Lie deja vu

It seems that I was writing the same thing just last week. I was blogging about our Republican legislators perpetuating lies regarding Iraq. However, this week there's a slight twist: the lie being perpetuated this time is that there are WMDs in Iraq.

FOX News was proud to report Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq. They quote senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) as saying "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons." Referring to a declassified National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report, representative Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) was also quoted: "This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq."

What are the "WMDs" these congressmen refer to? They are approximately 500 shells, canisters, and munitions that contain degraded mustard gas or sarin nerve agent. Sounds pretty scary! Surely they must be the elusive WMDs that secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld said are "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Not exactly. It turns out the munitions pre-date the Gulf War of 1991. After Iraq's war against Iran, they buried the munitions near the border of Iran since they no longer needed them. They were subsequently seemingly either abandoned or forgotten there by Saddam Hussein. The chemical weapons are so degraded by time that a senior Defense Department official stated that they are not in usable condition.

Intelligence officials from three different agencies told reporters that the NGIC report was substantially the same as a 2004 report by a team of American weapons inspectors led by Charles A. Duelfer that concluded Hussein was not in possession of significant stocks of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons at the time of the US-led invasion. The intelligence agents went on to say that Hoekstra had actually pressured them to declassify the report on June 15 and 19.

Could it be a coincidence that he gave the DNI, John Negroponte, just 48 hours to declassify the NGIC report a couple of days prior to the debate about the Iraq war to be had on the floor of the Senate? On his Countdown show, Keith Olbermann suggests it was not. His guests make the claim that Santorum's reelection campaign is in serious trouble, so he is using the report to justify his support of the Iraq war to his constituency.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

Those are the exact words babbled by president Bush almost three years ago. Although ineptly worded, that was one of the few times when Bush spoke truthfully on the topic. The 9/11 Commission Report made that assessment incontrovertible.

Yet here we are in 2006 and the GOP is still trying to perpetuate the lie that Iraq played a role in the attack of 9/11/2001. Although Bush has made countless deceptive statements intended to associate Saddam Hussein with 9/11 in the minds of the American people, congressional investigations and reports have since completely debunked any relationship whatsoever between Iraq and al Qaeda ... prior to Bush's invasion of the country. Nonetheless, the House Republicans returned to this campaign of deception just last week.

The House majority leader John Boehner distributed a confidential messaging memo to House Republican members for the floor debate on Iraq. In it, Boehner makes a half dozen references to 9/11 and almost a dozen to terror. The memo is replete with statements clearly intended to recreate the false tie between Iraq and 9/11 in the people's House like:

• "It is imperative during this debate that we re-examine the conditions that required the United States to take military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
• "The attacks we witnessed that day serve as a reminder of the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world.
• "In a post-9/11 world, we could no longer allow despots and dictators like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to ignore international sanctions and resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council.
• "As Republicans who supported military action against Saddam Hussein and terrorists around the globe...
• "In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and the threat of terrorism with strength and resolve...?"

Even the title of the memo, "Floor Debate on Iraq and the Global War on Terror," tries to make a fallacious connection. Global terrorism will not be defeated in Iraq and Bush will not protect Americans from it by leaving America exposed in the homeland. Bush's claim that we've made the decision to defeat the terrorists in Iraq "so we don't have to face them here at home" is a non sequitur. Does anyone really believe that every terrorist intent on doing harm to Americans is going to make their attack on us in Iraq? And how does the war in Iraq protect Americans from home-grown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, and Eric Rudolph.

It's long past time for the GOP to give up on the campaign of deceit intended to make the American people think Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. If they insist on perpetuating lies about the war in Iraq, they should at least be intellectually honest and return to the original excuse for invading Iraq: that Hussein had WMDs.

War profiteer or liar?

