Please get as much as you can out about this.

well, where the fuck were they when we had an election a year ago?? Snowcroft, Wilkerson as a proxy for Powell and the others that will come out of the woodwork in the coming weeks...

huh? wtf is up with all the handwringing now?
It's easy to pile on when these sob's are obviously bruised and bloodied, but what about landing a few good solid punches when your opponent is on his feet and can punch back?

First Wilkerson, now Scowcroft. Who's next?

Okay, so I quote from the Rude Pundit again. (The naughty bits have been snipped!)

"The Republican, as he looks over this morning's news, wonders what it would be like to break ranks, to name evil where he sees it. To say, as other conservatives have, that this administration has failed, that it is a shit-encrusted assault on the very foundations of the things the Republican loves about America, about politics, about governing. The Republican knows that it would only take one - that once he turns, others will join him, like a branch that pushes through a logjam. And he could save his party from this amateur, this manchild, this pretender, this Bush. He could lead the way, showing that the Republicans put the good of the nation above loyalty to criminals. God, what a magnificent thing that would be: the hearings, the resignations, the housecleaning that would elevate discourse and set the country at least back on the proper path."

As Nelson writes, we could be witnessing the implosion of this Bush administration. My personal joy at seeing this corrupt and incompetent band of criminals (possibly, hopefully) face justice is tempered by the notion that we could be entering a very dark and dangerous period for our country. (I know, I know, many would argue we entered this period in November 2000.)

How will we emerge from the violence, bloodshed, death, and destruction occurring around us? Wars, economic collapse, social injustice, unemployment, inflation, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and, oh yeah, terrorism are perpetual threats. We need serious people for the serious work that lies ahead. A power vacuum in the Oval Office does not bode well for the weeks, months, and years ahead.

But the first step is to clean house. It's finally happening.

I've wondered for some time what GHWB really thinks of his son's performance, and I haven't been able to imagine that it has made him proud.

Although I'm sure he's been too afraid of Barb to say anything.

But it's got to hurt someone who really did see himself as a statesman, who was very knowledgeable and deeply involved in foreign affairs, and who was especially concerned about US NOCs not being outed, seeing his drunken son fuck it all up and not give a shit. Not to mention fucking up the whole succession plan of Jebby. In history, the name "Bush" will evoke W, and will have a worse connotation than Nixon.

Ducktape,

Wasn't that W's and Rove's plan all along, though? To eclipse the father?

History will not be kind to this administration. The name "Bush" will be associated with the son, the alcoholic, incompetent son who managed to turn everything he touched into shit.

I'm with John B.

Question:

How come all these folks didn't speak up before?

I mean... do they have to have a 18-wheel anti-Bush bandwagon in full motion before they dare step up and speak the truth?

If that's the case, those of us who have been spitting flames about Bush's Iraq mess for years... deserve presidential medals of freedom.

The funny thing about American democracy, is that it avows the individual, but gives all its power to cabals.

Cabals of pundits.
Cabals of lobbyists.
Cabals of bloggers.
Cabals of coporate executives.
Cabals of etc.

The individual's voice of protest doesn't count for fuck.

Thus, we are all supposed to get excited when some political celebrity turns on Bush?

Give me a break America....

What happened to Gedmin becoming Bolton's second hand?

One more time:

We told you so, America.

We told you so.

----

What really bothers me is that it seems --say it with me--it only counts if you're republican.

When non-republicans talked about the Downing Street Memo, the MSM just yawned. When Rep. Conyers has hearings, they are ignored in the press.

Instead of going and finding all of us who were against the war in the beginning, the Washington insiders instead look to those republicans who are finally speaking out. And face it, they're saying now what John Kerry and most all the democratic candidates were saying in the campaign, and only when it's a republican saying it, does it mean something.

Alternative, wiser voices are out there. If only they were news.

Teutones -- Thanks for your query about Jeff Gedmin. I'm still checking on the real story, but it seems that TWN's reporting on Gedmin created significant angst among foreign service officers, and as I reported, the Gedmin initiative by Bolton was still at fragile stage.

I think that the internal battle tilted away from Gedmin -- and then someone else as you know was named to succeed Anne Patterson. That said, I am still not sure whether or not Gedmin is in contention for the political job, also at Ambassadorial rank, held by Nancy Soderberg, etc. in the past. I will post a long-ish note on this after the dust on Wilkerson and Scowcroft settles...

best,

Steve Clemons

Cowards. They are cowards. Where were they 365 days ago? They were hiding under their desk. They were lying to our face. 365 days ago, when it would have mattered, these sniveling yellow-bellied cowards were hiding under their mahogany desks, afraid to speak the truth.

What good is it now, 365 days late, for these weasels to come out of the woodwork? It's hardly a cause for admiration; I have nothing but contempt for them. They were PART of the conspiracy of silence, and now, when it is politically inconvenient for them to continue, they crawl out of the woodwork like cockroaches and rats fleeing a sinking ship. Where's the courage? I don't see it.

Thanks, Steve,

Great job.

I did not know that someone was named to succeed Anne Patterson.

It would be nice to get rid of Gedmin over here. Though, I understand he would cause more harm in NY than he does in Berlin.

Better late than never.

But not much better. Not much at all.

Phredd -- your point makes no sense. Do you admire Daniel Ellsberg? Many on the left do. And yet he waited quite a while before copying the Pentagon papers. I wish Colin Powell had done something earlier -- but he didn't. That's life. The thing is that to end the damage this administration has done -- we need to bring over to the side of sane foreign policy some of the best practitioners who were part of the Bush machine.

I think you are being knee-jerk and somewhat sensational in your critique. Thanks for posting -- but wanted to make very clear how strongly I disagree with you and others.

I am grateful for any and all who come out and tell us how this nightmare happened -- and who will help us zero in on what caused this so as to generate the public will not to have it happen again with Iran or the next crisis.

best,

Steve Clemons

I hope this ends up being like the Dreyfuss affair. Perhaps the neocon perps will have overstepped their madate to such a degree that they are discredited for generations. Since when does being a Republican mean championing the US as world cop? We can't AFFORD it.

i'm in total agreement with comments above -- where the fuck were these 'brave' men a goddamned year ago when it would have mattered, esp wilkerson. scowcroft at least risked the wrath of cheney's cabal with his criticism prior to the war. there's nothing brave about what wilkerson has done; he's just one of the first rats to desert the sinking ship. the disgust i feel for these craven careerists is beyond measure.

Steve -

The Rush Limbaugh link you give (“I also know that for all of those who had difficulty (read Rush Limbaugh) adjusting to former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson's candid commentary ...”) is available only to registered members of Limbaugh’s website (should we be surprised?!). Could you please post whatever he said for those of us who are unintiated into the passions of Rush?

Thanks.

John B./Koreyel/Vaughn/Phredd,

I think it's useful to point out, for those who didn't see it at the time, or who have forgotten, that Brent Scowcroft went "off the reservation" on the Iraq issue back before the war, during the phase when the administration was making their sales pitch to the public -- by publishing an Op-Ed entitled "Don't Attack Saddam" in the Wall Street Journal. He might not have been as blunt as he's apparently been in the upcoming New Yorker article, but he came out quite clearly against the Rumsfeld/Cheney cabal, and a lot of people at the time interpreted that as possibly being a sign from Bush Sr. as well.

Scowcroft is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I say that as someone who is a pretty partisan Democrat.

Someone sent me this link as a way to get to the Rush Limbaugh screed. Sort of fun.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1506645/posts

Steve Clemons

Many did speek out a long time ago.

