Put Something On It!

David Corn appeared on MSNBC opposite Republican hack Brad Blakeman today to discuss Karl Rove's book. Normally this wouldn't be an earth shattering event because dozens of these segments happen every day on cable news. BUT Corn came up with a diabolical/genius way of shutting Blakeman up when he was lying through his teeth, something Republicans do on a daily basis now with little or no blowback. Instead of just leaving it at calling Blakeman a liar, he challenged him to a $1,000 bet that he was right and Blakeman was wrong. And of course Blakeman wanted NOOOOOOOOOO parts of that bet. It was wildly amusing watching him try to filibuster the rest of the segment without admitting he wouldn't agree to Corn's challenge.

More of this please!

The 45 Minute Lie

If only we were having a public investigation into how George Bush and Dick Cheney lied and their ideological allies in the media lied us into the war the way the British are over Tony Blair.

I wonder what public sentiment would be about those two jackasses then.

Why The Anthrax Attacks Mattered

Glenzilla points out the role that the anthrax attacks had in helping to push us to war with Iraq even though Saddam Hussein had no role in them. As is usually the case there is simply too much there to excerpt but I will just hit you with the last paragraph which sums up why we shouldn't allow the right wingers to keep claiming that Bush and Cheney kept us safe after 9/11 and why we should all still be pushing for a full investigation into those anthrax attacks.

Here we have one of the most consequential political events of the last decade at least -- a lethal biological terrorist attack aimed at key U.S. Senators and media figures, which even the FBI claims originated from a U.S. military lab. The then-British Ambassador to the U.S. is now testifying what has long been clear: that this episode played a huge role in enabling the attack on Iraq. Even our leading mainstream, establishment-serving media outlets -- and countless bio-weapons experts -- believe that we do not have real answers about who perpetrated this attack and how. And there is little apparent interest in investigating in order to find out. Evidently, this is just another one of those things that we'll relegate to "the irrelevant past," and therefore deem it unworthy of attention from our future-gazing, always-distracted minds.

Breaking: Dick Cheney FBI Interview Ordered Released To The Public

Looks like Jon Stewart will get his crack at Dick Cheney after all!

(h/t Ethan)

GOPolitico And Their Rampant False Equivalency

I don't agree with Glenzilla in this post about whether what Joe Wilson was egregious or not, but thats about the only thing I can find a quibble with and he accurately portrays how Politico and other mainstream media outlets create a bizarro world when it comes to politics all in the name of false equivalency.

Gutted Like A Fish

Rachel Maddow just ethered Tom Ridge over the Iraq War in a way that was cathartic for anyone who was opposed to the war from the start. She didn't have to yell, scream, or holler but she knee capped him like the most vicious capo and hung the run up to the war around his neck like an anvil. As soon as the video is available I will put it up and trust me its an instant classic.

You will NEVER see David Gregory pull off that kind of interview. Not EVER!

Update: As promised.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Out In The Streets They Call It Murdah

The news on Blackwater, or Xe or whatever the hell they are calling themselves this week, just keeps getting worse:

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company's owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."

In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting "illegal" or "unlawful" weapons into the country on Prince's private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.

Its going to take years to unwind all of this mess in Iraq before we realize just how bad George Bush fucked over us for the last 8 years.

Figures

Back when the debate over whether or not we should go to war in Iraq was hot and heavy, I had a series of arguments with a cousin of mine who lives in DC. He was still greatly disturbed by 9-11 and so he wanted some revenge which I believe clouded his better judgement. He was all for going to war in Iraq so I tried to use logic and the facts that were knows at the time to convince him that he was wrong. My main selling point was that we already had UN weapons inspectors there. If we were really so sure he had WMDs why not just let them do their job and then when and if they found anything take appropriate actions then. Why in the hell were we trying to rush the very people who could verify the "intelligence" we had, out of the damn country before they were done and before they had found anything?

Well his big point always came back to the fact that Saddam Hussein was always denying access to the weapons inspectors and playing games with the process.

