Sestak's wife's maiden name is Clark. Hmmmm, any relation to Wesley Clark?

you guys are not digging enough, Sestak has so many ghosts in his closet, i am amazed you have not found them yet, trust me on this one

Sestak was retired as a Rear Admiral not a Vice Admiral - an over looked point. As him why?

More Bush Theatrics, Lies and Diversionary Tactics.

Bush now brags how his illegal "Domestic Surveillance/Monitoring Program" has stop a 9/11 type of attack on a building in Los Angeles in 2002.

We all know that President George Walker Bush is an Arrogant Self Centered person who would have never have missed the opportunity to brag about stopping an alleged terrorist attack as soon as he would have allegedly stopped it back in 2002.

Therefore we must consider this story of President George Walker Bush and his administration allegedly stopping a terrorist attack in Los Angeles in 2002 to be the LIE that it is.

It is nothing more then a cheap attempt to misinform and disinform and mislead the public just like his lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan which he used as his reason for illegally committing acts of Genocide and War Crimes in the Middle East just so he could try to gain control of two of the Worlds Largest Oil Supplies for his Oil Company buddies and his cronies and himself.

Afghanistan still will not allow anyone to drill for oil in their country.

The laugh is on soon to be Impeached President G. W. Bush and his oil company buddies and cronies in the government.

Sp4MP B.T. Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

First,

Way to go Sully, above. That is about the best short explaination/refutation of the "Democrats are War Wimps" lie that the Repubs propagate. Hope you dont mind if I use it in my arguements on the web.

Now for Mr. Arkin,

I have read you for years and agree a lot of the time. I disagree, however, with the main thrust of this arguement, summed up I think, in these paragraphs:

***************
"Sestak points to Desert Storm, an international response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or Kosovo, the "humanitarian" intervention years in the making and limited to coercive air strikes, as potential models for a successful second Iraq war.

(Sestak, it should be pointed out, worked on the National Security Council staff from 1994-1997 in the Clinton administration, toiling on the former Yugoslavia; which I guess partially makes it his war.)

So, let me get this right -- Sestak says Saddam was not a threat and yet he argues that we should have gone to war against him with some kind of Arab-led coalition anyway?

Sestak, in other words, is just another Washington technocrat who believes nothing. And as a career military man who ultimately believes in military solutions, he can't and wouldn't say we should never have attacked Saddam Hussein in the first place."
****************
No, Sestak is a realist. Take his premise. I think he is absolutly right that if we had concentrated on Afghanistan, Taliban, and OBL, we would have a recovering Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda would be a waining force in the world, those not dead or captured on the run and fragmented.

We would not have the emnity of the entire Islamic world over Abu Ghraib, and other torture mistreatment cases from Iraq, many times inflicted by an undermanned, overtasked US force, led by dishonest and inept civilian Pentagon leaders.

We also would STILL have an intell community, including our friends the French and Germans, who believed Saddam had WMD. And Saddam's depradations of his own people would have continuted.

I think Sestak is making the point that for the WMD and humanitarian reasons, it could have been possible for the US to organize a real coalition to destabilize and bring down Saddam. Perhaps without war.. I remember some reports after Iraq Freedom that Saddam tried to bargin for amnesty in some other Arab country and to leave Iraq, but the Neocons wanted to get their hands on the "easy pickin's [in their dreams]" Iraqi oil, and to build their strategic base in the Islamic World.

If we had done it, we still would have found the lack of WMD, and how outfoxed the World's intell services were by the Iraq Potemkin Village of non existant WMD. However, there is also the chance we would have had more HONEST intel instead of the STOVEPIPING done by Rummy and Dougie Fife with their little rouge intell ops in the Pentagon, picking out only the worst reports about WMD/Saddam to influence going to war.

Iraq under Saddam isnt Darfur, but it sure wasnt a picnic. Sestak is pointing out the removal of Saddam as a possible objective, but AFTER the reduction of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

I just dont think that you can be so harsh on Sestak and Clark for being realists about the current situation.

If we withdraw from Iraq, after a poorly done "Vietnamization" and it falls into the hands of a radical Islamic Govt, or fragments into Civil War, the US war aims would be seen as failures and we would be in bad strategic shape in the Arab/Islamic World.

Hell, WE ALREADY ARE THERE, DUE TO THE INSANE LEADERSHIP OF BUSH AND RUMSFELD. Sestak and Clark are just pointing out the best way ITO,to try and put the mess back together stategically, after the MORONS in the Bush admin put us into this immense mess.