TomDispatch's has a list of 42 "beleaguered administrators, managers, and career civil servants who quit their posts in protest or were defamed, threatened, fired, forced out, demoted, or driven to retire by Bush administration strong-arming."

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=28817

I understand the frustration of those of you who wished they had come out before the election. But what we're seeing here is what Edward R Murrow said when going after McCarthy - "Remember, when you shot for a king, don't miss". Bush still had his grand shield around him during the election. It's why people like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill had no effect on the bad guys. I suspect that these folks were biding their time until something cracked and gave them a clear shot. Iraq going south, Katrina, Miers are the bad trifecta. Whether Bush dodges this one is still up in the air. It will be interesting if there are more than these 2 involved. This feels like a well-orchestrated game. I'll bet there are more in place to come out at the right time.

I hope this does not alienate him excessively from the administration, because he is the sort of grownup the Republicans might like to have back in government after Bush collapses.

Bob H,

I was thinking the same thing. Scowcroft and Bush Sr. are probably too old for any sort of direct role in the administration once the likely departure of a large chunk of the current crew takes place, but I hope there will be a role for them as elder statesmen giving wise counsel.

Like it or not, it still seems likely that George W. Bush will serve out the rest of his term, and hopefully a chastened President will call on some of the Republicans who "got it right" on Iraq. ("Mr. Haass, sorry to interrupt, it's the White House on Line One.)

It seems to me that although Wilkerson was not among them, before the 2004 election, there was an unprecedented number of Republican former generals, diplomats, etc. who announced that they were against Bush. Some of them did it on their own, like Scowcroft and Dwight D. Eisenhauer's son, while others made their announcement as a group. All of them did so as though they thought it was a dire emergency.

Let's go back to those glorious days of yesteryear when Karl Rove had ultimate power to smite all who dared speak ill of him, or his trusted ward, George W. Bush. Ask John McCain or Max Cleland, or even John Kerry, legitimate war heroes all, how it feels to have the full fury of a Rove smear campaign bear down on you like a category 5 hurricane.

Fear is a powerful motivating, or limiting, factor. Fear of public ridicule, fear of a destroyed career, fear of personal humiliation will silence even the most principled by man or woman.

Timing, as they say, is everything. Now there is a special prosecutor making life miserable for Rove. If Wilkerson or Scowcroft had spoken out a year ago, would it have made a difference. Who knows? I would submit it's making a difference now. And NOW is what counts...who wants to go back to those glorious days of yesteryear anyhow?

Say it again: where were these indignant Repubs BEFORE the last sham election?

Steve,
Daniel Ellsberg didn't wait for the administration to implode to come forward. He in part precipitated it. If I'm not mistaken, he also photocopy classified documents making him guilty of criminal activity. It did take huevos to expose himself to hard consequences for his actions. To suggest that Wilkerson is in the same league is risible. He risked nothing.

Are the recent attacks a decision by BushCo to dump Cheney when the Fitzgerald indictments hit?

I appreciate everyone's more measured approach to welcoming prominent Republicans to the side of sanity.

If I expressed myself in a more 'sensational' manner than most, it is because i have had family members at physical risk for the duration of the entire Bush debacle, including one who lost his life.

Forgive me for raging against those in high places who have, in the course of their games of power, have caused me and my innocent family untold and almost unimaginable grief.

-Phredd

Steve, sorry for such a long-winded post, but I am compelled to respond.

Damn, I've never witnessed so many posts that appear to be written by well-educated people who can't or simply choose not to "get it" where Wilkerson is concerned.

As I've mentioned in recent posts, I don't know the man intimately, but I know plenty of men and women who do and based on their assessments, those out there who have called him a coward should be ashamed. Of course, I support your right to make your claims - I served in the Army to protect that right - I simply don't respect your "knee-jerked attempt" - to steal a phrase that has been repetitively used here today- to convict the man before you even know the facts.

A coward? Well, let's see. He came from a rich family and, as a result of being a National Merit Scholar and being accepted into a prestigious university, he did not have to face the Vietnam draft. However, although socring top grades, he quit school during his junior year to enlist in the Army. He did so not because he found the merits of the Vietnam War to be many but because he grew weary of listening to professors and fellow classmates -most of whom were from affluent white families - mocking those who served while thousands of others from poorer families had no other options but to serve and many a time die.

Wilkerson served over 14 months in Vietnam, was wounded, and witnessed numerous deaths. I am told this experience had a profound experience on him.

Rather than quitting the military and seeking personal fortune, he chose to stay in the military after the Vietnam War, and why? I am told because he found the military an honorable way to serve his country. Additionally, I am told he found the military a career that offered every American -regardless of their race or sex - a fairer shot than the civilian sector did and that he liked that part of it.

Now, based on what I know about him and my own personal opinions, I'd like to throw out a scenario,and, then, I'd ask you to step outside either your right-leaning or left-leaning mind and, in an imaginary political vacuum, assess it's plausibility. Then, and only then, would I ask you to reconsider your claims that Wilkerson is of all things a coward.

Now, the scenario...Powell asks Wilkerson to join him at the State Department. Having worked for him at the Pentagon and in the private sector before, he readily agrees. He first works in Policy and Planning for Richard Haas and, then, is promoted to work for Powell as his Chief of Staff.

The Iraq issue arises and Wilkerson is faced with being appointed as the head of the task force that will put together the infamous Feb. 5th speech. (All of this information is documented in various articles to include the GQ and Vanity Fair articles. For the record, Wilkerson began going public over a year ago.)

Wilkerson quickly learns that Cheney is trying to pad the speech but Powell and Wilkerson refuse to let him get his way.

(For the record, the rumor is that Wilkerson threatened to resign, as many of you say he should have, prior to giving the speech and after, but each time he was persuaded to stay not for his benefit or for the benefit of the President but for the benefit of the country and especially for the benefit of the troops.)

As each next debacle occurred to include GITMO, Abu Graib, the continued loss of American and allied personnel as well as the continued loss of many, many innocent Iraqis, Wilkerson grew more and more upset. However, rather than giving into his own personal desire to jump ship so that he could protect his own credibility and, as well his own soul, he agreed to stay so that he might be able to have some positive affect if any on the ultimate outcome. At least, he would be able to maintain a running diary of everything that happened so that if necessary, the public could get the true facts.

The only problem was that as the "Rumsfeld Cheney Cabal" continued to win argument after argument and it appeared that Powell was losing Bush's ear - as if he ever truly had it -the chances of Wilkerson and even of Powell for that matter, having any positive effect on the outcome became next to nil. Resigning in January, he gave the General a little time to consider going public first. Certain that Powell's word would carry far more with the public than his own mere word, he chose to wait. Unfortunately, however, the words did not come and so he was ultimately faced with going public himself with his continued accusations.

The truth is many of you may not like the timing of Wilkerson's decision to go public but I argue that had he come out earlier it would have served no one but his own self-interests and there would be no one as there is at present to tell of the horrible things he witnessed.

I am told that he hears on a daily basis from "boots on the ground" how things are going in Iraq. I am told on a daily basis he deals with a horrible sense of guilt for having had anything to do with the Feb. 5th speech. And I am told that every American soldier's death not to mention allied soldier's and innocent Iraqi's haunts him as do the deaths of the comrades he lost in the jungles of Vietnam.

Wilkerson could have saved himself on February 4th. He could have quit and rid himself ofany association with Rummie, Bush, and Cheney, but because of his overwhelming concern for his country, the men and women serving in uniform, and for his boss, he chose to stay, therebye risking everything. Now, after going public, he has lost much. He has lost many of his fellow Republican friends. He has lost the approval of a man whom he worked for and lauded for over sixteen years. He has incurred the hatred of those who despise him as those of you who do who've labelled him a coward, and, he has now risked the ire of a very powerful and mob-like "cabal" who is certainly planning a very severe response. And for what? His country.