Now honestly I didn't have any kind of special insight to Middle Eastern foreign policy at the time. But I did have a healthy dose of common sense and a map. It seemed obvious to me that Saddam knew that after we kicked his ass in 91 he would probably look quite vulernable to his neihbors in the region. Iraq also isn't the biggest country in that area either when you look at it on the map. So it would make perfect sense as a deterrent to make it seem as if at the least he MIGHT have WMDs. After what went down with the Iran/Iraq war where he used chemical and biological weapons on the Iranian forces, I was pretty sure that just the thought the he might do that type of thing again was a good deterrent to any country who might be considering an attack.

Now unfortuanately at the time my cousin didn't buy my argument (he has since apologized to me) and it was moot anyway because BushCo was bound and determined to go to war.

But at least now I know that I was pretty much right with my assessment.

Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday.

Now obviously that could have just been Saddam posturing, but really he knew at that point he had nothing else to lose. But of course its all moot now when it boils down to it isn't it?

Never Again!

We Got The Little Hooker On Tape

Somebody should tell Liz and Dick Cheney that in the 21st Century regular citizen can pull up videos of the shit they have said in the past. Since the media won't do it, people like Jed Lewison will expose you and people like me will be oh so happy to spread the word.





Better step your game up.

Gog And Magog

I am not sure how true this story is that Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks dug up but the sad thing is, knowing President Bush, its entirely plausible.

Break Out The NeoCon Fainting Couch

Cross posted at Attackerman


Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria has an article online making a very strong case that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon. I realize that there is a split in this country between those who believe Iran is trying to get a nuke and those who think they aren't, but I myself have never heard the argument made against them wanting a bomb, for these particular reasons.

Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). What's the evidence? Well, over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quoted the regime's founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who asserted that such weapons were "un-Islamic." The country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that "developing, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam." Last year Khamenei reiterated all these points after meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Now, of course, they could all be lying. But it seems odd for a regime that derives its legitimacy from its fidelity to Islam to declare constantly that these weapons are un-Islamic if it intends to develop them. It would be far shrewder to stop reminding people of Khomeini's statements and stop issuing new fatwas against nukes.

Following a civilian nuclear strategy has big benefits. The country would remain within international law, simply asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a position that has much support across the world. That would make comprehensive sanctions against Iran impossible. And if Tehran's aim is to expand its regional influence, it doesn't need a bomb to do so. Simply having a clear "breakout" capacity—the ability to weaponize within a few months—would allow it to operate with much greater latitude and impunity in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Iranians aren't suicidal. In an interview last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Iranian regime as "a messianic, apocalyptic cult." In fact, Iran has tended to behave in a shrewd, calculating manner, advancing its interests when possible, retreating when necessary. The Iranians allied with the United States and against the Taliban in 2001, assisting in the creation of the Karzai government. They worked against the United States in Iraq, where they feared the creation of a pro-U.S. puppet on their border. Earlier this year, during the Gaza war, Israel warned Hizbullah not to launch rockets against it, and there is much evidence that Iran played a role in reining in their proxies. Iran's ruling elite is obsessed with gathering wealth and maintaining power. The argument made by those—including many Israelis for coercive sanctions against Iran is that many in the regime have been squirreling away money into bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland for their children and grandchildren. These are not actions associated with people who believe that the world is going to end soon.

One of Netanyahu's advisers said of Iran, "Think Amalek." The Bible says that the Amalekites were dedicated enemies of the Jewish people. In 1 Samuel 15, God says, "Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Now, were the president of Iran and his advisers to have cited a religious text that gave divine sanction for the annihilation of an entire race, they would be called, well, messianic.

Now the religious angle of this issue might be the most persuasive if you ask me. The Supreme Leader can not get up and preach against the morality of nuclear weapons and call them "un-Islamic" and then wink and nod to his followers and have everything work out fine. One of the consequences of a theistic society is that the citizens follow the leader's spirtual teachings for better or for worse. So how would they even find someone to work on a program that they have been taught will guarantee them a corner of Hell? And as Zakaria points out this isn't something that Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has just said in passing. Its something that has been reiterated several time over the years.

Now we have to be honest with ourselves here. If Zakaria can figure this out then obviously people in the WhiteHouse and in Congress surely can and have as well. I think the question now is how much will President Obama and his administration focus on the facts of the situation rather than continuing to rail against Iran for seeking a weapon that they have good reason to believe they aren't actually trying to develop. I was one of those whom cheered on then Senator Obama's position that he would try diplomacy with Iran and give that a chance. But honestly since he has taken office I have been more than a little disturbed with the rhetoric coming from both President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, when it comes to Iran. Yes there has been outreach but there has also been all of the hyperbole about Iran's supposed pursuit of nuclear weapons.

