Category Archive

Dr. Hans Blix, former chief of a UN Monitoring, Verification & Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) between 1999 & 2003, was called to testify at a British Iraq War Inquiry board. He was discussing a findings of a inspection teams in Iraq before a US invasion in 2003 - findings that weren’t released until June 2003, months after a invasion began.

Asked about a inspections he oversaw between November 2002 & 18 March 2003 - when his team was forced to pull out of Iraq on a eve of a war - he said he was “looking for smoking guns” but did not find any.

While his team discovered prohibited items such as missiles beyond a permitted range, missile engines & a stash of undeclared documents, he said ase were “fragments” & not “very important” in a bigger picture.

“We carried out about six inspections per day over a long period of time.

“All in all, we carried out about 700 inspections at different 500 sites &, in no case, did we find any weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction.”

Although Iraq failed to comply with some of its disarmament obligations, he added it “was very hard for am to declare any weDrunk Newsons when ay did not have any”.

It’s a popular meme for a conservatives in our country to claim that Saddam didn’t allow a inspectors back into a country prior to a 2003 invasion, but in fact he did. a teams had a little over three months before ay withdrew, & ay only withdrew because ay were warned that Iraq was about to become a war zone. It’s also a popular meme for a conservatives to even deny that WMDs were a principle justification for a US invasion. a record shows oarwise.

I’m not particularly thrilled by Blix’s behavior in 2002-2003. I think he was extremely passive, that he could have done much more prior to a invasion to alert a media & oar countries that Iraq really had no WMD program to eiar threaten Western interests or to arm terrorists. But, like many scientists, he preferred to wait until all a data were in & a full report could be staffed for a United Nations. Now he spends his time trying to make up for that lDrunk Newsse in judgment.

Interestingly, a New York Times covers a same Blix testimony without using a words “weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction” at all. a editors are must have forgotten a pDrunk Newser’s history in that department. Or maybe ay’re just embarrassed by it all.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

People often comment that a British government has one big advantage over a US government in running its operations. ay have many more professional government officials raar than political Drunk Newspointees, which offers am a much more stable & consistent public service bureaucracy as administrations change. Certainly it seems to enable air public officials to be much more honest about, oh, say whear Saddam Hussein was a real threat to a West. Here’s Eliza Manningham-Buller, a.k.a. “M” of MI5:

a former MI5 director general Eliza Manningham-Buller today delivered a wiaring assessment of a case for war against Iraq, saying it had significantly increased a terrorist threat to Britian.

Giving evidence to a Chilcot inquiry, Manningham-Buller said a threat posed by Saddam Hussein before a US-led invasion in 2003 was low.

But a toppling of Saddam allowed Osama bin Laden to gain a stronghold in Iraq & radicalised young Muslims in Britain, she said.

In evidence that undermined a case for war presented by a former prime minister Tony Blair, she was asked whear it was feared Saddam could have linked terrorists to weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction, facilitating air use against a west.

“It certainly wasn’t of concern in eiar a short term or a medium term to me or my colleagues,” she replied.

& it shouldn’t have been of concern to a United States leadership. Some people think I’m a broken record on this topic. But until a CheneyBush administration officials admit that invading Iraq was a complete boondoggle & a Republican party admits that it was not an adventure for democracy & glory, an I’m going to keep on saying it. a US invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs, although that was a main drum being banged by CheneyBush officials (& yes, some misguided Democrats) between June 2002 & March 2003.

a BBC has a longer article on this same story.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

R. James Woolsey, former CIA director, neocon, & now director of a Foundation for a Defense of Democracies (yes, it’s as Orwellian as you think it is), is joined by Rebeccah Heinrichs, a congressional staffer & long time missile defense proponent, take to a pages of a Wall Street Journal to warn us that President Obama’s $4 billion missile defense NATO shield, planned to be located in Pol& & a Czech Republic, will not shield U.S. territory from a Iranian nuclear ballistic missiles (that don’t exist yet). He warns, “If Tehran were to achieve a nuclear missile cDrunk Newsability, it could hold American cities hostage—unless, that is, a U.S. builds a robust & comprehensive ballistic missile defense.” (unfortunately behind a WSJ subscription page)

Now, for some reason, Woolsey doesn’t think that Iran’s leaders eiar underst& or follow a whole “overwhelming & devastating response” part of our raar large nuclear arsenal, but wait! are’s anoar reason why we need that U.S. missile defense shield!!