Coward? I think not.

Pardon me if I'm a bit sceptical of the new-found affection for the word cabal. IIRC it was Richard Clarke's book that showed, verbatim, Bush's pushing a subordinate to find something, anything, that would link Hussein to 9-11. There was no cabal. There was the Boy Bush in all his vicious, coldblooded beauty.

This nonsense about a cabal is a rescue attempt by daddy and his pals who know in their guts that Fitzgerald is going to rip the final figleaf off this administration. The spin that the Boy Bush was misguided and badly served by cabal would be admirable if it weren't 4 years and 26,000 dead bodies (http://www.iraqbodycount.net) too late. In my more cynical moments, I can picture Colin Powell being installed as one of the post-indictment "saviors".

Excuse me while I spit.

Vachon, oh, how right you are...it's always a right-winged conspiracy. (Please note the sarcasm in my response.)

Can't you just accept the facts for what they are without having to make something more of them than they cumulatively are.I can assure you that I am glad I haven't had you in a grand juries.

Oh, and I don't quite think having Bush's father's critical comments become public help G.W.. Rumor has it that many of his psychological problems are due to his perceived inability to fill his father's shoes.

Bush is not blameless. He is the president. Ultimately, he is responsible for the decisions of his administration. However, Bush always finds ways to bail himself out of trouble. If he has to use Cheney and Rummy as scapegoats, he will. This has been done before. Reagan was guilty as sin in the Iran-Contra scandal. However, the GOP managed to scapegoat a bunch of other people to save Reagan. Once Reagan no longer needed saving, GHWBush pardoned the Iran-Contra scapegoats.

Wilkerson and Powell with Military backgrounds are both livid over the prisoner abuse. Yet another shoe will drop when the whole truth is written about Abu Graib. The General, Karpinski, who was cashiered for Abu Graib, is also speaking out.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082405Z.shtml

Thanks Steve! I'm not afraid either of speaking out against tyranny, whether overseas or in the U.S., especially given what I've heard from federal govt. and military people myself, regarding their true, 'off the record' feelings on this subject (Iraq, etc.). It's also very clear that General Wes Clark's riveting call for people in government to stand up against this erosion of morality in the Executive Branch .. at your conference of September 2005 (on U.S. Security and combating terrorism).. was the beginning of this trend which I hope... which I know has already tipped the scale. The few that are still clinging to the Bush White House's sinking ship better put their floatation jackets on! :O)

I would not call Wilkerson a coward. I would call him craven. Same for Powell.

"Volvo Liberal" it's never "one more time" with you. It's ten more times, a hundred more times, a thousand more times. You never get tired of hearing your own voice, even though you have nothing to say.

It's old. It's tiresome. And frankly, disenfranchised Republicans will come right back to the fold because, if they ever had to consider becoming Democrats - they'd have to rub elbows with the likes of you.

You really should get the ball in the end zone BEFORE you celebrate. But you're welcome to learn the hard way if you insist. When it happens, though, I won't be there to say "I told you so". I'll have better things to do.

Is it just me, or is the freeper site the most illegible site in the history of the internets? Christ, I mean I'm blind drunk and I can't follow it. Do you have to be stone cold horse to read or participate at that internets site?

Where'd ah put mah whiskey?!... uh.. what? waitaminnit...

Clemons: "Phredd -- your point makes no sense."

I am not so sure.

Phredd's point is an emotional one.
And as such it is powerful.

He's got every right to wonder where the opposition to Bush was 365 days ago.

Snowcroft could have been more vociferous. Wilkerson too.

But we all know what happened. Party loyalty was more important than standing up for one's true inner beliefs.

That's what irks here.

Democracy and the two-party system needs dissenters. Desperately. Without which, it is no better than a one-party system.

Steve Clemons et. al. Thank you for posting Wilkerson's speech and above commentary.

My only Question to ALL who read is:

Does ANYBODY RERALLY BELIEVE ANY AMOUNT of exposure of the impending revelations (Fitzgeralds Traitorgate, Abramoff, Ohio Coingate, ABLE DANGER coverup, DeLay, etc will result in any significant fundamental change.

Will ANYONE speak TRUTH about exposing the folks WHO are the moving forces BEHIND THE "CABAL" behind the Cheneys/American Enterprise Institute/Feith/Chalabi etc "Baghdad Year Zero" folks.

ALL we're going to see out of this is a re-shuffling of the same old deck and exchanging a few new "face cards" to the same old crooked deck (The Bush Family being the Borgia's of the republican Party - Administration) & game.

In other words the Legal Equivalents of Persons (Corporations )e.g.those on the $45 Million funders of Progress For America for example, THEY"LL ALL still be in charge of the same game despite whomever is put in charge, it's all a big charade.

The first two branches of our Republic have fallen and the last will fall in line with Miers. Is it Game Over?

Raven

Neocons,
all y'all go directly to jail do not pass go and pony up the 200 billion you stole from us ya bastids ya.

Dear Art:

It's orders of MAGNITUDE more:

For example, One SINGLE piece of legislation last year transferred 77 to 150 BILLION to multinationals mainly Pharma/finance/Oil onto OUR backs - just google the American Jobs Creation Act - the Administrations OWN EXPERT who originally testified in favor of the act subsequently admitted job creation figures (50,000 a year for 2 years) that work out to a tax break of between $770,000 to 1,500,000 pER JOB created with no guarantees.McCain denounced of course...

Raven

One element no one is talking about is the ruling class's need to get Bush out of office as soon as possible. This has to be part of the reason establishment figures like Scowcraft are breaking ranks.

sapere_aude says:
Damn, I've never witnessed so many posts that appear to be written by well-educated people who can't or simply choose not to "get it" where Wilkerson is concerned.
Ouch. Tell me more.
The truth is many of you may not like the timing of Wilkerson's decision to go public but I argue that had he come out earlier it would have served no one but his own self-interests and there would be no one as there is at present to tell of the horrible things he witnessed.
Oh, so our fault is that we didn’t understand that this was an episode of “Commander in Chief” or “The West Wing”. Who would have thought that Wilkerson was the Chief of Staff --the realChief of staff-- of the Secretary of State. On his watch, in his desk and during his breakfast meetings, the US decided to embark on the most colossal blunder in the history of the Nation. HIS administration, the one he chose to serve advancing their agenda, succeeded in making the World less safe, in taking the reputation of the US to all time low and in killing a few many thousand in the process. Sapere_aude considers that the job of a straight shooter warrior like Wilkerson was not to shout this truth to the World, his job was to stay put, lower his head and take notes for the history books. Yeah, tell him to send an autographed copy of his book to Cindy Shehan and the widows and orphans of a few dozen thousand of iraqis.
Wilkerson served over 14 months in Vietnam, was wounded, and witnessed numerous deaths. I am told this experience had a profound experience on him.
[…]
… those out there who have called him a coward should be ashamed. Of course, I support your right to make your claims - I served in the Army to protect that right
Come down from the horse, soldier, nobody is taking pictures. I did not call Wilkerson a coward, but I wouldn’t be ashamed to do it. I did call him an accomplice of a mendacious war, and I’m not ashamed I did. His past military courage is not an automatic shield for his recent political cowardice.

I want to remind all of you that the special prosecutor's work is STILL secret, and though we all see the public input into the process, no one can claim to know Fitzgerald's mind. Does anyone know exactly know what law he is focussed on?