I realize much of that has to do with our government's relationship with Israel but the problem is people believe what a President says. That's why they are usually the biggest movers of public opinion. So when President Obama or Secretary Clinton makes allusions to Iran seeking a nuclear weapon, the average citizen hears that and believes its a foregone conclusion. Just look at how reports of Iran test firing a conventional missle got conflated into "nuclear test" recently. People who aren't political junkies or policy wonks don't spend their time googling NIEs and transcripts of Congressional hearings. So what happens when public opinion grows for strikes against Iran even if they have done nothing to warrant them? What happens if Israel launches a strike on Iran preemptively and public opinion is that Iran deserved even if they decidely didn't? This has nothing to do with coming to the aid of Israel should she come under attack. In that event we will no doubt stand by her side. But this has everything to do with the old Bush doctrine of preemptive war on countries that have not attacked us or our allies.


I don't believe our national security interests are being served well by the use of over the top rhetoric. Its about time that we demand to hear of any evidence our government has that Iran is truly seeking a nuclear weapon. And if there is none its about time that that fact was made well known to the public. We have enough enemies in this world that are real threats to our security without trying to invent one. And I think at this point we have all seen what happens when lies get repeated over and over so many times that they become accepted as the truth. We don't need the kind of march to war with Iran that we had on the march to war with Iraq.

Now I am not saying that Zakaria is the the foremost authority on this issue and that just because he said it makes it true. However what I AM saying is that nobody has made a credible argument for why Iranians would be seeking a bomb other than something along the lines of "they are crazy mooslems". And yet our elected leaders are allowed to repeatedly make statements to the effect that they are seeking a weapon without ever having to quantify their position. It would be nice if our mainstream media sources would press our elected leaders to either put up or shut up. Especially after the embarrasment of the 2007 NIE which also said that Iran wasn't seeking a weapon after years and years of politicians telling us they were. Either give the American people a plausible explanation for why they believe Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon or, if they can't, knock off the fear mongering. This is one movie that doesn't need a sequel.

Look Back

We are now quickly moving towards a line where President Obama will no longer be able to close his eyes and think the calls for an investigation into torture is going to go away. Looking forward and not back is a nice slogan but it is no way to govern nor lead. Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it and as I and many others have pointed out even if President Obama outlaws torture during his Presidency, that is no guarantee that his successor will do the same. For that matter torture was outlawed when the Bush Administration did it, how exactly did that turn out?

Now with the revelations about the Bush Administration torturing to try to get political cover for the war in Iraq and several Congressional Democrats led by Speaker Pelosi asserting that the Bush Administration misled them on what was being done to detainees and even the new assertions about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsefeld using Bible verses to manipulate President Bush its time to break out the sunlight and find out exactly just how many crimes were committed over the last 8 years. Frank Rich points out in his column today that we may not have even scratched the surface yet on all of the scandals perpetrated on the American people by those thugs:

But Draper’s biggest find is a collection of daily cover sheets that Rumsfeld approved for the Secretary of Defense Worldwide Intelligence Update, a highly classified digest prepared for a tiny audience, including the president, and often delivered by hand to the White House by the defense secretary himself. These cover sheets greeted Bush each day with triumphal color photos of the war headlined by biblical quotations. GQ is posting 11 of them, and they are seriously creepy.

Take the one dated April 3, 2003, two weeks into the invasion, just as Shock and Awe hit its first potholes. Two days earlier, on April 1, a panicky Pentagon had begun spreading its hyped, fictional account of the rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch to distract from troubling news of setbacks. On April 2, Gen. Joseph Hoar, the commander in chief of the United States Central Command from 1991-94, had declared on the Times Op-Ed page that Rumsfeld had sent too few troops to Iraq. And so the Worldwide Intelligence Update for April 3 bullied Bush with Joshua 1:9: “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.” (Including, as it happened, into a quagmire.)

