Yeah Steven, I for one, do WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT! I DO want to make illegal wiretaps an issue. And I was wondering how long Rove would keep his head down. Glad he popped back up! He's like one of those carnival dummies waiting to be hit by the hammer, and while his impending prosecution as one of the Plame leakers has forced him to keep a low profile, I am glad to see him back and in his usual bullshit form. Bring it on!

Welcome to Daou Report readers. Please feel free to comment on the post that the Daou Report linked to, as well as anything else you find interesting on ISOU.

And if you want to read two more interesting viewpoints on the effects of the war in Iraq on Bush's legacy. Professor Bainbridge and Kevin Drum have two excellent pieces on the subject. It is heartening to see Conservatives like Bainbridge waking up to the reality of this folly.

I found these two comments, particularly compelling:

The trouble with Bush's justification for the war is that it uses American troops as fly paper. Send US troops over to Iraq, where they'll attract all the terrorists, who otherwise would have come here, and whom we'll then kill. This theory has proven fallacious. The first problem is that the American people are unwilling to let their soldiers be used as fly paper. If Iraq has proven anything, it has confirmed for me the validity of the Powell Doctrine.

and

The second problem is that the fly paper strategy
seems to be radicalizing our foes even more. For every fly that gets
caught, it seems as though 10 more spring up. This should hardly come
as a surprise to anybody who has watched Israel pursue military
solutions to its terrorist problems, after all. Does anybody really
think Israel's military actions have left Hezbollah or Hamas with fewer
foot soldiers? To the contrary, the London bombing suggests to me that
it is only a matter of time before the jihadists strike in the US
again, even though our troops remain hung out as fly paper in the
Augean Stables of Iraq. {Update: The news
that Scotland Yard foiled a gas attack on the House of Commons, for
which the Yard deserves mega-kudos, doesn't change my mind. As the
climax of Tom Clancy's novel Debt of Honor suggests (and I still wonder of that inspired 9/11), the terrorists only need to win once. Conversely, the latest news
about that rocket attack on a US Navy ship in Jordan seems to confirm
my concerns: "The Abdullah Azzam Brigades -- an al-Qaida-linked group
that claimed responsibility for the bombings which killed at least 64
people at Sharm el-Sheik in July and 34 people at two other Egyptian
resorts last October -- said in an Internet statement that its fighters
had fired the Katyushas, bolstering concerns that Islamic extremists
had opened a new front in the region." Indeed, the NYT reports
that: "The possible involvement of Iraqis and the military-style attack
have raised fears that militants linked to Iraq's insurgency may be
operating on Jordanian soil."}

I have to admit, I often wonder what some Conservatives out there are smoking, that they can't see the obvious. I am convinced that they do see it. If 2000 was a heady experience for Conservatives who had suffered through eight years of Bill Clinton, despite aggressive attempts to get rid of him at any cost, then 2004, after surviving numerous mini scandals and debunking Rathergate, must have been the greatest of highs.

That Republicans managed to take healthy majorities in both Houses, and seemed to dominate the U.S. political agenda, must have given Conservatives a sense of invulnerability. But the cracks have been showing in the armor for some time now, and it has taken "Rovian," measures to keep the fact of the Emperors Nakedness from the American Public. It must be painful in the extreme to see those cracks appearing, and know that not only did they make a monumental mistake, but that all they worked so hard for is based on a foundation of lies, deception and corruption.

Admittedly, the Downing Street Memos, in and of themselves might have been compelling to those who already suspected the truth, but they were not "smoking gun," enough to convince the majority of the faithful. This is especially true of those who invested so heavily in what they felt was a new Conservative Revolution. They have been rewarded by stark failures on the part of the Administration to propel that Revolution forward, and have instead seen it get bogged down in a morass of ineptitude. For a time, they were able to defend against this ineptitude by making the issue "Liberal Hate of Bush," rather than accepting the realities of consistent and repeated failure by the Administration to accomplish much of anything, except successfully defending itself against charge after charge. Now, with more and more Conservatives beginning to acknowledge the obvious, the spin begins to ring hollow, even for those who once believed it.

Even still, some refuse to acknowledge the obvious:

I honestly don't see anything "inappropriate" about it. Cindy accuses the President of "lying" about several of the reasons for war in Iraq, so maybe these television stations are worried about giving air time to somebody calling the President a liar when its clear to most of us with common sense that he didn't lie about Iraq. But that's just a guess.