I for one hope we do get some realists like Sestak and Clark in positions of power to try to get our ass out of the wringer over there. They sure as hell couldnt do any worse than the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld brain trust has done.

Jack, AD INF 75-80
former soldier, 1st BN 6th INF REGT, "REGULARS, BY GOD"

Jeez, what weird posts you get on Early Morning.

The admiral wants to run in a heavily Republican district that usually votes Democratic for Democrat presidential candidates and sometimes governors (such as Ed Rendell). However, the last time a Democratic won was 1974. Bob Edgar, who said he was only going to serve for 5 terms and that's what he did. He ran for the U.S. Senate and was wiped out and "never heard of again." For many years, he has been director of the National Council of Churches where he probably does more good than if he was a congressman. 1974 was an exceptional year for Democrats in that district and it's not likely to be repeated anytime soon for congressional or state legislative races.

TOP FUTURISTS?
MILITARY TECHNOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATION TO FIGHT THE GWOT?
Is it a VISIONARY THING?
Or is it a legal issue?
-----------------------
Due to the anthrax scare many of our elected officials have requested citizens now make electronic contact by e-mail, etc. rather than getting citizen's mailed letters----
--------------------
How about these guys?
--------------
9:09 a.m. ET

Rumsfeld, Chertoff: No E-mails, Please

Newsweek reports that congressional investigators asked for the e-mail records of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff in connection with a special committee's probe of the Hurricane Katrina response.

But their quest proved fruitless. Executive privilege? Stonewalling?
Nope.
It turns out that Rumsfeld and Chertoff don't use e-mail.

Of course, with his "Can I quit now?" and "fashion god" messages, I bet that right about now ex-FEMA chief Michael Brown wishes he never used it either, either.

[Source: Gov Exec's Blog http://www.govexec.com/fedblog/#1471]

Cheney and Bush lie! Break free of the War Cult of Bush!

In William Arkin's piece, "War Vs. More War" it is mentioned that Vice-Admiral Sestak would be considered to be a "shoe-in" to be promoted to four stars. I would recommend substituting the term "shoo-in," which means to win easily. Best wishes.

More Bush Theatrics, Lies and Diversionary Tactics.

Bush now brags how his illegal "Domestic Surveillance/Monitoring Program" has stop a 9/11 type of attack on a building in Los Angeles in 2002.

We all know that President George Walker Bush is an Arrogant Self Centered person who would have never have missed the opportunity to brag about stopping an alleged terrorist attack as soon as he would have allegedly stopped it back in 2002.

Therefore we must consider this story of President George Walker Bush and his administration allegedly stopping a terrorist attack in Los Angeles in 2002 to be the LIE that it is.

It is nothing more then a cheap attempt to misinform and disinform and mislead the public just like his lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan which he used as his reason for illegally committing acts of Genocide and War Crimes in the Middle East just so he could try to gain control of two of the Worlds Largest Oil Supplies for his Oil Company buddies and his cronies and himself.

Afghanistan still will not allow anyone to drill for oil in their country.

The laugh is on soon to be Impeached President G. W. Bush and his oil company buddies and cronies in the government.

Sp4MP B.T. Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

As I read the following I can not help to wonder just why more and more and more people cry for Impeachment......
_____________
""""an "intervention to make sure that the riche don't have to sweat what will happen to middle eastern oil in a few years."

your president fraudulently obtained "war powers."

take them back and attach his and his families estates to repay his war crimes....allow him to retain his citizenship but revoke his voting privileges.....do this to Bush Sr., Tom Delay, Cunning-Ham, Jeb the stalwart defender of the braindead, and Neil the Silverado desperado, and anyone working with this administration as well as the 67 senators that voted against the Tom Coburn amendment to spend the funds allocated to the Alaskan Bridge to NOWhere to rebuilding a bridge that was destroyed in New Orleans during Katrina...

destroy complicity by destroying the affluent that compromise your freedome for their pocket books...

take their estates and sell them...

Posted by: It would be nice to see the "war" called what it is.... | Feb 13, 2006 3:15:12 PM | Permalink """"
__________________

Bush and his Cronnies have upsurped our political and our justice systems and in doing so have continuesly Aided the terrorist in their attacks on our beloved United States of America.

Just say NO to Bush and his Cronnies.

And say YES to Impeachment of ALL of them.

Before they AID the Terrorists even more with their criminal actions and TREASONIST Acts.

Sp4MP Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

P.S. - I am sad to admit that Jackson Michigan is the Birth Place of the Republican Party.