What’s up with that? As Draper writes, Rumsfeld is not known for ostentatious displays of piety. He was cynically playing the religious angle to seduce and manipulate a president who frequently quoted the Bible. But the secretary’s actions were not just oily; he was also taking a risk with national security. If these official daily collages of Crusade-like messaging and war imagery had been leaked, they would have reinforced the Muslim world’s apocalyptic fear that America was waging a religious war. As one alarmed Pentagon hand told Draper, the fallout “would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.”

snip

What happened on Jan. 14 was the release of a report from the Pentagon’s internal watchdog, the inspector general. It had been ordered up in response to a scandal uncovered last year by David Barstow, an investigative reporter for The Times. Barstow had found that the Bush Pentagon fielded a clandestine network of retired military officers and defense officials to spread administration talking points on television, radio and in print while posing as objective “military analysts.” Many of these propagandists worked for military contractors with billions of dollars of business at stake in Pentagon procurement. Many were recipients of junkets and high-level special briefings unavailable to the legitimate press. Yet the public was never told of these conflicts of interest when these “analysts” appeared on the evening news to provide rosy assessments of what they tended to call “the real situation on the ground in Iraq.”

When Barstow’s story broke, more than 45 members of Congress demanded an inquiry. The Pentagon’s inspector general went to work, and its Jan. 14 report was the result. It found no wrongdoing by the Pentagon. Indeed, when Barstow won the Pulitzer Prize last month, Rumsfeld’s current spokesman cited the inspector general’s “exoneration” to attack the Times articles as fiction.

But the Pentagon took another look at this exoneration, and announced on May 5 that the inspector general’s report, not The Times’s reporting, was fiction. The report, it turns out, was riddled with factual errors and included little actual investigation of Barstow’s charges. The inspector general’s office had barely glanced at the 8,000 pages of e-mail that Barstow had used as evidence, and interviewed only seven of the 70 disputed analysts. In other words, the report was a whitewash. The Obama Pentagon officially rescinded it — an almost unprecedented step — and even removed it from its Web site.

Network news operations ignored the unmasking of this last-minute Bush Pentagon cover-up, as they had the original Barstow articles — surely not because they had been patsies for the Bush P.R. machine. But the story is actually far larger than this one particular incident. If the Pentagon inspector general’s office could whitewash this scandal, what else did it whitewash?

In 2005, to take just one example, the same office released a report on how Boeing colluded with low-level Pentagon bad apples on an inflated (and ultimately canceled) $30 billion air-tanker deal. At the time, even John Warner, then the go-to Republican senator on military affairs, didn’t buy the heavily redacted report’s claim that Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, were ignorant of what Warner called “the most significant defense procurement mismanagement in contemporary history.” The Pentagon inspector general who presided over that exoneration soon fled to become an executive at the parent company of another Pentagon contractor, Blackwater.

But the new administration doesn’t want to revisit this history any more than it wants to dwell on torture. Once the inspector general’s report on the military analysts was rescinded, the Obama Pentagon declared the matter closed. The White House seems to be taking its cues from the Reagan-Bush 41 speechwriter Peggy Noonan. “Sometimes I think just keep walking,” she said on ABC’s “This Week” as the torture memos surfaced. “Some of life has to be mysterious.” Imagine if she’d been at Nuremberg!

The administration can’t “just keep walking” because it is losing control of the story. The Beltway punditocracy keeps repeating the cliché that only the A.C.L.U. and the president’s “left-wing base” want accountability, but that’s not the case. Americans know that the Iraq war is not over. A key revelation in last month’s Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees — that torture was used to try to coerce prisoners into “confirming” a bogus Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein link to sell that war — is finally attracting attention. The more we learn piecemeal of this history, the more bipartisan and voluble the call for full transparency has become.

And I do mean bipartisan. Both Dick Cheney, hoping to prove that torture “worked,” and Nancy Pelosi, fending off accusations of hypocrisy on torture, have now asked for classified C.I.A. documents to be made public. When a duo this unlikely, however inadvertently, is on the same side of an issue, the wave is rising too fast for any White House to control. Court cases, including appeals by the “bad apples” made scapegoats for Abu Ghraib, will yank more secrets into the daylight and enlist more anxious past and present officials into the Cheney-Pelosi demands for disclosure.

It will soon be every man for himself. “Did President Bush know everything you knew?” Bob Schieffer asked Cheney on “Face the Nation” last Sunday. The former vice president’s uncharacteristically stumbling and qualified answer — “I certainly, yeah, have every reason to believe he knew...” — suggests that the Bush White House’s once-united front is starting to crack under pressure.

