Colin Powell: “Army is About Broken”

This is the Colin Powell we wish we had heard from before during the eve of the Iraq invasion: a man skeptical of an ill conceived war plan. On Face the Nation Colin Powell question the wisdom of the latest establish group think, the so called "surge" of troops — video courtesy of Crooks and Liars:

Blair Knew There Were No WMDs

I trust that you’ll not be shocked to learn, yet again, that there’s more evidence indicating that Bush & Co. with the help of their poodle across the pond, Tony Blair, deceitfully lead their respective peoples to war.

Of course, just before the invasion of Iraq we were constantly told by Bush and Blair that Hussein posed an imminent threat against the U.S. and U.K. — there was something about mushroom clouds — if I recall.

America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
October 7, 2002

That was then, many thousands of lifetimes before today.

Today we know that there were no WMDs, that there was no "Yellow Cake" uranium, that Iraq did not pose any sort of eminent threat, and that the Iraqi people did no welcome us with sweets and flowers. And guess what, Bush and Blair knew all this back in 2002… even as they told the American and British public the exact opposite at the time.

And now, once more, we have evidence demonstrating in what low regard these men hold the truth, and the trust that their respective peoples’ placed on them at such a crucial time. The head line on The Independent story tells it all:

Diplomat’s Suppressed Document Lays Bare the Lies Behind Iraq War

By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith
Published: 15 December 2006

The Government’s case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr Blair’s justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain’s key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

[...]

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that ‘regime change’ was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

[...]

The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act.

It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.

Mr Ross’s evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests.

Yes, yes. The allegation isn’t new. By now any one that continues to defend the motives and circumstances that led to the invasion of Iraq is either not paying attention or is wilfully deceitful. So what are we to do with this new revelation?

I think that the twelfth, yes, the twelfth paragraph of the article provides a partial answer:

[Mr Ross'] hitherto secret evidence threatens to reopen the row over the legality of the conflict, under which Mr Blair has sought to draw a line as the internecine bloodshed in Iraq has worsened.

What do I draw from this? First, lemme grant that as the national focus has moved to "What do we do now that we’re in Iraq?", it is nearly impossible to change the focus back to the circumstances that lead us into Iraq to begin with. However, if evidence such as what’s described above were to be forcefully pushed onto the national stage… that is, if someone or some ones were to "reopen the row over the legality of the conflict," Bush’s choices on what to do in Iraq now may be constrained. Additionally, if the "legality" of the war were to be reopened, Congress, er, the Democratically led Congress, may be forced to look at cutting off funding for an illegal war.

Democratic Controlled Senate Through 2012?

I like this: a Democratic held Senate through 2012…

A Long-Term Senate Democratic Majority?

By Chuck Todd, NationalJournal.com
© National Journal Group Inc.
Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2006

One reason why Republicans were particularly depressed about losing the Senate this cycle was the demoralizing realization that the party may not have another realistic shot at getting the majority back until 2012.

In fact, Democrats weren’t supposed to pick up any seats in 2006, because the GOP appeared to have the better opportunities. After all, despite holding just 45 seats (counting Vermont independent Jim Jeffords’), Democrats had to defend 18. Furthermore, four of the five Democrats who knocked off GOP incumbents in 2000 were facing their first re-election contests this year.

John Edwards, An Early Favorite

Time to take a second look at John Edwards…

An NBC/WSJ poll finds that at this very early stage McCain leads Hillary and Obama, but McCain trails Edwards:

In some head-to-head match ups, McCain leads Clinton by four points (47 to 43 percent) and Obama by five points (43 percent to 38 percent). But — in an interesting twist — the Arizona senator trails Edwards by two points (43 percent to 41 percent).

Edwards, at this very early stage, also leads in Iowa:

Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina and the winner of the 2004 caucuses, was picked as the early preference of 36 percent of likely caucusgoers in the survey.

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York came in second with 16 percent.

Third was Sen. Barack Obama with 13 percent, and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack trailed in fourth place at 9 percent.

Again, it’s very early, which is why the article notes the following:

Some elements of the race have changed since the poll was completed. Vilsack has formally announced his entry, Clinton has begun reaching out to Iowans, and Obama last weekend traveled to New Hampshire.