While I wasn't federally politically aware until the '80s, it seems that every administration since Nixon's had a special prosecutor investigating something about it, but Richard's is the only one to have the ultimate effect.

So, may I warn us that, indeed, nothing at all may be the result of this one as well. The secrecy around his work is admirable, but it keeps Fitz from being a known value, with an expected outcome.

With that said, what effect would Wilkerson, Scowcroft & Powell have had on the election anyway? Regardless of those who arrayed themselves against Kerry, I don't think he could have won because the ticket was inverted. The truth was out there, and not enough people paid attention. No one fixed their bayonets for close combat. They fired their well-formed bullets, ignored those which could have been formed from the enemy fire, and retreated when the enemies charged. How could these 3 men have turned the tide then, more than they are now?

Whatever happens, I hope this country learns to pick the best men instead of supporting the "best" party again. This hell would have never happened if being D or R was less important that supporting the truth.

If our next elections are still nothing more than marketing campaigns, what will be the difference between the winners and this Bush admin? And whose fault will it be then?

We still have people running around portraying Liberals as enemies of the State, and NeoCons as Hitler's progeny. If that doesn't stop, if the possibility of a McCain/Feingold ticket still has as much chance of success as winning 10 $340 million lotteries in a row, if generals cannot portray their records and philosophies as guidance for America? What the hell difference does it make if we get another Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rove/Rumsfeld?

The back story to all of this is the 30 year feud between the GOP right wing and the CIA. No one doubts that the CIA has been feuding with Republican administrations since Reagan. No one doubts that the Republicans have been very unhappy with information from CIA that contradicts their closely held beliefs. This goes all the way back to Ford and his CIA director, GHWBush, who formed a Team B to independently analyze CIA info in a way that better supported rightwing GOP and military-industrial complex contentions. Nevermind that Team B was totally wrong. Nevermind that Reagan compromised his intelligence to gin up the Soviet threat to the point that they missed the imminent collapse of the FSU in the late 1980s.

Yes, Ellsberg is a genuine hero, but he is seen by the GOP right as a CIA warrior in the battle against the right wing. Ellsberg challenged Nixon and damaged him. Ever since, the GOP right has been distrustful of the CIA and has worked dilligently to replace independent analysts, willing to call them as they see them, with politicos willing to tell the powerful what they want to hear. Unfortunately, the right wing GOP sees the CIA as a challenge to its message, not a useful foreign policy tool. This is why Cheney took personal trips to CIA and tried to stovepipe info past the pros. Cheney was successful and look where it has got us in Iraq.

Cheney was successful in the war against the CIA and State Dept permanent staff with Rummy and Cheney staffs, independently analyzing data and contradicting CIA expert analysts. Since Cheney and company were attacking the CIA, is it any surprise that they interpreted the Wilson yellowcake story as a CIA counterattack on the administration? And if they thought the attack was coming from CIA, then wouldn't Cheney and company kick the CIA in the balls?

The war over intelligence is ongoing. This is why the politico, Porter Goss is at CIA. Of course, this is nothing new. Intelligence has always been politicized because knowledge is power. During WWII, failure to keep Pearl Harbor up to date with Washington intelligence had dire consequences. Washington believed Japan would attack Manila and had not even considered Pearl. Later, Nimitz had to jump through hoops to get his carriers to Midway because the Pearl Intelligence was correct and Washington was wrong. Of course Washington never forgave Pearl for being correct about Midway, even though that was the turning point of WWII.

Perhaps Congress needs a CIA version of the CBO that briefs Congress on intelligence matters instead of relying on an administration that is willing to lie to Congress about what the analysts are really saying? Wasn't the CBO formed because Congress could not trust the executive to deliver accurate information? Proper Congressional oversight has been sorely missing for over 4 years. Is part of the reason an administration that is not providing Congress with the information they need to do their job?

Sapere Aude,

I really am in no position to judge Wilkerson as a coward or not, or whether he would have changed anything by being more vociferous an opponent of the war early on or not. Clearly, you have better connections to the powers that be than I do. And that I think is the point. Some of us don't have distinguished military careers, nor do we get the uber-insider Nelson report. We are simple citizens going about our everyday lives, but we are concerned about politics; we vote. We would like we can some how influence the course this country takes, but that is hard if to do if those in positions of power are more concerned about moderating bad policy from the inside rather than informing the American public about the bad policy and trusting that the public will do something about it.

I remember the run-up to the war, and I certainly will admit that the president didn't have a particularly difficult time selling the war to the Amercian public. Maybe nothing would have stopped the war, but I have a hard time believing if Powell had said in public at the UN what his is reputed to have said in his rehearsals for speech in private, or if one of his top aides had resigned and made blistering attack on the administration,. that the "cabal" would have had a much more difficult time selling the war.

Sorry for the rambling writing. I guess that what I am trying to get at is that it can appear to some of us that those involved in policy making have more faith in the bureacratic process than in the American public. I'm sure that this is a mistaken impression, but looking at it from Norman, Oklahoma it is hard not to see it that way.

I think the two main reasons Bush could get "elected" twice are the corruption, concentration and corporate dominance in the media, and secondly the state of campaign finance laws in this country. For the second, I don't know the remedy, but I do know that when one party routinely has twice as much or more money than the other for Presidential elections, the American people are getting screwed. This is to say nothing of the state of the primary system.
I think the solution to the problem of media concentration is simpler---just break them up---and change rules for radio bandwith use, but you saw what happened when Howard Dean suggested media reform.

Minor problem: The new issue of the New Yorker just arrived, cover dated 24 Oct.. and no Scowcroft article... just an article by Tom Reis about Peter Viereck and how he ".. got lost..." Further, Reporter at Large (Michael Specter's) piece is about Bill Gates spending money in Africa.

Zippo on Scowcroft.

MECsfo

I think this is might be the UPI link...

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051021-051052-6225r

While I would have loved it if the MSM had told the well-known facts about this failure of a president BEFORE the last election (hell - and the one before that), I'm not surprised people like Scowcroft and Wilkerson have waited until now.

It's like the saying "every landslide starts with a single pebble" (or something like that). All this movement now is part of the landslide (and the pebble probably was a really huge boulder called Katrina). Before, people like Scowcroft and Wilkerson would have seriously risked their careers and reputations to have spoken like this. After all - see what happened to Wilson! But now that there's an emerging consensus on the dangerous idiocy of this presidency, they are throwing their considerable authority behind it.

Their timing, really, is perfect - too perfect to be a coincidence. Earlier, they would have been ignored or dismissed - or even villified - by the MSM. Later, they would have been just more "me-too" voices in the choir. Instead, they are speaking out at JUST the right time to really push this thing in the right direction.

Jillian,

I see, too, the UPI article. Alas, the October 24 issue of the New Yorker simply does not contain the article. I wonder if the subscription issues, which precede the newstand issues, might have a different content?

MECsfo

The crowing I see above is premature. If nothing else, the last five years should have taught all of you that this Administration will stop at NOTHING to pursue its global agenda. These criminals pose the greatest threat to our security that we have ever faced. If you think they are beyond committing another "trifecta" to get us all back on the fear train, than you have not been paying attention. We have entered the lair of a cornered and diseased badger, and there is no telling what it will do in it's effort to survive. One thing is for sure, if a slew of these people do not end up in a Federal Prison for leading this nation into an illegal and misrepresented military adventure, then we have already lost the essence of what we purport to be; a nation of laws. The next year will tell us what we are made of, and sadly, if the last five years are any indication, the answer is going to be......NOT MUCH.

WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS

.

IT BECOMES NECESSARY for the PEOPLE of the United States

TO ALTER or ABOLISH the United States Government

as it exists in the year…

2001 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06

.