I’m not a fan of Washington’s blue-ribbon commissions, where political compromises can trump the truth. But the 9/11 investigation did illuminate how, a month after Bush received an intelligence brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” 3,000 Americans were slaughtered on his and Cheney’s watch. If the Obama administration really wants to move on from the dark Bush era, it will need a new commission, backed up by serious law enforcement, to shed light on where every body is buried.

Frank Rich Exposes The TRUE Ticking Time Bomb

Frank Rich almost by himself justifies the continued existence of the New York Times. Today he focuses on the OLC memos along with the Senate Armed Services Committee Report on torture. He especially on the new revelations contained in both. The last couple off days I have heard from different corners including on some center left blogs that nothing in these reports and memos were new. Well that's simply untrue. In point of fact, as Rich points out, the very genesis of the torture program was exposed for all to see in the SASC report. It turns out that there was in fact a ticking time bomb scenario for the Bush Administration, but it didn't mean what you think it means...

In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” A month after Bybee’s memo, on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on “Meet the Press,” hyping both Saddam’s W.M.D.s and the “number of contacts over the years” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for war would be a slamdunk.

But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.

Last week Bush-Cheney defenders, true to form, dismissed the Senate Armed Services Committee report as “partisan.” But as the committee chairman, Carl Levin, told me, the report received unanimous support from its members — John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman included.

Levin also emphasized the report’s accounts of military lawyers who dissented from White House doctrine — only to be disregarded. The Bush administration was “driven,” Levin said. By what? “They’d say it was to get more information. But they were desperate to find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,” torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House’s illegality.

Levin suggests — and I agree — that as additional fact-finding plays out, it’s time for the Justice Department to enlist a panel of two or three apolitical outsiders, perhaps retired federal judges, “to review the mass of material” we already have. The fundamental truth is there, as it long has been. The panel can recommend a legal path that will insure accountability for this wholesale betrayal of American values.

President Obama can talk all he wants about not looking back, but this grotesque past is bigger than even he is. It won’t vanish into a memory hole any more than Andersonville, World War II internment camps or My Lai. The White House, Congress and politicians of both parties should get out of the way. We don’t need another commission. We don’t need any Capitol Hill witch hunts. What we must have are fair trials that at long last uphold and reclaim our nation’s commitment to the rule of law.

Condi Rice Can Blow It Out Her Ass

You know I was rereading "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward a few weeks ago and I kept having this nagging question in the back of my mind. Why aren't people calling for Condoleezza Rice to be brought to justice as much as some of the other Bush officials? I think for the most part its because a lot of us have excused her actions and her rhetoric as just being loyal to President Bush. Well I am done with that shit. Condi Rice pushed lead up to the Iraq War as hard and in some cases harder than any other Bush Administration official. To make matters worse to this day she continues to try to force revisionist history on the populous. When they have the truth and reconcilliation commission or whatever forum they find to bring these idiots to justice I want her ass front and center as well. What she is saying now disgusts me and she shouldn't get any more passes.

What's Scarborough Afraid Of?

This morning highly respected foreign affairs journalist Tom Ricks appeared on Morning Joe. Now the interesting thing is that Ricks said some of the same things about Bush tarnishing American's image around the world that other guests have said. The difference is when its a woman making that statement about torture Scarborough berates them and tries to intimidate them into backing down. Tom Ricks said it and repeated it when Scarborogh made a snide remark then looked him dead in the eye and smiled at him damn near challenging him to a debate over the issue. Funny but this time Scarborough didn't have any firebreathing comeback. I wonder why that is...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Of course none of that stopped Scarborough from looking like a dumb ass. I mean he is who he is. But it just struck me watching it live how weak he looked when a strong personality was on his show that wasn't going to take any shit especially in contrast to how he treated Christia Freeland whom he knew would probably back down. Tells you a lot about the guy doesn't it.

Its a C-O-N spiracy

For the second time in two weeks Gareth Porter is shining light on an alleged conspiracy by Generals Odierno and Petraeus along with retired General Keane to undercut President Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq. Now I have been patiently waiting for somebody, anybody to address these allegation but the more this kind of information comes out, the more I lean towards President Obama firing their asses and finding out if it was true later. Just the appearance that they are trying to pull this off, to me sets a precedent that has to be nipped in the bud right away. And if somebody needs to be made an example of I can't think of a more deserving guy than General Odierno. Take a look and see if you see this situation the same way that I do.

WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (IPS) - The political maneuvering between President Barack Obama and his top field commanders over withdrawal from Iraq has taken a sudden new turn with the leak by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus - and a firm denial by a White House official - of an account of the Jan. 21 White House meeting suggesting that Obama had requested three different combat troop withdrawal plans with their respective associated risks, including one of 23 months.

The Petraeus account, reported by McClatchy newspapers Feb. 5 and then by the Associated Press the following day, appears to indicate that Obama is moving away from the 16-month plan he had vowed during the campaign to implement if elected. But on closer examination, it doesn't necessarily refer to any action by Obama or to anything that happened at the Jan. 21 meeting.

The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the most powerful figure in the U.S. military has tried to shape the media coverage of Obama and combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy agenda - and, very likely, his personal political interests as well.

snip

The military source provided the following carefully worded statement: "We were specifically asked to provide projections, assumptions and risks for the accomplishment of objectives associated with 16-, 19- and 23-month drawdown options." That was exactly the sentence published by McClatchy the following day, except that "specifically" was left out.

The source also said Petraeus, Odierno and Ambassador Ryan Crocker had already reached a "unified assessment" on the three drawdown options and had forwarded them to the chain of command.

But a White House official told IPS Monday that the Petraeus account was untrue. "The assessments of the three drawdown dates were not requested by the president," said the official, who insisted on not being identified because he had not been authorised to comment on the matter. "He never said, 'Give me three drawdown plans'."

McClatchy's Nancy Youssef reported a similar account from aides to Obama. "Obama told his advisors shortly after taking office that he remained committed to the 16-month timeframe," Youssef wrote, "but asked them to present him with the pros and cons of that and other options, without specifying dates

snip

The sentence given to this writer as well as to McClatchy bore one obvious clue that the request for the assessments of three drawdown plans did not come from Obama: the sentence used the passive voice. It also failed to explicitly state that the request in question was made during the meeting with Obama.

Petraeus did not respond to a request through the intermediary to say who requested the studies and whether they had been proposed by the military commanders themselves. McClatchy's Youssef also noted that it is "unclear who came up with the idea..." of the 19- and 23-month withdrawal plans.

By implying that Obama had requested the three plans without saying so explicitly, the sentence leaked by Petraeus seems to have been calculated to create a misleading story.

snip

But the Petraeus leak also serves to promote the idea that Obama is moving away from his campaign pledge on a 16-month combat troop withdrawal, which has already been the dominant theme in news media coverage of the issue. That idea would also justify continued sniping by military officers at the Obama 16-month plan as too risky.

snip

On top of the interest of Petraeus and other senior officers in keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as possible, Petraeus has personal political interests at stake in the struggle over Iraq policy. He has been widely regarded as a possible Republican Presidential candidate in 2012.

If General Petraeus wants to run for President in 2012, I say President Obama should do him a favor and cut his ass loose so he can have all the time in the world to get ready for his campaign instead of spending his time fucking up Obama's foreign policy.

Juan Williams: FoxNews' Black "Liberal" Useful Fool

Evidently Juan Williams is pissy about the whole Iraqi journalist throwing his shoes at President Bush incident. He is outraged that the Iraqi people aren't more appreciative of all we Americans have done for them. Thinkprogress is on the job.

Last night on “The O’Reilly Factor,” host Bill O’Reilly slammed Muntader al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President Bush, and said that if he had been there, he “would have physically taken the guy down.” Guest Juan Williams agreed, but he widened his condemnation to Iraqis in general, who he said were behaving like “ingrate[s]” for not appreciating what the United States has done for them:

WILLIAMS: But on a serious level, how many American lives have been sacrificed to the cause of liberating Iraq? How much money has been spent while they’re not spending their own profits from their oil? American money. So I just think it’s absolutely the act of an ingrate for them to behave in this way. Just unbelievable to me.

Maybe it has something to do with all of those innocent civilians we have been
killing and displacing Juan.

Jeebus man grow a brain, rent a spine and stop bringing your people down on FoxNews.

Thats a demand not a request!

Gen Odierno, There's a New Sheriff In Town!

In honor of your recent comments, this one's on me!