Were it up to me, I'd have let the ad run. Most Americans don't agree with the idea that the President "lied" about the WMD's and know that Saddam had plenty of ties to al Qaeda, though not to the 9/11 attacks specifically. This is why Americans re-elected the President in the face of these accusations of lying. Putting Cindy Sheehan up to repeat these accusations again is only going to do more harm to her causes than it would to the cause of the President.

Rob's argument is deeply flawed... First off, recent polls indicate that as many as 51% of Americans feel the American Public was deceived about Iraq. With some polls nearing 60%. So the argument that "Most Americans believe that the President did not lie is intellectually and morally dishonest.

The Left has often made this spin easier, by failing to stay on message, and by failing to present a clear alternative. The Left has also been guilty of wimping out at key times. Those who have shown strength, have been attacked as members of the "Loony Left." Rove has been able to successfully exploit this time and time again by pointing out the inconsistency of the Left's message, while hammering away on the Administration's, even in those cases where it was obvious that the Administration message was a nefarious one. Rove and his Conservative Disciples have been Masters of hammering away on a message until it BECOMES truth, even when it is clear to any thinking person that the message lacks logic.

9/11 was a catharsis for America. Karl Rove and the Administration have shamelessly taken advantage of this to smear Liberals, out a CIA agent in an act of revenge, and execute a disastrous and unjustified war. This administration's legacy will be based on Post 9/11. With information coming to light almost daily on how badly they bungled the so called "War on Terror," and with little else to point to as accomplishments, Bush's legacy will likely suffer. More significantly, he may join Nixon as a President corrupted by his own sense of infallibility.

Opinion
Rove's 9/11 political game: Strategy or insanity?

By Cathy Garger
Online Journal Contributing Writer

June 29, 2005—In the latest display of political partisan grand showmanship, D.C. swamp mud is being slung in typical dirty fashion between W's political strategist and alter ego, Karl Rove, and a virtual "Who's Who" list of Democratic congressional characters.

While such mud-slinging is normally just "business as usual" in any given week in the nation's capital, this time the mud's being slung far lower than ever below the Belt-way.

In rare form at the New York Conservative Party's Annual Dinner last Wednesday evening in New York City, behold Karl Rove's newest attacks against Democrats: "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
Rove continued "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." He went on to say, "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," and added, "Conservatives saw what happened to us on
9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies."
Politics being the dirty game it is, admittedly, we "liberals" are quite accustomed to being attacked with totally groundless, unsubstantiated "low blows." Such discourse is actually Washington "par for the course," all being fair in love and war in the typical back and forth banter that exists between the two frequently sparring political parties.

But this time the man often credited with actually being Bush's brain has done the unprecedented, the unthinkable, the actually unspeakable because Mr. Rove sunk so low last Wednesday night as to attack "liberals" over 9/11.
Not in quite some time have we actually witnessed the GOP attack "machine"
sink quite this low.

In contemplating this degree of despicable political tactics, one is even tempted to question if indeed Rove has perhaps gone stark-raving mad? Has even the political genius with a well-deserved reputation for playing dirty political tricks and opposing Democrats with utter contemptuous vengeance totally gone off the deep end?

Has the mastermind of the White House become so delusional (or so absolutely
desperate) to even imply such a horrendous thing as liberals being sympathetic to terrorists?

In the Democrats' defense, it's only natural and fitting that prominent party leaders have taken issue publicly over Rove's remarks. Senator Kerry called Rove's remarks "disgraceful" and spoke of Rove's remarks as "a cheap, divisive, political applause line from anyone who speaks for the president of the United States."
According to Kerry, ''It is really hard to believe that last night in New York, a senior adviser—the most senior adviser to the president of the United States—is twisting, purposely twisting those days of unity in order to divide us for political gain."

Similarly, US House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi had this to say about Rove, "His shameful comments trying to revise history insult the victims of
9/11 and all of us who support them. President Bush must repudiate these remarks."
Pelosi added, "For Karl Rove and his Republican allies to try to exploit
9/11 for political purposes—once again—just shows you how desperate Republicans are to change the subject to distract Americans from their failures."
And only fittingly, New York Sen. Charles Schumer chimed in by claiming that Rove "took something that is virtually sacred to New Yorkers"—the tragedy of the Sept. 11 attacks—"and politicized it for political, opportunistic purposes."

Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, asked that President Bush "immediately repudiate Karl Rove's offensive and outrageous comments."Rove, he stated, "should also apologize to the people of this country and particularly to the people of New York for his efforts to divide the country."