Using the Authority, Law, and Intentions of the Constitution

and the Declaration of Independence.

.

And Now the People Step Forward

and Charge High Treason,

and Show that Democracy in its roots today,

.

Is Corrupt.

.

And that the Constitution has been Altered and Betrayed

in Favor of…

A Small Group of Millionaires,

.

Over Another...

the Governed,

.

the People of the United States.

.

And that the Election Process is UN-fair

and has been Overwhelmed

and Monopolized

by Millionaires

and their millions of dollars

.

BU$H = TREASON … Continued at…

http://www.RogerART.com

SEE on left… LINK ( 2 ) to

( Re-Written ) Declaration of Independence

SEE ALL ( these words in ) 15 + PAINTINGS at…

http://www.rogerart.com/20_PATRIOT%20DEMOCRACY.htm

Thank You, Roger Drowne EC

See, / RogerART.com / Other Web Sites

1. http://www.RogerART.com

2. http://www.OneGlobalCommunity.com

3. http://www.TheBuffaloParty.com

Dear Mr. President:

Effective immediately, I resign my post as Secretary of State. For nearly two years, you have ignored my advice, or failed to ask for my opinion. You have allowed a cabal of ideologues, led by Vice-President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, to misrepresent Iraq's connection with September 11 and to claim the existence of Iraqi WMDs, both contrary to the consensus estimate of our national intelligence agencies. You have ignored any possibility that toppling Saddam's dictatorship would lead to anarchy within Iraq, nor have you made any effort to plan for events in Iraq after a military victory.

My true loyalty is to the American people. I must therefore resign so I can discuss the truth before Congress votes on the Iraqi War Resolution.

Colin Powell
October 1, 2002

----------------------------------

If Powell had the courage of his convictions, he would have resigned. Can anyone doubt that even the MSM would have covered the event and given him plenty of airtime to make his points? Does anyone doubt that Congressional Democrats, like John Kerry, who voted for the war out of crass political calculation, would have more political cover to vote their consciences? How many GOP congresscritters might have reevaluted their votes?

Powell was a coward. Instead of loyalty to citizens, he was loyal to a man. And he got his reward: how else would a man who spent his life in the military, and whose father was not friendly with Saudi princes, have the money to try to buy the Washington Nationals baseball team?

I welcome those who choose to speak the truth now, but I cannot forget that had they spoken up earlier, the enormous tragedy of the Iraqi war might have been avoided.

MECsfo -- As my article says, the next issue of the New Yorker arrives on Monday. I don't know why you got your last issue so late. The new material will be loaded to their website on Monday. Some journalists will get the piece on Sunday.

You have the current edition. Scowcroft will be in the issue that The New Yorker tells me arrives Monday.

Best,

Steve Clemons

To Ajontay and the rest of those who've recently posted:

Look, I'm mad as hell because I've spent my entire political life (and I mean years and years) on the far right listening to people who allegedly agree with me spit statements of hatred that are ill-founded simply because they despise the other ideological side. I've spent my entire life attempting to encourage those people and others to stop and reconsider their tone and content for the good of the country. As well as having been a soldier and a professional in the legal arena, I have spent my public life attempting to encourage those I ideologically agree with to search for, massage, and sometimes accept the truth, even when that truth comes from a moderate or, even, a liberal. And, most importantly, I've spent my life encouraging those on the right to respect those on both sides of the aisle.

I am now asking those of you who are of the moderate/liberal bent to do the same regarding Scowcroft and Wilkerson for the good of the country.

The reason I read Steve Clemons site - and I have read almost everything I could get on his public and personal background to get a better understanding as to what makes him tick - he brings back to the table what we have lost in the public political arena, civility and respect and a desire to search for the truth no matter where it comes from for the good of the country.

In an effort to describe what I think is wrong with politics today, allow me to give you a picture. Two men (or, women - I don't want to offend anyone) stand on the deck of a boat. One man wears a democratic pin and the other wears a republican pin. The two men are vociferously fighting, fists and all, for one round life preserver and why? Because each man (or woman) wants to be the one to throw it to the person who is drowning out in the ocean. The person who's drowning and yearning for some help wears a hat that says, "The United States".

My point is that good, well-founded debate is healthy for the United States but when those on either side begin to lose sight of what they're supposed to be doing because they are too overwhelmingly engrossed with their hatred of the other side and, in essence, the fight becomes more important than the facts, the country ultimately loses.

Although an old, cranky soldier, I understand people being angry - passionately angry. As many have noted in their posts, I am pretty damn mad, myself, but I assert that when you are talking about issues that concern men and women dying or issues of men and women being tortured, passionate emotions are expected to surface.
I simply ask that many out there - and I've read some pretty damn senational posts from both liberals and conservatives, out there - try to step away from the hatred you have for Wilkerson because either he doesn't agree with you ideologically or because you think he's a coward or because you think he's lost touch with the troops serving in Iraq or because...because...because...in order to hear what he has to say and judge the credibility of the facts and their implications for what they are.

I had to listen to Rush Limbaugh rip Wilkerson up for over two hours the other day and it made me physically want to vomit. This is a man who has responded to the GITMO scandal by SELLING GITMO t-shirts. What an unbelievably f--k-n jerk! (Good men and women in uniform are allegedly being pressured by civilian/military Intel people to break the law and torture prisoners - many of whom are not even guilty in the first place and this asshole addresses a most solemn issue by peddling t-shirts. To believe that educated people buy his crap is incredible to me...but, then, I digress.) It was such an ordeal to hear a man who claims to love this country, distorting and misrepresenting eighty per cent of the facts regarding Wilkerson simply because he hates him for speaking out. (I had to listen to him, though to see how some of my conservatives are going to try and stick it to Wilkerson.) Unfortunately, there are intelligent people I know who have considered him to be a reliable news source for years - what a joke. Well, pardon the anger and the harsh tone I've been using. My intention has not been to offend. The truth is I became equally mad as hell when I read some of the posts, here, that attempted to do the same as Rush's diatribe. As somewhat of an elitist, I consider most of the readers who take the time to read this site to be like me, far more willing to listen to the truth than someone like Rush or Michael Moore no matter where that truth comes from.

Last but not least, I can assure you that people such as Wilkerson and Scowcroft coming out does have a profound practical effect. I am a far-right conservative who has had a difficult time in the past voting for a moderate Republican. I can tell you after learning what I have learned during the past few years from people who hang in the same circles as Wilkerson, if a moderate is not on the ticket - such as McCain or Guiliani - and some cronie - like Condi, or worse, George Allen - is, then, I will do what I never ever thought I would ever...ever...ever do. Ten years ago when I was afforded the opportunity to witness some of the Clinton affairs from a personal perspective, I could have told you that it would be a cold day -no a cold eternity in hell - before I would vote for one of them, but I can tell you, now, after seeing what the Bushies have done, I would vote for Hilary Clinton in a heartbeat in the next election if given no other reasonable choice by the Republicans.

For those liberals out there, you might not understand how amazing that is, but I am certain those conservatives out there will more fully grasp the significance of my willingness to vote for the woman and, then, probably crucify me in your posts. Oh, well, thank God this is a country where I'm free to speak...

Thanks, Steve for doing what you do. We may not agree on issues all of the time - but you're one hell of a man. This old, cranky soldier, here, appreciates what you're doing for the country.

Sapere Aude,

Thanks for the reply. Sorry if I can across as being hateful. My point was simply to suggest another reading of the timing of Wilkerson's actions, and why some people might not read it the same way as you. I certainly don't know the real reasons, and I am glad he is at least speaking out now.