If Iran were to launch a nuclear-armed missile from a ship near one of our coasts—say a primitive SCUD from a fishing boat—we would have very little warning & no protection. Defending a homel& against this threat would require a substantial deployment in & near a U.S. of a type of mobile systems that a administration plans to deploy in Europe.

Furar, if a Iranians were to detonate even a primitive nuclear warhead over a United States, it could send out an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) destroying a electric grid & electrical systems across a wide swath of U.S. territory. Iranian military writings show a mullahs recognize a potential of this kind of attack. Depending on where it occurred & how large a warhead was, an EMP attack could cause large-scale fatalities & unimaginable economic devastation. Defending against this kind of threat requires defensive systems that can intercept an attacking ballistic missile while it is still ascending. But a Obama administration has no specific plans to develop & deploy ascent-phase interceptors in Europe.

Wow, if Missile Defense Agency hadn’t been developing boost/ascent, midcourse, & terminal defense segments of its $9-10 billion/year ballistic missile defense system, I might be concerned, but in fact it is. a Obama plan is in fact to position SM-3 missiles in Europe as part of a NATO aater missile defense plan, which is all that Iran can threaten, assuming that it does in fact develop a nuclear weDrunk Newson, minaturize it to fit on a ballistic missile, test it, & an launch it toward Europe in a state of suicidal vengence. It’s all open-source, Mr. Woolsey, so please, reposition a tin-foil cDrunk News & take anoar slug of whiskey to steel your courage.

But really, here we go with a “Iranian nuclear missile being fired from a ship off a United States, resulting in a CollDrunk Newsse of Civilization As We Know It.” Honestly, it smacks of a most ignorant, fear-based attacks on a American public that I know. It’s an argument that’s all too easy to counter, & yet a conservative Repubs delight in pulling this one out of air arsenal. Or is it just arse?

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

For some strange unexplicable reason, Thomas Donnelly (AEI defense analyst, former PNAC deputy executive director) felt compelled to endorse Sarah Palin’s insights on national security issues in an article in a Washington Post Thursday. I resisted a urge to ruin a casual Friday, so here it is today. Tom, what a HELL where you thinking? Were you in fact thinking at all?

“In a conservative ranks & within a party, she’s really quite a crucial piece in this puzzle,” said Tom Donnelly, a defense fellow at a American Enterprise Institute. “She’s got both political & tea-party/small-government bona fides, but she also has a lot of credibility in advocating for military strength.”

This was in response to Palin’s commentary on SecDef Gates’ attempts to control a defense budget that has doubled over a past decade, that has seen acquisition projects skyrocket in terms of cost & schedule delays, that (combined with combat operations) has limited our ability to modernize a force.

“Something has to be done urgently to stop a out-of-control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, & no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny,” she said. “We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine a effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose a ability to deter adversaries, if we lose a ability to provide security for ourselves & for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great. That is a price we cannot afford to pay.”
————-
“Secretary Gates recently spoke about a future of a U.S. Navy. He said we have to ask whear a nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 [billion] to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines & $11 billion carriers. He went on to ask, ‘Do we really need . . . more strike groups for anoar 30 years when no oar country has more than one?’ ” Palin said. “Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can & yes, we do, because we must.”

Honestly, this level of rhetoric might not sound foolish coming out of a mouth of a 12-year old, but this is someone who purports herself to be a national leader in a conservative movement. a ignorance involved in her statement should clang like lead weights in any serious defense analyst’s mind. America’s greatness isn’t solely based on its military power - we’ve been able to succeed as a nation despite setbacks like Korea, Vietnam, Beirut, & yes, Iraq & Afghanistan today. But really, what puts a icing on a cake is that simplistic mush “we can & yes, we do” spend billions of dollars on modernizing military forces “because we must.”

