and unjust war in Iraq that President Bush and Dick Cheney took us into. A former Haliburton subsidiary KBR stands accused of allowing our men and women in uniform to be exposed to hazardous substances without informing them of the health risks. This is what happens when you use war to make a profit. This is what happens when you hand out no bid contracts to your friends and former business associates. This is what happens when you put money over the lives of the men and women who serve our country. But Republicans are the patriotic party right? I don't know how you can read about a situation like this one and ever trust a Republican administration again.

In April of 2003, James Gentry of the Indiana National Guard arrived in Southern Iraq to take command of more than 600 other guardsmen. Their job: protect KBR contractors working at a local water plant.

"We didn't question what we were doing, we just knew we had to provide a security service for the KBR," said Battalion Cmdr. Gentry.

Today James Gentry is dying from rare form of lung cancer. The result, he believes, of months of inhaling hexavalent chromium - an orange dust that's part of a toxic chemical found all over the plant.

At least one other Indiana guardsman has already died from lung cancer, and others are said to be suffering from tumors and rashes consistent with exposure to the deadly toxin.

snip

In a statement, the company told CBS News: "We deny the assertion that KBR harmed troops and was responsible for an unsafe condition."

The company says it notified the Army as soon as it identified the toxin.

Still, some Indiana guardsmen say they only just learned of the risk.

"I didn’t know I was exposed to a deadly carcinogen until five years later when I received a letter," said Indiana National Guardsman Jody Aistrop.

This is far from the first time the multi-billion dollar contractor has been accused of questionable conduct at Iraq. In addition to convictions for bribery, it's alleged KBR provided contaminated water to troops. The company denies all charges.

Republicans make a big deal about flag pins and saying the pledge of allegiance and all the while they are sending our citizens off to die needlessly while their friends get rich. Is anybody ever going to fall for this again? I certainly hope not.

About Damn Time

Finally somebody in the frikking Mainstream Media does their job. Of course its over a week old now, but better late than never right? From the New York Times.

Most Americans have long known that the horrors of Abu Ghraib were not the work of a few low-ranking sociopaths. All but President Bush’s most unquestioning supporters recognized the chain of unprincipled decisions that led to the abuse, torture and death in prisons run by the American military and intelligence services.

Now, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

The report shows how actions by these men “led directly” to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons.

I wonder if any other media folk have the guts to actually report on this now. Yes TIME magazine I'm looking at you!

I Guess Some Folks Ain't Feeling Democracy Like Dat

The New York Times is reporting that an coup attempt was put down over in that thriving democracy of Iraq. Evidently there are still some Saddam folk over there who aren't really feeling Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Let me say right off the bat that I don't subscribe to Foreign Policy magazine nor am I in any way a foreign policy wonk, but I for damn sure recognize that any plans we have for Iraq better factor in what might happen if the next time a coup is attempted it is actually successful. Ill give you the highlights.

BAGHDAD — Up to 35 officials in the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior ranking as high as general have been arrested over the past three days with some of them accused of quietly working to reconstitute Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party, according to senior security officials in Baghdad.

The arrests, confirmed by officials from the Ministries of the Interior and National Security as well as the prime minister’s office, included four generals. The officials also said that the arrests had come at the hand of an elite counterterrorism force that reports directly to the office of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

snip

But the arrests reflect a new set of political challenges for Iraq. Mr. Maliki, who has gained popularity as a strong leader but has few reliable political allies, has scrambled to protect himself from domestic rivals as the domineering influence of the United States, his leading backer, begins to fade.

snip

But senior security officials said there was significant evidence tying those arrested to a wide array of political corruption charges, including affiliation with Al Awda, or the Return, a descendant of the Baath Party, which ruled the country as a dictatorship for 35 years, mostly under Mr. Hussein. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died or were persecuted, including Mr. Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, by the Baath Party. It was outlawed after the American invasion in 2003.

Like I said I don't know everything about foreign policy but I do know that having four generals be a part of the alledged coup is definitely not a good look. I think the situation with Hamas gaining elected office in Palestine should have taught us about being careful in pushing democracy abroad, but evidently we didn't learn. After we leave, and I hope it's sooner rather than later, it is highly likely that there are going to be issues with who gets elected and we need to be ready for that.

TYT Is On The Case

I am a HUGE fan of Cenk Uygur and the whole The Young Turks crew. His commentary is both insightful and many times funny. I encourage everyone to check out his site and especially tune in to their Air America satellite radio show or check out their youtube page. This is Cenk breaking down the Dick Cheney confessional on ABC.

War Crimes Much?

Just how long will it be before our Mainstream Media folks stop salivating over "Blago Gate" and start commenting on the newly released the report from the Senate Armed Services committee on the abuses of detainees in U.S. custody which points the finger of responsibility away from the soldiers involved in the abuses and sqarely at the Bush administration for sanctioning them in the first place? Maybe I can help them along a bit....

One bleeping story, thats all I'm bleeping asking for here. What the bleep do I have to do to get these bleeping journalists to do their bleeping job. Ill tell you what, I am not going to keep asking these bleeping questions without getting some bleeping results. The report is bleeping golden, its a great bleeping story just waiting to be written. But these motherbleepers have their heads up their bleeps. Maybe I should just parachute my bleep there and do the bleeping job myself. Bleep yeah. But I am not doing this motherbleeping job for free. Bleep that!


Welp I tried

(h/t gysgt213)

Why One Day "Rumsfeldian" Will Be A Most Derisive Term (if it isn't already)

It will be reserved for those people who have tons of expertise and experience in their resume but still find ways to phuck everything up. Thanks to the NYTimes we get this new revelation about Donald Rumsfeld's pre Iraq War predictions.

On the eve of the invasion, as it began to dawn on a few officials that the price for rebuilding Iraq would be vastly greater than they had been told, the degree of miscalculation was illustrated in an encounter between Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, and Jay Garner, a retired lieutenant general who had hastily been named the chief of what would be a short-lived civilian authority called the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance.

The history records how Mr. Garner presented Mr. Rumsfeld with several rebuilding plans, including one that would include projects across Iraq.

“What do you think that’ll cost?” Mr. Rumsfeld asked of the more expansive plan.

“I think it’s going to cost billions of dollars,” Mr. Garner said.

“My friend,” Mr. Rumsfeld replied, “if you think we’re going to spend a billion dollars of our money over there, you are sadly mistaken.”

Come to think of it. the fact that we had this dumbass as Sec Def for 6 years and still lived to blog about it leads me to believe that maybe Bob Gates ain't so bad after all.