You mentioned your long political career. Years ago, I considered a career in politics and public service, and decided against it. Probably a good thing, since I likely would have ended up as convience store clerk in DC. Still, as I indicated I care about politics, and if nothing else, these last few years have shown how the Amercian democracy has been subverted and manipulated, and I think that is the basis of the anger you see here. Not so much a anger based on Liberal/Conservative, but rather on the drowning of the US. On that there is common ground.

Oh, and if you do vote for Hillary Clinton, then I'll be really angry!

I know the comments have been all over the map, but I for one have found them very moving.

I am one who thinks that the timing for all this criticism of the administration sucks, but I also realize that getting to the point of being a critic has been a journey not governed by the clock.

As difficult as the past five years have been, which is true whether or not you have supported this administration, one of the most significant positives to emerge is the degree of true soul-searching we are seeing in answer to the questions: What does it really mean to be an American and what does this country stand for?

For whatever reasons we want to attribute, this administration has skewed our collective perception of that and fractured us into competing rather than cooperative camps. In response, we are trying to answer that question for ourselves as individuals and as a country.

One thing that is hard is to lift your eyes up from the obstacles to the goal and stay focused on it.

I think more and more people are asking themselves deep and serious questions about how they want their country defined. And I think that is a good thing, painful as it is.

My two cents.

Sapere Aude,

the bottom line is: how do we make sure something like this never happens again?
My position is: you don't reward those that are responsible for this (and like it or not, Wilkerson IS responsible) with thanks for a late realisation that this was a mess. You hold them accountable in the hope that the next generations of Wilkersons know what's the price you pay for choosing the loyalty to crooks rather than a principled loyalty to your fellow citizens.

There are still too many people with thier heads inthe sand .Why didn`t they listen before the election .Now they will be pardon and go right on what they do and the american people the rich will get richer and the poor pooper.

Palo:
Damn, I've got to stop posting or else I'll get nothing done today, but, Buddy, Palo, you so bait me, I can't resist.

You are one of the "sensational" posters to whom I previously referred.

I respect your passion but I couldn't disagree with you more.

The truth is I never said Wilkerson is perfect. No man's perfect. In fact, depending on your religious persuasions, Jesus Christ was allegedly the only perfect man who ever walked the earth and, if my rudimentary memory of the bible serves me right, even he got pretty pissed off sometimes.

Anyway, allow me to illustrate my point by saying the following. I wish I could be more like you, Palo. You are an idealist, very much like the the "Utopian Man", or Paul Wolfowitz, has made a legendary history of being. I, on the other hand, am a realist.

Yes, Buddy, Palo, in a perfect world, Wilkerson would have resigned on February 4, the day before Powell's infamous UN speech and the waters would have separated for him. Senators on the Hill would have immediately demanded that the American public, and even the world stop to listen to him, and as a result of numerous, well -covered hearings, Americans of all political persuasions would have crowded the streets of Washington and have demanded Bush be impeached. Prominent public servants from both sides of the aisles such as Powell and Armitage and Lieberman and Hilary Clinton would have run to join Wilkerson in his fight to save the country and our troops, and, Bush, fearful of impending impeachment hearings would have pressured Rummie and Cheney to resign, or, even better yet, since we're stipulating that it's a perfect world, Cheney and Rummie would have suddenly developed a conscience and, for the blessed good of the country, would have resigned.

Jesus H. Christ, Palo, it sure would be damn wonderful to live in your perfect world, but, come on, even, now, years later after the February 5th speech - after scandals such as GITMO, Abu Graib, Hurricane Katrina, and a host of others - I still don't see what you would have liked to have witnessed on February 5th.

I'm sorry, Buddy, but you and I are always going to be at odds as long as you view the possibility of the world being perfect likely and, in contrast, as long as I choose to live in the very real world thats old Wilkerson finds himself unfortunately stuck in.

In essence, Palo, the old man, Wilkerson found himself in a bad situation which, powerless as he was, he tried to maneuver as best he saw fit. You can choose to crucify him. I choose not. I simply am glad people like he and Scowcroft, with the help of reasonable guys like Steve, are continuing their uphill fight. Hopefully people who have always been out their fighting Bush such as Gen. Zinni, for example, will readily accept their help even though they were former insiders.

Anyway, no disrespect, Palo, just disagreement.

I am no fan of the Republicans, but Brent Scowcroft did come out against attacking Iraq in 2002. He wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, dated August 15, 2002 and titled "Don't Attack Saddam." I wondered at the time how that affected his close relationship with the Senior Bush.

Greetings readers & posters -- I have been intrigued by the debate going on here about Larry Wilkerson and whether he should be applauded or derided for the comments he made Wednesday. I have stated my views above and don't want to repeat them (much) here...but short hand, I think Wilkerson is a hero and should be applauded.

That said, I am at a fascinating retreat at the Airlie Conference Center this weekend -- sponsored by the Stanley Foundation. There are some real heavyweights here like General Anthony Zinni and others. Zinni had only good things to say about Wilkerson's loyalty to his country and support for his brave candor. That said, there are others here who think that Wilkerson said too much, too late.

I really disagree. The national security business is a complex one -- and there are contending views, all the time, within an administration -- and that dissension becomes even greater when moving beyond the boundary of the White House and into civil society. It's clear to me that people like Richard Armitage, Colin Powell, and Lawrence Wilkerson were attempting to influence the Bush administration from the inside. For them to become bomb throwers would have resulted in them being removed from that core -- and I believe America would have fallen into even more dangerous territory had those three people, and some of their fellow travelers, not been in the room.

As I have written before, the AQ Khan network was not rolled up by John Bolton. It was rolled up by Richard Armitage, John Wolf, George Tenet, and some other incredibly capable intelligence officials. Armitage (and Paul Wolfowitz -- though I cringe giving him more credit than he deserves) worked well together to end the escalation that was quickly leading to a likely nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.

Whether we like it or not -- and I spent considerable time and capital attempting to prevent John Bolton from getting the stamp of legitimacy from the U.S. Senate for his current post -- John Bolton was a subversive and dangerous agent inside the State Department acting as an operative of the Vice President's office. Bolton was there to undermine Powell and Armitage. They knew it -- and people like Wilkerson and Armitage boxed Bolton in (as best they could).

The world is not perfect, and it is not simply black and white. I'm inundated daily by emails from readers of this blog about things to post or ways I should see things....and i try and read it all. But in the end, I feel we need to keep our minds alert and our calculations of what is real and fake constantly reassessing.

I have spent some time with Wilkerson now. I have come to know him -- sort of -- in an odd way that involves various kinds of virtual and indirect conversation. I have spoken to many in the media world about Larry -- and their admiration of him is stunning, not just after his talk -- but he has been helpful to many journalists...and many of these journalists have been our only insight into attempting to dissect and understand the Bush administration's moves.

You can vilify Wilkerson if you want...but you are just wrong. He is a complete hero in my mind -- and I want others like Wilkerson to come forward.

I am working on several other administration officials in key positions of influence and want them to help us understand the nuts and bolts of what has been going on. I'm particularly worried about a set of missteps on Iran.

With the attitude of disdain that many of you have about Wilkerson, were you influential in those views -- you would completely preempt others from stepping forward and making sacrifices in personal position because of a loyalty they feel to the nation, that has been overwhelmed by whatever loyalty they feel to this administration.

To not create a safe harbor for people to provide deep insights into the interior of decision-making assures that these folks won't step forward and that those who want to engineer our next global fiasco will be able to do so without fear of consequence.

Wilkerson is someone I will pay tribute to on this blog frequently -- be advised.