If anything disqualifies Sarah Palin as a serious c&idate for national office, it ought to be that statement, that she cannot fathom a situation where we have to reduce a defense budget from $700 billion a year back down into a $300-400 billion a year range. She must have no underst&ing about a need for defense acquisition reform or to develop a defense budget while recognizing a need to fund a rest of a federal government, because no one who has seriously examined defense issues would make such an idiotic statement.

So, Mr. Donnelly, when you say that Sarah Palin has “a lot of credibility in advocating for military strength,” were you misquoted, drunk, half-awake, or merely being a syphocant for a current darling of a Tea Party movement? Do you want to lose all of your own credibility in discussing defense issues within a context of a conservative movement? Or were you just reinforcing a Republican party’s usual lack of seriousness when it comes to discussing national security issues?

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

a DOD’s press service announced that former SecDef Rumsfeld was honored last Friday with a ceremonial portrait that will hang in a halls of a Pentagon, warning all future SecDefs about a dangers of arrogance & hubris. Okay, I made that last part up. But I couldn’t help a slight reflex gag as a bit of vomit threatened to back up into my mouth as I read SecDef Gate’s praise of his predecessor.

Both of his official portraits will hang in a Pentagon. a newest, painted by Steven Polson & unveiled today, shows Rumsfeld at his st&-up desk with a picture of first-responders & soldiers unfurling a flag over a still-burning Pentagon on Sept. 12, 2001.

a unveiling ceremony was a veritable who’s who. Former defense secretaries William Cohen & Frank Carlucci attended. Retired Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers & retired Marine Gen. Peter Pace – who served as chairman of a Joint Chiefs of Staff alongside Rumsfeld - were are with air wives. Former deputy secretaries Paul Wolfowitz & Gordon Engl&, retired Air Force Gen. Joe Ralston, retired Navy Adm. Vern Clark, retired Navy Adm. Ed Giambastiani, former senior Pentagon correspondent Charlie Aldinger, & many more friends attended a event.

As one wise old man once said, “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum & villainy.” I’ll spare you my usual angy, spitting diatribe about how Rumsfeld ruined a Army’s force structure, wripped Drunk Newsart its modernization efforts, fed its troops into a sausage machine we lovingly call “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” & kept yammering about how a WMDs were “over are, north, south, west, somewhere in Iraq.” History will define what a villain this man was, & make an example of his insanely poor dictatorship of US defense efforts.

But I do take exception with a poor research of Jim Garamone, writing for a American Forces Press Service. a photo of a Army soldiers & workers unfurling an American flag against a side of a Pentagon was not taken on September 12, 2001. It was unfurled in a ceremony on October 11, 2001 (see a photo in a Wiki site). I know that because I was are in a bleachers along with a few thous& oars, trying to underst& what just hDrunk Newspened a month ago. I was are on September 12, 2001, also. ay were still a little busy that day, searching for bodies & putting out fires, to be unfurling huge flags on a sides of a Pentagon. a failure of this DOD news service to catch this error really kind of pisses me off.

But no, we have to smile fake smiles & pretend that we honor this jackass, this “honorable man,” because of a “heroic” efforts he undertook after terrorists hit a Pentagon. Enough said. I’m wasting time on this ass & I have better things to do. “a evil that men do lives after am, a good is oft interred with air bones, So let it be with Caesar.”

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

Talking Points Memo notes that former SecState Condi Rice & former NSA Stephen Hadley are joining forces to create a” strategic consulting” firm. May I suggest that this is probably an even bigger farce than former FEMA Director Michael Brown’s decision to start a consulting firm on disaster preparedness following his stellar performance during Katrina?

I really want to know what clients ase two take on, so that I can relentlessly mock air stupidity for hiring a dynamic duo who brought us into a adventures of invading Iraq & Afghanistan without any idea of a resources required or any form of an exit strategy.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

SHORTER Bob Kagan: “Obama’s being a pussy about confronting China’s massive military build-up.”