Vice president Dick Cheney was formerly the CEO of Halliburton and still receives compensation from the company. Could that have anything to do with the fact that Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) received an almost $7-billion no-bid contract (before the US even invaded) to clean up Iraq from the damage done by invading the country? After all, KBR is a subsidiary of Halliburton, so one would expect Cheney to see financial gain by such a contract. Furthermore, Cheney was clearly in a position to influence the granting of the contract.

According to Chuck Dominy, Halliburton's vice president for government affairs, nothing could be further from the truth. When asked that question on 60 Minutes in 2003, Dominy responded, "Zero, I will guarantee you that. Absolutely zero impact." Cheney himself also says he had nothing to do with the Army Corp's decision to give the no bid contract to Halliburton. That's pretty unambiguous. Case closed, right?

Wrong! Judicial Watch obtained an email from March 5, 2003, that quotes a Pentagon official saying about the KBR contract, "We anticipate no issue; since action has been coordinated w VP's office." Another newly released email from an Army Corps of Engineer official said, "I am copying you on this crap since I honestly believe the competitive procurement will never happen."

How is it that Cheney could have had "absolutely zero impact" on the KBR contract if it was "coordinated w VP's office"? It's clearly a contradiction demonstrating yet again that Cheney used the war in Iraq as a vehicle for him to profit personally. It also shows that Cheney knows how to dissemble better than Bush does. So the answer to my first question is: C. All of the above.

With friends like that...

Former FEMA director Michael Brown was widely criticized for FEMA's fault-ridden response to the hurricane Katrina disaster. Yet in spite of his failures, president Bush told him "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

At first blush, it seems strange to commend someone for dismal performance. However, an email leaked by Brownie himself sheds new light on what Bush really meant. Brown actually was doing a good job -- but not at responding to the disaster. He was doing a good job of taking a beating.

The email with the subject "You and the President," written by a staffer of the Executive Office of the President (redacted@eop.gov) to Brown shortly after the disaster, said:

I did hear of one reference to you, at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. I wasn't there, but I heard someone commented that the press was sure beating up on Mike Brown, to which the President replied "I'd rather they beat up on him than me or Chertoff." Congratulations on doing a great job of diverting hostile fire away from the leader.

That's right: instead of accepting responsibility for the failures of his administration himself, the chief executive let a lowly scapegoat take the heat! Although Bush is widely considered to be someone who rewards loyalty, he rewarded Brown by letting him be scoffed and derided by most of his fellow Americans for Bush's own shortcomings as a leader. With a patron like that, who needs detractors?

The fish rots from the head

American troops have established a well-deserved reputation for defending the USA with honor. Americans owe their troops a debt of gratitude for their service. This blogger has great respect for our troops doing their duty, even when their commander in chief leads them into an illegitimate war of choice against Iraq.

It is not our troops' place to question their orders. They must act with discipline to ensure the safety of all Americans when their leadership calls on them to defend our country. Therefore, I must be clear that I lay a large part of the blame for the loathsome developments I recount here squarely at the feet of president George W. Bush.

It seems that Bush's corrupt fascism is beginning to rot the lower ranks of the military. In the latest incident, the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines deliberately killed some thirty Iraqi civilians in cold blood. While searching Haditha for insurgents who had planted a roadside bomb that killed a member of their unit, they sprayed a house full of innocent locals, including women and children, with bullets. One young girl lost all eight members of her family in the attack and only survived herself by playing dead after witnessing her father shot down while answering the door.

Such incidents could be expected considering that the US military is sending troops with serious psychological problems into Iraq and is keeping soldiers in combat even after superiors have been alerted to suicide warnings and other signs of mental illness. Only one of every 300 troops see a mental health professional before being deployed to Iraq even though congress ordered the military to assess the mental health of all troops. Once there, many troops on potent antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs are commanded into combat while they are mentally unstable. All this because their commander in chief has taxed the manpower of the military to the limits with his unnecessary war in Iraq.

Amnesty International released its annual report last week. It should come as no surprise that it contained a scathing indictment of Washington's human rights record. It condemned the military's detainment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan without a trial. It referred to the CIA-run secret prisons as a policy of "disappearances." Because of Bush's executive actions like adding torture to the military's toolbox, the USA has the disgrace of being lumped in with countries like China, North Korea, and Russia in Amnesty International's report.