Best regards,

Steve Clemons

Folks:

We should accept Wilkerson on his own terms. Yes, I wish he had acted sooner, but better now than never. We should not centure late comrades for fear of not gaining them at all.

The real missed opportunity was Powell. By all accounts he was extremely uncomfortable with his assigned role in the Bush administration, but he acted the good soldier. Only his resignation could have had a chance to slow the rush to war. If you followed the run up to the war in Great Britain, you saw that pricipled people in the cabinet felt compelled to resign when they could not in good conscience follow the leader. Would that the same tradition were established here.

Nonetheless, this kind of insider "scoop" can only help turn the tide, so let's embrace it.

Colin Powell's presentation to the UN in Feb. of 2003 was based on an 11 year old plagerized student thesis. This was reported widely in the foreign press and a simple internet search would find it for each of you.

The thesis was writtem by Ibrahim Al-Marash and was exposed by his former professor Glen Rangwala of Cambridge University.

A friend of mine, who has two brothers in the military, and I, called EVERY single congressional representative in the US in both the House and Senate and gave them that information with full details. I also called the State Department and talked to someone who purported to have a direct line to Powell, I would have to find my notes to get the name.

So no excuses. Or does US *intelligence* simply not read the UK Guardian? Does British *intelligence*? PLEASE...

In 2001 both Powell and Condi Rice said that Saddam had been contained. You can find Powell saying it on videotape with a web search, I believe it was in Cairo in March, 2001. Again no excuses for either of their subsequent lies.

And finally, a friend of mine in a position to know, because he participated in it, said the war against Iraq had started already; this was in fall of 2002. Because of the release of the Downing Street Memos what he said was ultimately verified, though I trusted him then.

This same friend was sent to the new CentCom in Qatar in June of 2005. Due to his clearance he cannot tell me why, but I could guess.

So let's shut up about Iraq for the moment and concentrate on, you guessed it, Iran, because as Phillip Giraldi and Scott Ritter have said in the last few months (I heard Ritter yesterday) plans are already in place to attack Iran. Bolton and Cheney are chomping at the bit, and my friend's deployment makes me think, because of the nature of his work, that an attack on Iran is imminent. Either by the US or Israel or both.

I agree with another poster: we have a uni-party, one that will do whatever Israel, and their big military/industrial donors want them to do in terms of Middle East policy. The Democrats are not a party of opposition, they are craven opportunists cowering behind the even more heinous GOP.

It is up to us now to take our country back from all politicians or lose our children, our Bill of Rights, our economy, our FUTURE, in endless war.

And by the way, as someone who has voted in Arizona for 21 years as a registered Independent, I would suggest you all take a much closer look at McCain -- he's no savior and you will HATE what you get should he be elected. I don't think he will, the Bushites control the voting machines and they loathe McCain.

McCain's hero is Theodore Roosevelt, who famously espoused that war was good for the health of the country. He is also an uber-Zionist. His dad helped cover up the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, one that almost drew us into the Six Day War. Sadly, I know a lot about that too as an elderly friend of mine was involved.

I'm constantly surprised by the level of trust people put in either paty and agree with sapere aude -- lose the labels and work for the common good.

After what the Republican party has done to Fmr. Senator Clelland, Sen. Kerry, and Sen. McCain you have the gall to defend a member of this administration because of their service in Viet Nam?

And then ...

After the administration supported the Troops by, on the very day of the Iraqi invasion, cut Veteran's Administration funding ...

After the Republican Party has spent the last thirty two years spewing accusations I'm a traitor, a Communist, and I won't defend my country...

After the Republican Party has spent the last thirty two years giving a caricature of my "Tax and Spend" economic policies...

After the Republican Party has spent the last several decades shouting I believe in murdering babies...

After the country is stuck in a War, the economy is in shambles, the mood of the country is grim, our allies are standing aside ...

After this administration used the unity following 9/11 as political capital to get us into this mess ...

you want me to join with you in a coalition "For the Greater Good"?

Sorry Bub. You own it.

Sapere Aude,
Obviously, if yours is the “real world” and mine isn’t, there’s nothing I can say that you’ll find reasonable. But it sure isn’t with a condescending “buddy, I know, you don’t” that you’ll convince me of anything. You spent plenty of bytes telling us Wilkerson is a good guy, very little to show us he did the right thing. You keep selling what I didn’t come to buy.
If truly the “real world” is only the one created by a mad mendacious administration to make phony wars, and there was nothing we could make to stop it, then sure, you are right and Wilkerson the historian is a hero. Sure enough, I don’t buy it. Real world question: Had Wilkerson, Powell and all of their friends that now tell us they witnesses that madness and felt it wrong resigned not Feb 4 2003, but June 2002 when the neocon plans for the remapping of the Middle East were discussed, would the Iraq War had happened? I don’t know, but it is not a wild analysis to suggest that it could have been a harder sell. Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke wrote about an Administration more interested in exploiting 9/11 for its Middle East plans than on securing the nation. What did Wilkerson do when those two were eviscerated by the administration and its cronies? He sat down at his desk, mouth shut. Is that your real world? Is that a desirable real world? Do you really believe nothing could have been different?

I hate to overuse a word, but, damn! Except for the support of a few people, here, such as Steve and a few others, I damn sure as well hope Wilkerson seriously considered what he was going to say before he said it and that what he is now incurring has been worth it for the good of the country. He's being vilified by operatives on both sides of the political aisle. And, what you all don't get is that people such as Cheney and Rummie are very, very dangerous people. They are the ones who've fostered an environment that's produced Abu Graib and GITMO. If you don't think that Wilkerson's life is in danger, now, you all definitely are not living in the real world. To people such as Rummie and Cheney, Wilkerson makes Richard Clark look like a f--k--n girlscout. Although I'm a Republican, I am not like these Republicans -they eat their own. Just as thousands of men and women dying in Iraq is no joke, what Wilkerson has said and is, now, encountering as a result of what he has said, ain't no joke either. I simply hope he doesn't incur anything more than the mere verbal assaults he has already received,here, as well as from various other sources.

And, oh, Palo, I wasn't attempting to be condescending to you. I was trying to entreat you in a more respectful manner to listen to what I had to say. Obviously, I failed.

Take care.

Steve, you say:
You can vilify Wilkerson if you want...but you are just wrong. He is a complete hero in my mind -- and I want others like Wilkerson to come forward.
With the attitude of disdain that many of you have about Wilkerson, were you influential in those views -- you would completely preempt others from stepping forward
I think you are doing precisely what you claim you are against. You are telling us that a real hero is that one who kept his mouth shut when he could have made a difference and only opened when the political climate makes it easy. I don’t think that’s a good way to make people to come forward, at least not when it matters. I still believe the best way is to hold them accountable, making sure you send the message that society doesn't look nicely at those that hold important information from its citizens when that information could result in actionable politics.

I was gnashing my teeth throughout the past 5 years as much as anyone else here, but I agree that Wilkerson should not be demonised for his timing. It isn't just the messenger or the message that matters - it's also the societal context and the audience which determine the effectiveness of that message and how it is received. Clarke, O'Neil, Ritter, Pincus, all whistle-blowers/critiques, even including Wilson, all made not a shred of difference as far as the American public and the mass media were concerned. Bush was the rock-solid, likeable teflon President that everyone wanted to have a beer with, and no one wanted to cross. America was swept up in a blinding moment of flag-waving. Look what happened to those who spoke their minds, remember the Dixie Chicks?

The only way to bring this criminal administration down is to bring on the avalanche. I fear, however, that neither Wilkerson/Scowcroft nor Fitzergerald or even the huge disillusion of the American people is enough to flush out the criminals from the 3 branches of government and set this country on the right course again.