Thank God I am NOT one of them jokers.

It's people like Sestak who reaffirm the oxymoron "military intelligence". Your military are not heroes. They are guys being paid to do a job and doing it badly. The US military is incapable of fighting terrorism.

"Intelligence is like good taste: if you don't have it you don't miss it".

I worked for retired Admiral Sestak in the Navy - he is not a visionary (his 'vision' is relabeling intuitively obvious concepts and trumpeting them as his own, while simultaneously eliminating or impeaching critics...or the actual thinkers); he is absolutely paranoid of criticism; he 'leads' by fear, guilt, and intimidation...and if he is elected, this country will be weaker.

OTHERSIDE123.BLOGSPOT.COM
WWW.ONLINEJOURNAL.COM
WWW.TAKINGAIM.INFO

Ex-U .N. inspector: Iran's next

By Brandon Garcia The New Mexican
February 6, 2006
WWW.UNKNOWNNEWS.ORG
http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/78980

The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran.

"We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.

Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclearenergy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.

He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves."

"How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter," Ritter said.

Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

The only way to prevent a war with Iran is to elect a Democratically controlled Congress in November, said Ritter, a lifelong Republican. He later said he wasn't worried his advice would be seen as partisan because, "It's a partisan issue." He said the problem is oneparty government and if Democrats controlled the presidency and Congress, he would advise people to elect Republicans.

Most of Ritter's hour-long speech focused on Iraqi weapons programs from shortly before the Persian Gulf War in 1991 to 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq. He also discussed the weapons-inspections process during that time.

Ritter was in charge of U.N. weapons inspections until he resigned in 1998. Before the Iraq invasion, Ritter said, he told Congress that inspections needed to continue.

He also said he was a Marine in the Persian Gulf War and was part of an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s.

Throughout the 1990s, Ritter said, America's real policy for Iraq was regime change -- not forcing Iraq to disarm and destroy chemical-, biological- and nuclear-weapons programs. The U.S. insisted on regime change, he said, because it believes transforming the Middle East countries into democracies will help ensure American access to oil.

The policy, he said, was borne from a political problem, not a threat to national security.

Ritter said the CIA knew Iraq had no ballistic, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by 1995. "We knew there were no WMDs in Iraq," he said.

Ritter blamed Americans' apathy for allowing Bush to claim there was an intelligence failure. Presidents can lie to the public too easily about nationalsecurity issues because Americans aren't paying attention, he said.

"It's a damn shame there's so many more people interested in the Seattle Seahawks and the Pittsburgh Steelers," he said in reference to the two teams that played in Sunday's Super Bowl.

After his speech, Ritter took questions from the audience. The first questioner wondered whether the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were faked. Ritter, a fiery speaker, seemed irritated by the question and said the attacks were real.

Someone else asked if he was interested in running for Congress . While the question drew applause, Ritter responded, "I hate politics."

Ritter, 44, was promoting his book Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein. The speech was sponsored by Peace Action New Mexico.

I agree that the Democrats are typically viewed as being defined by the left-wing of their own party and it matters little whether this has occurred by virtue of the Republican propaganda machine or by virtue of the party itself choosing to neglect to attend to its own public persona. While some party members have tried to rectify the situation via stronger statements with regard to both the war in Iraq and the WOT, the party's voice is still relatively unorganized. Strong leaders within the party need to publicly emerge and when they do, their messages must be unified to some degree, even while competing with each other, for the purposes of demonstrating solidarity against the existing, floundering Republican leadership.

The failure to develop and deliver a message which is different versus the Republican administration/party, for consumption by the American people, is not only currently hurting the party greatly, but will likely continue to do so in the upcoming elections, if not rectified.

Having said that, it is also important to note that while a message, in and of itself, may be solid and successful, the deliverer of that message must also be (or appear to be) both sincere and convincing. IMHO, one of the primary reasons that Mr. Bush was successful in securing a second term was that he was able to appear as if he was an average 'good-old boy', despite his familial heritage. He struggled, on camera, to find the right words to express himself at times. His face clearly showed his emotions, even if the emotions being expressed were anger and frustration. He was presented as an ax-swinging, wood-chopping, down home Southern man, who wasn't afraid to be quoted in the press, cursing, if need be. Compare that image with that of Mr. Kerry. Despite the sincerity and truthfulness of his intended message, Mr. Kerry spoke in language that was clearly that of a well-educated man and he appeared highly polished and stoic in personality most of the time. IMHO, perhaps too highly polished and too well spoken to be 'heard' by the average American. The attraction to Mr. Bush was not so much his message per se, but the way in which that message was delivered. Mr. Kerry seemed to hold his emotions very close to the vest, an attribute that one would think was attractive in a would-be leader, and yet Mr. Bush, bumbling along and struggling to find the right words to say - won, perhaps by a very small margin, but, won, nonetheless.