As would be expected, the White House is emphatically stating that no resignation or apology is necessary. In typical fashion, presidential adviser Karl Rove is being defended against Democratic demands that he apologize or resign for implying that "liberals" are wishy-washy on this matter of the Sept. 11 terrorists.

In fact, White House press secretary Scott McClellan went so far as to say there was no reason for Rove to apologize because he was "simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

McClellan replied, "Of course not," when asked by reporters whether the president would ask Rove to apologize. To round out the GOP game even further, last Thursday we heard Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman assert, "I think what Karl Rove said is accurate and reflects a big difference between the two parties."

He added "I think they [Democrats] have a pre-9/11 world view and I think that's one of the biggest reasons President Bush was re-elected because the American people understood they wanted a president and a philosophy that took on the terrorists abroad to keep us safer at home and guide our ways,"
he said.

Admittedly, it's almost disappointing that this back-and-forth political banter came out so late in the week, as Congress' wildly flying insults effectively ended for the week Friday. Quite honestly, it's been a rather jolly good show.

But lest we believe for too long that this is simply just another politics-as-usual blame game designed to amuse and entertain those of us who get off on keeping score of inside-the-Beltway insults, let us not forget for a moment that Rove is no mere madman. On the contrary, Rove knows precisely where he is going with his newest game of strategy.

While observing these charades one might be tempted to side with political analysts who suggest that Rove's insensitive comments have been put forth to change the subject on the president's failures in Iraq and recent increased fighting of insurgents in Afghanistan.

Yet other Washington insiders are saying that this is Rove's form of political tit-for-tat retaliation for Durbin's comparison to the Gitmo prison camp to the Nazis' and other oppressive regimes. Or this could be retribution for Pelosi's calling the liberation of 25 million Iraqis a "grotesque mistake" and claims that America's involvement in the War in Iraq has been "without success."

While indeed these analyses are simplistic and fit nicely into the normal prescription of political fighting and theatrical grandstanding, upon further contemplation, we can't help but notice there is more going on here than meets the eye.

In last week's accusations, the "brain" of the White House is indeed making it look like just another political game as he positions the Democrats as the bad guys, sympathetic to terrorists.

But, this time the difference is that Rove's game plan is not merely political; but is, perhaps the administration's most brilliantly clever U.S.
psychological maneuver of all.
Despite outward appearances, Rove's real game in Washington is nothing less than a full-scale operation devised to keep Americans reminded and focused on the carefully-manipulated media image of September 11 as being perpetrated by 19 Muslim terrorists with box-cutters under the central command of that old "evil-doer" himself, Osama bin Laden (from a damp cave in Afghanistan).

Indeed, there exists sufficiently valid reason for the administration to perpetuate these carefully orchestrated psychological maneuvers. Thanks in good part to alternative media and through the outspoken voice of respected
9/11 researchers and writers such as theologian David Ray Griffin, recently featured on C-Span and author of "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions."

Americans in great numbers are being asked to consider that those who planned and carried out the three separate attacks on September 11 were perhaps not the same individuals that the 9/11 Commission would have us believe.
Rove's recent insults aimed at "liberals" indicate what is possibly a very carefully planned psychological tactic to get Americans who've heard whispers or read claims that bin Laden didn't do it to go back in time and believe once again in the official U.S. government account of what happened on September 11.
By shouting loudly and vigorously that the Democrats are on the side of the "terrorists," the psychological ploy Rove and friends are using is to get our minds back on the elusive guy hiding out, ostensibly in some cave, along with his merry band of hijacking "terrorist" Muslims.
There is just a itty bitty problem with a thing called Proof, though. No definitive proof has ever been presented that bin Laden ever actually planned and carried out the attacks.

With at least seven of the 19 hijackers reportedly still alive and independent researchers blowing holes wide open in the 9/11 Commission Report, the president's Brain has much more to attend to than merely keeping up with distracting political games.

In fact, Mr. Rove has now the far more challenging task of swaying public opinion and attention back around to the belief that Muslim "terrorists"
indeed actually did 9/11.

Naturally, our Democratic leaders realize all of this already, for after all, it was the very chairman of the DNC himself, Dr. Howard Dean, who stated on May 22, 2005, on Meet the Press:
"But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9–11 Commission said also wasn't true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false. The 9–11 Commission, chaired by a Republican, said it was false. Is it wrong to send people to war without telling them the truth."

While we will undoubtedly continue to watch partisan poison darts flying back and forth wildly, like a spirited game of ping pong, the real question
remains: Just how long this administration can keep Americans sufficiently distracted into continuing to buy into the whole 9/11 terrorist-as-evil-Muslim-boogeyman "official story?"