With Bush leading the military, be prepared to hear more reports of heinous acts by our troops. Although the great majority of our troops will serve with honor, sadly, some of them will be influenced by the rotten example of their commander in chief and do things to disgrace their brothers in arms.

And then there were two

America doesn't care that the architect of the warrantless wiretapping program against American citizens, General Michael Hayden, is in hearings to be confirmed as the CIA director. America wants to know who will be the next American Idol.

I love watching the American Idol auditions. There are few things more amusing than watching people who couldn't carry a tune in a bucket, but think they're the next Carrie Underwood or Ruben Studdard, screech a song for Simon to flame. But I usually lose interest and tune out shortly after the season gets to Hollywood. This season, I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I've been following the show all the way to the bitter end.

So Tuesday night, like millions of other Americans, I was watching the show. Elliott Yamin was sharp for much of his performance -- and, no, I'm not referring to the way he was dressed. I'm referring to the notes he was hitting. That's why it came as no surprise to me that Elliott was eliminated last night. The only surprise was that it was so close. He's a fairly skilled vocalist but his vibrato is way overdone. Plus, his performance is too mechanical and lifeless.

Katharine McPhee & Taylor Hicks are also skilled vocalists but what they have going for them that Elliot didn't is that they're also talented performers. I have to agree with Simon that Katharine's rendition of Over the Rainbow was the best performance of the season. But I disagree with him that Taylor's rendition of Dancing in the Dark was only okay -- I thought he sang it better than The Boss does. Anyway, I picked Taylor to win since the first show in Hollywood. Who do you think will win?

I'm a big fan of Simon Cowell. He's quite entertaining in spite of looking like he's perpetually perturbed. Everyone boos him but he's the judge who gives the most honest, accurate, and useful feedback. Paula Abdul, on the other hand, would not have a harder time recognizing a musical scale if she were deaf -- she thinks everyone's great no matter how far out of key they are. Is it just my imagination or does she have rum in her Coke cup? It seems to me that she starts out most shows relatively lucid but is usually hammered by the last twenty minutes.

Well, I guess we won't find out who will be the next American Idol until next week. But I invite you to make your prognostication. Post a Comment and tell me who you think will win and why. While you're at it, share with me what you think of the judges.

Gimme a break!

As a hard-working, middle-class, single renter with no children, I have not qualified for the bulk of the tax breaks that Bush has carved out for the rich these past few years. My tax burden is pretty much the same now as it was when Clinton was in office -- actually, it's probably higher because my income has gone up a bit since then. Those of you who have enjoyed the good fortune of tax cuts courtesy of president Bush, don't make the mistake of thinking that they have in any way been distributed evenly among American taxpayers.

Now the Democrats are proposing some tax breaks. Again: I'm spurned! Senator Wyden and representative Blumenauer, both Democrats from Oregon, are introducing bills in their respective houses of congress which would give commuters who ride bikes to work between $40 and $100 per month in tax breaks.

I'll be the first to say that it's a good idea to ride a bike to work -- especially in these days of skyrocketing gas prices. In fact, I used to ride my bike 150 to 200 miles a week just to stay fit. That's less than the miles I commute every week for work. I love riding a bike!

However, now that I'm quadriplegic, it's simply not feasible for me to ride a bike to work. Even if it were possible to fix a wheelchair lift to a tandem bicycle, I'm certain the federal government would not provide me with someone to pedal it for me. Of course, that last statement was silly but there's a serious point behind it. The federal government must, by law, make all programs and services they provide equally accessible to citizens with disabilities. That includes tax breaks.

So here we are in times of record deficits and out-of-control government spending with the government trying to give Americans yet another tax break. Unfortunately, I would not get to participate in this one either. As long as the government is handing them out, I wish at least once they'd give me a tax break!