The candidate (man/woman), the message, and the delivery of the message then, are important considerations, but so are the existing attitudes of the intended audience. In light of the fact that the American people have tired of the topic of war in too many ways, I fail to see how a primarily 'military'-experienced guy/gal would be of interest to them. The US currently has many problems, only some of which relate to the 'wars'. I suspect that the American people are looking for candidates that are almost completely different from that which has come before them until now. Well-known and long-standing political connections, familial relationships, and business associations may indeed prove to be negative factors with regard to the public perceptions of the next group of candidates. The American people have become tired of the 'insider' network of power and corruption within the government.

The Democratic party has every opportunity to recover leadership positions in all channels of government as of this date. I sincerely hope that they are able to further organize and clarify their message, carefully select their leaders and candidates, and above all, remember to include the sentiments and core values of the American people in their decision-making processes.

Our country is, and has been, ready for change. The Democratic party is inherently strong and now needs to take some risks and openly demonstrate that strength, in actions as well as words. Millions upon millions of Americans are awaiting their message. The Democratic party needs to step up and begin representing us again, as the respectful people that we try to be, especially with regard to people in other parts of the world.

The option for 'war' is always present. I'd like to see leaders appear on the horizon who are capable of thinking in terms of staunchly and fiercly protecting the US, but only via military means if no other option is available. In other words, I'm looking for a leader who can not only think and defend - but who can also evaluate long-term consequences, especially when those consequences involve the lives of the innocent - worldwide.

Re all of the above: so is Sestak a better choice than Weldon?

Re all of the above: so is Sestak a better choice than Weldon?

U.S. Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil Companies

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS 9:36 PM ET
The government plans to let companies pump oil and natural gas from federal territory over the next five years without paying any royalties.

just because someone is menacing, rich and powerful doesn't make him unassaiable...

or allow him to ignore his debt to his country's citizens....

riche people get riche, because you work for them, and when they take public office

they work for you....

and they can go to jail just like you would if you got caught killing 10,000 people to save some money....for a long time...just relax and get used to the idea.

Is this the Wash Po's version of "fair and balanced"?

Why does it seem that Mr. Arkin wants to criticize everyone he covers?

I'm not buying the anti-Sestak conclusions you've drawn from the evidence you've given. I think you don't want to advocate for someone but at the same time don't shoot him down just for the sake of it. It's as if you feel the need to show some attempt at balance so the boo birds don't start calling you the "L" word. The media in general hasn't quite figured this out yet, the right wingers are going to call you liberal no matter what you write. "Kill the messenger" is all they've got left.

As Olivier said to Dustin Hoffman as Hoffman stayed up all night and didn't shower to method act in the movie "The Marathon Man", he said, "My good man, why don't you try acting!"

Mr. Arkin, I know you're a blogger, but this is the Washingto Post, so I say to you, "Why don't you try reporting!"

Arkin's column is disappointing and far below the standards that I expect from the Washington Post. He thanks the "Defense Daily" for tipping him off about Admiral Sestak running for Congress. He fails to mention that the "Defense Daily" is not dedicated to national security or support of the military. "Defense Daily" is published to provide "money-making opportunities" in the defense industry (http://www.defensedaily.com/about.html). Readers might want to consider the source when evaluating Mr. Arkin's views.

I am not familiar with Admiral Sestak's views therefore I must assume that Arkin has accurately summarized those views. That makes his grouping of General Clark and the Admiral puzzling. Clark has said many times that the military option should only be the "last, last, last, last" resort. Looking forward, as a leader must, Clark has long been advocating a strong diplomatic effort, as opposed to public name calling, to resolve the Iranian situation. That does not sound like "reckless" use of the military as Arkin charges.

Mr. Arkin's friends at the "Defense Daily" may not favor diplomatic solutions but reduced "money-making opportunities" are a small price to pay for a brighter and more secure future for our country.

What's up with Arkin wrapping Clark up in the same casing with Sestak?

...not, "What's up with all the Clark posts?"

I think that's what inspired the Q's, mine included. What's up with that Arkin?

Arkin, you make a good case against Sestak, then suddenly throw Wes Clark into the same category without any evidence to back up your charge.