I think that Senator Edwards has it right, via PoliticalWire.com:

"Running before makes you focus on something different. Instead of focusing on how crowds respond to you and what everybody seems to love of you. That’s not the test for being president. The test for being president is are you the best person to occupy the Oval Office and be the leader of the free world? Because literally the future of the world is at stake here. This is not about popularity and excitement."

— John Edwards, on Hardball

The “Pillars” of Conservatism

Over at the HuffingtonPost Bob Burnett identifies what he calls “ten pillars of conservative political wisdom,” and he advises that Liberals should attack each one of them. Mr. Burnett provides a lot to chew on, I think. Here are the “pillars” of conservatism that we should go after:

1. Government is bad: Conservatives believe the Federal government is unnecessary, except for the military. They maintain that entitlements for the disadvantaged–the poor, elderly, and disabled–are counter-productive, as they foster dependency. Most Americans believe in the necessity for the Federal government and these entitlements. It’s the role of liberals to provide a new justification for government, in general.

2. Competence is overrated: Because conservatives don’t believe in government, they feel the only salient qualification for political office–such as President and Vice President–is ideological purity. As a result, the Bush White House has proved to be the most conservative and least competent Administration in modern political history. Liberals must insist that elected officials have a record of accomplishment; they should believe in working for the common good and know what they are doing.

3. Cutting taxes fixes everything: Beginning in 2001, the conservative Bush Administration reduced taxes, claiming this would reduce the size of the Federal government and a "rising tide would lift all boats." Instead, this ill-considered "panacea" created a record Federal debt and lifted only the yachts of the rich. Liberals need to roll back these tax cuts and take a stand for fiscal sanity.

4. The market will provide: Conservatives believe that, in the absence of Federal programs, the market will solve national problems. America’s healthcare crisis demonstrates that this is naïve: the market doesn’t care about problems that affect the average American. And, the market doesn’t respond to disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina. Liberals should argue that only government can solve certain national problems and resurrect the notion that government provides a "the safety net."

5. Our best foreign policy is a strong military: Even though the US has by far the largest Defense budget in the world, conservatives continue to lobby for billions of dollars for wasteful Pentagon projects. They argue that big is better, that America’s best defense is a strong military. They ignore the fact that our armed forces didn’t protect us on 9/11 and haven’t won the war in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Conservatives also argue that the military is our best instrument of foreign policy. It’s time for liberals to demand a complete review of our defense strategy and foreign policy.

6. The U.S. is at war: Since 9/11, conservatives have argued we’re engaged in a "war on terror." But we’re not. Terrorism isn’t a military campaign waged by countries that don’t like us; it’s a social disease that requires America to use a variety of means to combat extremists. Liberals need to stop calling this a war and begin lobbying for a balanced campaign that includes diplomacy and use of police and intelligence resources.

7. Don’t ask questions: President Bush has consistently argued that it’s not necessary to understand why terrorists want to attack us, all that’s required is knowing they "hate our freedom." However, most experts on terrorism argue that terrorists have readily understandable motives, and we can head off future attacks by understanding what these motives are: for example, they want us to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord.

8. Trust the Commander-in-chief: Since 9/11, Bush and his conservative supporters have argued that the President, as commander-in-chief, has special responsibilities that obviate the necessity for the balance-of-powers logic in the Constitution: because the US is at "war" the President is above the law. Liberals need to attack this notion and roll back legislation that restricts our civil-rights.

9. America can go it alone: A cornerstone of conservative foreign policy is the belief that our allies are stupid and, therefore, don’t care if we act like bullies most of the time. The Bush Administration philosophy assumes that since the US has a bloated military, it doesn’t matter whether or not we use diplomacy or participate in international organizations. Conservatives believe that because America is big and powerful we can do whatever we want in the world: go it alone. Liberals need to point out that the strategy hasn’t proven successful, that it hasn’t built the alliances required to solve problems such as terrorism, AIDS, and global warming.

10. Winning is everything: Finally, the operating philosophy of conservatives has been that it doesn’t matter how you accomplish your objectives, just that you win: the ends justify the means. This has been the modus operandi of a conservative Bush Administration that lied to the American people. Liberals need to stand up for telling the truth, argue that Americans are governed by a morality that that values the common good, and places the public interest above personal ambition.