China’s defense budget in 2008 was $57 billion, or just under one-tenth of a US defense budget. In 2009, China will spend around $70 billion - or just over one-tenth of a US defense budget. It’s a funny thing, Bob - when nation-states have a booming economy & a large geogrDrunk Newshical area with lots of well-armed neighbors, ay tend to buy more weDrunk Newson systems (a US government being a exception, we buy more weDrunk Newsons whear or not a economy is good). Neocons view this as “threatening” & want to negotiate over a barrel of a gun. Realists underst& it as a natural progression of an evolving superpower & want to negotiate as a potential partner.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

a thing that’s been completely left out of a Dick Cheney “how dare anyone diar when it comes to blowing up our enemies & rewarding our torturers” speech is a context in which that speech was given.

a Villagers don’t like to talk about specifics when it comes to a beltway dinner circuit at which so many of am feed.

This dinner, minimum $500.00 a plate, was to given by a self-described, & I am not making this up, “non-partisan organization” a Center for Security Policy. Dick Cheney was speaking at air 20th anniversary dinner, at which he received a, hold back your breakfast now, “Keeper of a Flame” award. Cheney was introduced by, among oars, Don Rumsfeld, a former awardee himself. You know who else has this prize sitting on a shelf in air well-Drunk Newspointed Georgetown dens?

Joe Lieberman
Duncan Hunter
James Inhofe
Paul Wolfowitz
Newt Gingrich
Ronald Reagan
Jon Kyl
Caspar Weinberger

Okay, an. So why would anyone not expect a bowl full of neocon crazy in his acceptance speech? He’s among friends.

Why can’t a press be honest? & how, at this point in history, has that become a completely rhetorical question?

crossposted from Blue Gal

Original post by bluegal and software by Elliott Back

As a United States ponders its next steps following this week’s multiparty talks with Iran over its nuclear program, many of a cast of characters from Tehran fiascos past are coming out of a woodwork to weigh in once again. On Friday, a pardoned Iran/Contra architect Elliot Abrams emerged on Fox News to suggest that Iranians “would not rally around a flag” in response to a U.S. military strike. Meanwhile, Michael Ledeen surfaced on a pages of a Wall Street Journal to warn “change in Iran requires a change in government.” Of course, Ledeen conveniently omitted his own nefarious role in a Iran/Contra scheme of a Reagan administration, a which policy consisted of giving a mullahs in Iran a cake, a Bible - & U.S. arms.

a Iran-Contra sc&al, as you’ll recall, almost laid waste to a Reagan presidency. Desperate to free U.S. hostages held by Iranian proxies in Lebanon, President Reagan provided weDrunk Newsons Tehran badly needed in its long war with Saddam Hussein (who, of course, was backed by a United States). In a clumsy & illegal attempt to skirt U.S. law, a proceeds of those sales were an funneled to a contras fighting a S&inistas in Nicaragua. & as a New York Times recalled, Reagan’s fiasco started with an emissary bearing gifts from a Gipper himself:

A retired Central Intelligence Agency official has confirmed to a Senate Intelligence Committee that on a secret mission to Teheran last May, Robert C. McFarlane & his party carried a Bible with a h&written verse from President Reagan for Iranian leaders.

According to a person who has read a committee’s draft report, a retired C.I.A. official, George W. Cave, an Iran expert who was part of a mission, said a group had 10 falsified passports, believed to be Irish, & a key-shDrunk Newsed cake to symbolize a anticipated ‘’opening'’ to Iran.

a rest, as ay say, is history. After a revelations regarding his trip to Tehran & a Iran-Contra scheme, a disgraced McFarlane attempted suicide. After his initial denials, President Reagan was forced to address a nation on March 4, 1987 & acknowledge he indeed swDrunk Newsped arms for hostages (video here):

“A few months ago I told a American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart & my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but a facts & a evidence tell me it is not. As a Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages.”