I don't know Clark well, but from the little I've seen of him, he didn't strike me as a man who offered military solutions to every problem.

But you appear to have Sestak bang to rights.

The US is quite a lot like the Roman Republic. There seem to be two main routes to political power:
1. Previous high military command
2. Being the scion of a patrician family that has always held power.

Wow. What an incredibly harsh and unfair trampling on a man's career. Maybe Adm Sestak is one of the desperately needed Dems who can face reality. Much as the way too far-leaning left, which keeps pulling the party off it's feet so as to prevent a solid defense against Conservatives would like, we can't just pick up and leave Iraq tomorrow. The Soviets did that in Afghanistan in '89 and the Taliban resulted from that vaccuum. And Smith said it well below, anyone who runs as "anti-war" will be chewed up and spit out by the conservative smear-machine. (Again, thank you far-left for keeping the Democrats from assembling a coherent, cohesive strategy)

Sestak's been there, on the ground (or water) knows the system and probably knows better than anyone that we need an exit strategy that leaves a reasonably stable Iraq and gets our troops out of there, what I guess Arkin wants to blithely refer to as "more war". Sorry Bill...come out of your hole once in a while and you'll see it just ain't that easy.

The Clarks and Sestaks of the world are the ones we need to tame the Bush military juggernaught mentality...ones who can handle it, command respect from the troops and still take this country in more peaceful direction it needs to go.

Our only option for the future is more war. Like it or not. WMDs are out there. The choice is simple, either we get conked with'em, or we get the WMDs.

The fact that Iraq had no WMDs, doesn't mean Iran doesn't. Arkin ignores this issue, our politicians wont have that priveledge.

What's up with all the pro-Clark posts? Is he running in 2008? Common, he doesn't stand a chance, so let him RIP. As for his election promises, they were just that. Remember the promises of Bush II in 2000? Where were they a few years later? Elections are about promises, promises that dont get followed up.

As for the Democratic party. If all we have are two parties, they have to be broad in who they welcome, or no? If Sestak wants to run in it, why not? Who decides, Sestak or the party? Arkins suggests the latter, and argues this is a wrongheaded strategy. Maybe he should touch upon the wrongheadedness of condemning inocuous caricatures, which the Democratic party relishes, in a blightfully stupid hope to attract voters. If Arkin is concerned with the Democrats strategy, there are many ways to look at it. As for Sestak, Mike Bentley's post bellow is right on. Give Sestak a break. You can't run for an election on the anti-war slogan, because it is easily distorted as "don't support our troops".

I'm not familiar with Sestak but I do hope you aren't leaping to giant conclusions where he is concerned.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower named the "MIC" for what it was and like a prophet, he warned against it.

Wes Clark has said emphatically that the MIC must be dis-assembled and vowed to do so in his '04 campaign.

You've got it all wrong on Wes Clark.

It appears clear that Mr. Arkin has taken no time to inform himself about General Weseley Clark. If he had done so, he would have recognized that there is little that General Clark enjoys more than to discuss and debate issues (in the most civil way possible), and learn from other points of view.

In NO WAY does he think because he was a military professional that everyone should defer to his judgment.

I'm a very active supporter of Wesley Clark's and I've never seen him behave as if he thinks people should "defer to his judgement." He's the most open-minded person I've ever met. Unlike what many people in the blogosphere like to believe, Wes's supporters are NOT syocophants. I've had some pretty significant disagreements with him and he and his staff have always been very open to my input.

Wes believes that force is the last, last, last resort. We could use more of this kind of "militarization" of politics!!! People who've literally gotten their ass shot off tend to be less willing to send others into battle. If GWB had served in Vietnam, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

... December 5, 2005 in Houston. (AP Photo/Tim Johnson). Vice President Dick Cheney
arrived in Houston to headline a Republican fundraiser for Tom DeLay ...

an "intervention to make sure that the riche don't have to sweat what will happen to middle eastern oil in a few years."

your president fraudulently obtained "war powers."

take them back and attach his and his families estates to repay his war crimes....allow him to retain his citizenship but revoke his voting privileges.....do this to Bush Sr., Tom Delay, Cunning-Ham, Jeb the stalwart defender of the braindead, and Neil the Silverado desperado, and anyone working with this administration as well as the 67 senators that voted against the Tom Coburn amendment to spend the funds allocated to the Alaskan Bridge to NOWhere to rebuilding a bridge that was destroyed in New Orleans during Katrina...

destroy complicity by destroying the affluent that compromise your freedome for their pocket books...

take their estates and sell them...