And so to Karl Rove, spinning his spin and flinging typical GOP discourse, liberals must now ask Rove the all-important question: Are you really sure you want to attack us over the subject of September 11? Do you really, really want to GO THERE with the "liberals," Mr. Rove?

No doubt about it. Soon we will get to see just how good Karl Rove's brain really is.

A truth activist living not far from the DC Beltway, Ms. Garger can be contacted at Savorsuccesslady@yahoo

From one of those post 9/11 Libruls!

American Hero, Paul Rieckhoff, founder of OpTruth.org who quit his job on Wall Street after 9/11 to go fight in Afghanistan, (here's a link to our first-ever blog item on him from May of '04) responds to Bush's speech tonight.

Here are just a few of the highlights....

Tonight at Fort Bragg, in front of a backdrop of American service members, President Bush told the nation that victory is at hand, as long as we stay the course. Add a banner praising a job well-done and an aircraft carrier, and this all begins to seem eerily familiar.
...
Mr. President, we don’t need to be told that the insurgents intend to shake our will, because we’ve sifted through the havoc wreaked by even the crudest weapons, then watched our friends sent home, changed forever. We don’t need to be told that your administration is committed to taking care of the Troops, because we’ve already gotten the bill you sent us for the meals we ate while recovering at Walter Reed.

We don’t need to be told that flak jackets and safer Humvees are on the way, because we’ve already learned that a phone-call home and a few hundred bucks is probably the quickest way to get body armor. Hundreds of Troops have been wounded or killed because of faulty vehicles or missing armor, but who has been held accountable?
...
Mr. President, we need honest answers, not pep rallies.

Read it all...

Stop Blaming the Troops - Investigate the Real Culprits of Abuse

The time has come to investigate the Bush Administration's role in the prisoner abuse and humiliation that has motivated our enemies in the war on terror and endangers the well-being of our fighting forces.

Today, the reports of abuse and humiliation at detainment facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba are distracting the world from focusing on winning the war on terror. Although the military chain of command seems to have properly investigated the role of its personnel and held accountable those in the wrong, the civilian leadership in this country has failed to do the same.

Call on Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner to investigate the Bush Administration's role in prisoner abuse now!

For generations, the United States has been a powerful voice of moral authority in the world. After World War II, we led the world in creating the Geneva Conventions and prosecuting war criminals at Nuremberg, and later became one of the first nations to ratify the Convention Against Torture. Even today, Slobodan Milosevic is being tried for war crimes thanks to a U.S.-led NATO air strike against his brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has squandered our legacy of moral leadership.

I need your help to protect the honor of our men and women in uniform and to set us on the right course to win the war on terror. Although the President has said the United States is "committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example," the Administration's actions don't match his words. In his infamous memo, Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush to ignore the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war – a treaty that protects our soldiers captured abroad – to give the president more "flexibility." This so-called "flexibility" along with other Administration policies and statements may have ultimately contributed to the environment in which the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan have occurred.

Among the disturbing practices identified so far: the rendition of prisoners to countries where they can be tortured, failing to register "ghost prisoners" to deny them visits by the Red Cross, employing civilian contract agents to conduct interrogations outside military rules, and the reported prolonged degrading treatment of some detainees in U.S. custody. All of these deserve further investigation.

With the right leadership and accountability, couldn't the Administration have prevented the embarrassment of Abu Ghraib and the controversy at Guantanamo Bay? While some are blaming individual soldiers, doesn't at least some of the responsibility rest with the civilian leadership of our government? Don't the American people deserve the truth? Shouldn't Congress lead an investigation?

Sign my petition to Chairman John Warner now and urge him to hold hearings on the Bush Administration's statements, policies, orders, and actions related to prisoner abuse.

How can we win the war on terrorism, a fight for democracy and freedom in America and around the world, if we forsake the very principles and institutions for which we are fighting?

The laws of war are designed to regulate combat and to protect non-combatants from the violence and degradation of war. The conduct of this Administration may ultimately lead to a green-light for our enemies to torture our soldiers when captured -- we owe it to our men and women in uniform and their families to investigate.

American soldiers deserve better than to see our allies pointing their fingers at Guantanamo Bay and calling it an "American problem." We are doing their work too – defeating terror is a global priority.

People of good conscience cannot afford to stay silent. Please join me today, and then invite everyone you know to stand with us.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

You think any of the Pissing Yellow Elephants want to call this man a pacifist?

Posted by David A at 07:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | 645 Words