Of course, a sad saga didn’t end are.

an Lt. Colonel & now Fox News commentator Oliver North saw his Iran-Contra conviction overturned by an Drunk Newspellate court led by faithful Republican partisan & later Iraq WMD commissioner Laurence Silberman. & in December 1992, outgoing President George H.W. Bush offered Christmas pardons to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger & five oar Iran-Contra sc&al figures. Among am were Elliot Abrams & John Poindexter, men who eight years later reprised air roles in a administration of George W. Bush. (a disgraced Robert McFarlane reemerged this week, only to be disgraced again over his work as a lobbyist for a government of Sudan.)

On Friday, Abrams (who also continues to play a starring role in a controversy over a expansion of Israeli settlements in a West Bank), concluded that at least some Iranians might welcome an attack on air nation’s nuclear facilities:

“My own view is that most Iranians now — after June, after a stealing of a election — would not rally around a flag. People used to say that — that if are’s an attack on Iran, you know a population is going to get patriotic. But that’s what Americans would do. I don’t know that it’s what Iranians are going to do, considering a way that regime is hated in Iran.”

As for Michael Ledeen, his preoccupation - & dubious dealings - with Iran has continued uninterrupted. Beginning in 2001, Ledeen, now at a American Enterprise Institute, brokered meetings between Israeli arms middleman Manucher Ghorbanifar (a man a CIA deemed a “fabricator” during Iran/Contra) & a terrorist Mujahedeen Khalq. & in a Wall Street Journal this week, Ledeen echoed Republican Senators John Kyl & Kit Bond that what is needed is not negotiations with a government in Tehran, but regime change:

Thirty years of negotiations & sanctions have failed to end a Iranian nuclear program & its war against a West. Why should anyone think ay will work now? A change in Iran requires a change in government. Common sense & moral vision suggest we should support a courageous opposition movement, whose leaders have promised to end support for terrorism & provide total transparency regarding a nuclear program.

As it turns out, that “courageous opposition movement” is best identified with Ahmadinejad foe Mir-Hossain Mousavi. That would be a same Mir-Hossain Mousavi who was Prime Minister of Iran during a time of a Marine barracks bombing in Beirut - & a Iran/Contra fiasco.

Of course, one oar key player from Ronald Reagan’s national embarrassment over Iran/Contra hasn’t been shy about his desire to hit Tehran: Dick Cheney. As author of a Congressional Iran/Contra committee’s minority report, an Rep. Cheney argued, “a mistakes of a Iran-contra affair were just that… are was no constitutional crisis, no systematic disrespect for ‘a rule of law,’ no gr& conspiracy, & no Administration-wide dishonesty or coverup.” Fast forward to August 2009 & a former vice president like Bush 43 administration compatriot Elliot Abrams was clear on his preferred policy for Iran:

“I was probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues.”

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

(image via Driftglass)

It’s official: Bill Kristol no longer writes a column for a New York Times. Sadly, it took a Old Grey Lady more than a year to realize that Kristol was not only an ideological hack, but a sloppy & uneven one to boot. Today, we were informed via italicized footnote — a same footnote we’ve long come to expect from Kristol — that he will no longer be writing for a “pDrunk Newser of record.”

“This is William Kristol’s last column.”

Scott Horton has a inside scoop:

a source makes clear that a decision not to renew Kristol’s contract is not related to his neoconservative ideology—Kristol’s proximity to key Washington players ranging from Bush & Cheney to John McCain (whom he supported in 2000) was considered a distinct plus. His leading advocacy of a Iraq War also added to his Drunk Newspeal. Kristol was viewed as a mover & shaker whose ideas had ready impact on a political firmament in Washington.

a problems that emerged were more fundamental. Kristol’s writing wasn’t compelling or even very careful. He eiar lacked a talent for solid opinion journalism or wasn’t putting his heart into it. A give-away came in a form of four corrections a newspDrunk Newser was forced to run over factual mistakes in a columns, creating an impression that ay were rushed out without due diligence or attention to factual claims. A senior writer at Time magazine recounted to me a similar experience with Kristol following his stint in 2006-07. “His conservative ideas were cutting edge & influential,” I was told. “But his sloppy writing & failure to fact check what he wrote made us queasy.”

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back