You pretty well covered the Admiral, and I don't think we need another visionary with a "PLAN". Westerners neeed to get out of the Middle East, and let these people practive "Self Determination". We need another Wilson in American foreign policy.

US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html
That there is no more proof that Iran is developing an atomic bomb than there was for Iraq is ignored. The US will bomb a power station and declare victory, then install yet another occupation and another puppet regime.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lies.mp3

Outed CIA officer was working on Iran!
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html
By outing Valerie Plame, the White House removed the prime source for real facts about Iran's nuclear energy programs that might contradict the war-propaganda.

A 'long war' designed to perpetuate itself
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/10/news/edpfaff.php
XXXXXXXXX George WMD Bush said in his State of the Union address last month that the aim of his administration is to defeat radical Islam. This was a preposterous statement. Shortly afterward, radical Islam began burning embassies from Afghanistan and Indonesia to Damascus and Beirut. The United States is not going to defeat that.

I don't think the Republican party is on the way to becoming a dictatorship. It looks more like a religious cult to me.

The Democratic Party is just that "Democratic", the party of democracy. The Republican Party follows a line agenda, where dissention is all but forbidden, see Reagan's eleventh commandment of not talking negatively about fellow republicans. Seeing what the Republican Revolution has brought to the United States, other than winning elections, and how VERY few republicans have the courage to speak out, it has become a non-democratic party, no pun intended. The Republican Party has become a dictatorship. Where more often than not its candidates and policies are chosen by the ranking few by giving or withholding campaign funds.
Retired Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak has all the right to run for public office as a democratic, to say he doesn't goes against what the Democratic Party stands for. I do not agree with him on many issues, but I do agree with him on his right to run.

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Bush compounds "war on terrorism" lie with "foiled L.A. terror plot" story; counter-terrorism officials immediately question allegation

By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor

Under increasing fire for illegal domestic spying, an illegal war and holocaust, and numerous and still-unfolding atrocities and corruption scandals, George W. Bush Thursday attempted to rally support for his own criminal actions by revisiting his administration's favorite 9/11 "war on terrorism" propaganda, and adding lurid new details to previously vague (and likely bogus) claims about a foiled al Qaeda plot to fly airliners into the Library/US Bank Tower in Los Angeles.

This dubious and unverifiable allegation collapses of its own weight when viewed against years of established fact and information. Skepticism from within the US intelligence ranks themselves has only added to Bush's new political problem.

Bush's Warmed-Over Action Thriller

Bush's new "disclosure" is a story worthy of the television show "24," and reminiscent of the movie "Independence Day" (in which the Library Tower was destroyed by invading space aliens). It is a "greatest hits" legend that conveniently brings together all of the "best" post-9/11 propaganda in one magnificent piece of Mighty Wurlitzer noise. From Khalid Sheik Mohammed to Osama and Jemaah Islamiya; from caves to shoe bombing and hijacked airliners; from Afghanistan to Indonesia to Los Angeles.

A February 9 Associated Press account of Bush's new claims reads as follows [my emphasis in italics, comments bracketed-LC]:

"Bush has referred to the 2002 plot before. In an address last October, he said the United States and its allies had foiled at least 10 serious plots by the al-Qaida terror network in the last four years, including plans for Sept. 11-like attacks on both U.S. coasts. The White House initially would not give details of the plots but later released a fact sheet with a brief, and vague, description of each.

"The president filled in details on Thursday. He said that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who was captured in 2003, had already begun planning the West Coast operation in October, just after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. One of Mohammed's key planners was Hambali, the alleged operations chief of the al-Qaida related terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. Instead of recruiting Arab hijackers, Hambali found Southeast Asian men who would be less likely to arouse suspicion and who were sent to meet with Osama bin Laden, Bush said. [See below regarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Al Qaeda-LC]

"Under the plot, the hijackers were to use shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door of a commercial jetliner, take control of the plane and crash it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, since renamed the US Bank Tower, Bush said. In his remarks, Bush inadvertantly referred to the site as 'Liberty Tower,' and immediately afterward, the White House corrected him. [Such an obvious blunder strongly suggests that Bush is reading a script, and one he does not even know very well.-LC]

"The president said the plot was derailed when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaida operative. Bush did not name the country or the operative.

"Bush has been on a campaign to defend his controversial domestic monitoring program. But the White House would not say whether the 2002 plot was thwarted as a result of the National Security Agency program to eavesdrop on the international e-mails and phone calls of people inside the United States with suspected ties to terrorists." [The underlying spin agenda is obvious.-LC]

"Bush said only that 'subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations' after the arrest of the unnamed operative led to information about the plot, and to the capture of other ringleaders and operatives involved in it. Hambali, for instance, was captured in Thailand in 2003 and handed over to the United States.

"'It took the combined efforts of several countries to break up this plot,' the president said. 'By working together, we took dangerous terrorists off the streets. By working together, we stopped a catastrophic attack on our homeland.'

"Bush's speech in October cited two other attacks inside the United States that were foiled, including one to use hijacked planes to attack the East Coast in mid-2003."

Realities Expose Bush's Lies

As amply documented at the independent web site you are now reading, and related web sites and publications, 9/11 was a crime that was planned, orchestrated and carried out by the US government and its proxies. There is exhaustive evidence exposing the fact that the 9/11 pretext is a lie, the "war on terrorism" is a lie, and that "Osama bin Laden" and "al Qaeda" are creations of, and guided assets still working at the behest of, Anglo-American intelligence (the CIA, Pakistan's ISI, etc.).

Even as the lies continue to be compounded, distorted and spun in increasingly grotesque fashion by Bush and functionaries, the entire "war on terrorism" façade collapses with a simple glance at documented facts. Michel Chossudovsky's America's "War on Terrorism" and Mike Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon:The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil are two definitive books that exhaustively document this evidence.

Against this body of evidence, Bush's new Los Angeles terror plot story instantly falls apart and is exposed as yet another malodorous deception.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), the alleged 9/11 mastermind, is the star of Bush's new claim. KSM is (as many other alleged members of "al Qaeda"), at best, a double or triple agent, and perhaps one of the many victims of US torture, who has been forced to "sing" for his captors. At worst, he is, like Osama bin Laden, dead -- or a myth. Moreover, everything about the KSM case, from his profile to his so-called arrest, is bogus and a part of an elaborate US propaganda and intelligence operation:

9/11 and the Smoking Gun that Turned on Its Tracker

In Crossing the Rubicon, Mike Ruppert writes: " . . . it is interesting to note that the US government has failed to produce -- publicly, or for the one failed 9/11 criminal prosecution in Germany of Mounir el Motassadeq -- either bin al-Shibh or KSM as material witnesses. No mere mortal has seen either one of them since their reported captures. Credible reports have told us that KSM was killed. Any information alleged to have come from these 'captured' suspects has come in the form of 'press release prosecution' by the government. None of it has ever been independently authenticated."

The other star villain of the new Bush claim is the southeast Asian-based Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) group. Obviously, Bush is attempting to reintroduce the group purportedly responsible for the Bali bombings.

But as documented by Michel Chossudovsky in Fabricating an Enemy, claims against JI and its "operational leader" Hambali, merely point back to the CIA, exposing yet more deception on the part of the Bush administration and its proxies.

Chossudovsky wrote: "The bomb attack was allegedly perpetrated by Jemaah Islamiah, a group, which operates in several countries in South East Asia. Press reports and official statements point to close ties between Jemaah Islamiah (JI) and al Qaeda. The JI's "operational leader" is Riduan Isamuddin, alias Hambali, a veteran of the Soviet-Afghan war, who was trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"The training of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Pakistan was a CIA sponsored initiative launched under President Jimmy Carter in 1979, using Pakistan's ISI as a go-between.

"In addition, Jemaah Islamiah has links to Indonesia's military intelligence, which in turn has links to the CIA and Australian intelligence . . . Indonesia's intelligence apparatus has for more than 30 years been controlled by the CIA.

"In the wake of the October 2002 Bali bombing, a contradictory report emanating from Indonesia's top brass, pointed to the involvement of both the head of Indonesian intelligence, General A. M. Hendropriyono, as well as the CIA:

" 'The agency and its director, Gen. A. M. Hendropriyono, are well regarded by the United States and other governments. But there are still senior intelligence officers here who believe that the C.I.A. was behind the bombing.'

"In response to these statements, the Bush administration demanded that President Megawati Sukarnoputri, publicly refute the involvement of the U.S in the attacks. No official retraction was issued. Not only did President. Megawati remained silent on this matter, she also accused the US of being:

" 'a superpower that forced the rest of the world to go along with it . . . We see how ambition to conquer other nations has led to a situation where there is no more peace unless the whole world is complying with the will of the one with the power and strength.'

"The links of JI to the Indonesian intelligence agency were never raised in the official Indonesian government investigation --which was guided behind the scenes by Australian intelligence and the CIA."

Not Even the President's Men

Less than 24 hours following Bush's grandstanding, officials and counter-terrorism experts have already raised questions about the veracity of Bush's statements and the obvious political spin.

From a Washington Post account:

" . . . several US intelligence officials downplayed the relative importance of the alleged plot and attributed the timing of Bush's speech to politics. The officials, who declined to be identified because they did not want to criticize the White House publicly, said there is deep disagreement within the intelligence community over the seriousness of the scheme and whether it was ever much more than talk.

"One intelligence official said nothing had changed to precipitate the release of more information on the case. The official attributed the move to the administration's desire to justify its efforts in the face of criticism of the surveillance, which had no connection to the incident.

"Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism specialist who heads the Washington office of the Rand Corporation, said Bush's account adds some interesting detail to the Library Tower episode. But he said it still leaves key questions unanswered about the case and its significance.

" 'It doesn't really give us any more indication of whether this was a plot that was derailed or preempted, or a plot that was more in the realm of an idle daydream,' Hoffman said."

This is tantamount to a resounding slap to Bush's face. With his popularity ratings and credibility at rock bottom, Bush cannot even muster up a consensus among his own operatives.

Bush has also opened himself and his administration to a new round of scrutiny and political fallout. Again, from the Washington Post account:

"Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Thursday that he was blindsided by Bush's announcement of new details about a purported 2002 plot.

"'I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels,' he said. 'I don't expect a call from the president -- but somebody.'"

Reading between the obvious lines, at best, the fact there was no call suggests that the story was bogus from the start, or the Bush administration is criminally negligent in not warning officials in Los Angeles. Either way, the Bush administration loses.

The Real Threat

It is increasing political desperation and a threat to his presidency, not a real terror threat against the US, which has pushed Bush into a new phase of "war on terrorism" propaganda. Now that it is no longer politically effective merely to brandish the bogus threat and the fear. Bush and his functionaries must now attempt to sell their ability to solve a bogus problem, and portray themselves as the homeland's premier "anti-terrorist" saviors, with Bush as the man in charge of a successful and necessary world police state and dictatorship that must never end.

Bush has declared that "America remains at risk" and that "we cannot let the fact that America hasn't been attacked in four and a half years since September 11, 2001, lull us into the illusion that the threats to our nation have disappeared. They have not."

He is correct in one respect: America, and the world, remain at high risk for new attacks, new wars, and unprecedented new crimes -- from the Bush administration itself. The more desperate the administration becomes, the higher that risk.

An Arab-lead coalition should mean that if a coalition of Arab countries don't see fit to attack Iraq, we don't either. You'd rather have him say that Iraq absolutely should not have been attacked, but the POTUS rarely meaningfully uses the Never card in foreign relations.

Attacking Iraq while we're still wrestling with matters in Afghanistan is exactly like conducting a two-front war, you don't do it when you can avoid it. It seemed clear when Bush decided to go ahead that he hadn't presented sufficient evidence to indicate a need to do so.

The "preception" that the democrats are soft on defense is a perception that is created by the republicans for political purposes and actively propagated by the MSM. When the real defense credentials of the democrats show up you consider it a plot by democrats to improve their image.

Get this clear, the republicans will boldly lie to create a perception in their favor and you do a bad service to Americans by perpetuating the lie as truth. Why not ask how Clinton's military did such quick work in Afganistan? Why not ask why OBL is still threatening us as Bush pulls the military away from the fight with OBL? Why not ask how many in the military are happy with the way their commander-in-chief is leading them? Why not ask how VA benefit cuts help the military? Why not ask why we are three years into a war when America, under a democrat, defeated the number 1 & 2 militaries during WW2, in just over 3 years? Why not ask why there was no insurgency in either defeated Germany or Japan?

In short, stop taking Karl Rove's talking points and reporting them as news and instead act like a journalist and dig for the truth, and report it truthfully.

Actually che

Your post "CIA chief sacked for opposing torture" for Arkin's previous (Terrorism) article was interesting and on topic.

Furthermore the Cheney one liners after that are funny.

So if you stay ON TOPIC I'll support ya.

Pete

Thankyou in advance for again providing a short introduction to che's blog.

che is unstinting in his application, in the frequency and verbosity of his comments.

He is to be commended.

che's blog is so excellent that I, and all others hope that one day soon - che will contribute all the comments in the blog.

Long may che reign.