I'm excited, but not waiting with bated breath. After two clearly corrupted elections, WMD lies, accounts of torture and clear violations of human rights and their unquestioned acceptance by the American people, I've grown cynical and don't believe the majority in this country has enough principles, guts or will anymore. I'll welcome any serious evidence to the contrary - bring them on!

Sapere Aude:

Believe me, we perfectly "get" that "people such as Cheney and Rummie are very, very dangerous people". We think your guy, Wilkerson, enable them. That's all.

I'm not trying to throw a wet blanket here, but read the much respected and frequently right John Dean's legal take on the whole affair and Fitzgerald's limits here:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051021.html

It may all end up with a slap on the wrist for Libby, and then back to the NeoCon Project Runamok.

I've found the debate occurring on this post fascinating-all that is great about the principles of free speech, impassioned, honest, and civil debate,are embodied by all the posters here. Whether Wilkerson's words and actions could have been effective "then" or if they will be now, though, we may never know.

However, the general thrust of the debate, "when is it effective to speak up and/or take action?" is critical. We now have this administration making noises (again) about Syria and Iran. Will BushCo be foolhardy enough to take the country to war again, or will there be voices and persons of action who will stand in its way? Given the administration's domestic and legal problems, isn't it about time to bring out that "we must stand against our common enemy" canard?

So, yes, the question about when should people of conscious take action is especially apt now. The way I see it, in comedy or politics, it's all about timing.

Dean is mistaken. While National Security cover could be invoked for this fiasco, it does not serve the nation to do so, precisely because of the magnitude and specific nature of the problems. Honest internal communication is a core requirement for the effective functioning of government. This has been deliberately violated within the highest levels of the executive to the point where the executives can no longer be trusted to operate in good faith.

Fitzgerald's actions, without any public or private disclosure, have caused larger populations of the public to become aware of and to discuss the reality of this disfunction. Very serious problems have now been brought to light, without any direct legal action having taken place. Enough concern has been raised that to even the most casual observation of the facts it is clear the sausage factory must be opened to the public.

The only groups resistant to this are those that have both fostered and foisted upon us this entire situation. These groups acting with executive backing have done critical damage to the security of our nation and its agency apparatus, as well as many public policy and public relations institutions.

The game is over, the bill has long been due and MUST NOW BE PAID. Fitzgerald's indictments must proceed and the light must be shown into all the dark corners of of this disaster so that the public understands the magnitude of what has been damaged and what must be fixed. Plugging mouth, ears and eyes will only doom this nation in ways Wilkerson has so casually outlined in his speech.

To John Dean and others still hesitant: THE BILL MUST BE PAID. Let it be our finest hour and an example to the world, as we publically fix these problems, verifying the faith and wisdom of our founders in bequeathing us this form of self rule, that permits the word and the pen to command the gun and the coin. It is this type of redemption that is the unique strength of that dream we call the United States of America.

Steve,

Thanks for the clarification. When mention was made of the "next Monday" issue, I thought folks were referring to an issue whose cover date would have been Monday, 24 October. Anyway, I will stay tuned....

Thanks and,
Kind regards,
MECsfo

Lying to Congress? That's a no-no.

The Niger forgery:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/21/181238/30

Let's not forget all of the connections running from Nixon through every presidency since, except Carter. This has been a plan of Cheney's, Wolfowitz's, Bush's (I), and Rumsfeld's since then. Thirty-some-odd years ago. I don't know where I read the article, but it fully articulted their plan to control the U.S. government and they had a twenty-five year plan to accomplish it.

One of those who are in the thick of the current administration's debacle was Marc Rich's counsel, who was subsequently pardoned of his crimes by Bill Clinton. All those crazy people that have tried to tell us what was happening to our government that the MSM tried to tell us were wackos (or was that WACOs) might have been right.

The sad thing is, no one would listen to any of it. We still aren't. We think (as democrats) that Hillary would be the answer. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it seems to be voting out every single person in office, be it Democrat or Republican, and doing that every single election until they get the message.

There are two things that define the integrity of a man, honor and commitment. But sometimes, one's honor demands that you drop your commitments. The measure of a man is WHEN you drop those commitments. Before the war or after hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost. In this case it is the later.

While I am glad they are speaking out, Scowcroft and Wilkerson have shit for integrity. Unlike real soldiers, they waited until they couldn't get hurt before speaking out. Sorta like the soldier who waits for all his peers to charge into battle and after the ground is taken, only then do they run up to sneak into the group to take credit for something they didn't do. Scowcroft and Wilderson are in essence cowards for waiting so long. We have had shit for a goverment since WWII.

ANYONE who stayed silent for this long should be castrated with the enemy.

It is corporatism (profiteering) that drives all of this corruption. Senator Byrd and Kennedy and others like them are one of the few with any real integrity for speaking out early. Byrd and Kennedy are not in there for the money or the profits but for the love of this country. And you know, there was a little man who ran for the presidency of this country some time ago. I remember him looking up into the audience during a debate and telling a group of youth he was running for president because he LOVED them! When was the last time you heard a presidential candidate on national television telling the people he loved them? And we let the first corrupt Bush (senior) Administration use unethical tactics to destroy him. Both generations of Bush's are asshole. Both have done more harm to this country than good.

And while folks think this may be a turning point. Think again. In the long term, over the last 5 decades, the US government has become more and more corrupt and subserviant to corporatism over the will of the people. And while this is a change in tide in the short term, it will not stem the sea of corruption that is now so invasive within our government.

Corporatism. Serving corporate interests over the will of the American People. Cheap jobs overseas have ALWAYS been there. Prior to the first Bush Administration, every other president CHOSE not to sacrifice our soverignity to the American worker!

Reagan, Bush senior and Junior sold their souls to the devil. And now the democrats have now too.

It all makes me want to puke.

And if the American people had any real integrity, they would overthrow the entire government and start over. But unfortunately, the people themselves are too blame for the lack of intellect and integrity in actually let this all happen. For actually SUPPORTING the criminals in our government. The American People are not what they once were and neither is this country. As a fifty year old American, I can say this country stinks to shit.

Scowcroft and Wilkerson, thank you for speaking out, but fuck you both for not doing so earlier. When you physically stand with Cindy Sheehan and publically admit your faults and apologize to the American People on TV, then I may forgive you and call you better men. But such action takes integrity which I think you both lack.

-Ken Boettger in Ellensburg, WA

AFter reading several of the other posts here, I apologize for my previous rant. It is apparent Wilderson and Scowcrot spoke out in the beginning.

I think folks are venting pretty harshly, as I have done, not because of any wrong doing by Wilderson and Scowcroft but because they are the first to really speak out and the American people are so upset that it took so long. And so they attack the good man and the messenger.

In regards to my previous post, my apologies to the readership here and these two gentlemen who have finally found the appropriate opportunity to remove the corruption in our current administration.

Ken Boettger in Ellensburg, WA

I, too, wish for a knight-in-shining-legal-armour and Hollywood ending to this sorry tale....but, remember the UK's Hutton Whitewash, uh, Report regarding the circumstances of "sexed up" WMD claims, the sacking of a BBC reporter and the whistleblower weapons specialist Dr Kelly who was not only outed and vilified but was so pressured, he offed himself? (Wilson & the Mrs can at least take comfort in the fact that those cocktail invitations will still come post-Fitzgerald, and who knows, maybe even a million dollar book deal...) This happened in a country with a Labour govt and a solid majority and most of the mass media opposed to the war.

As for blaming the silent Republicans for all the ills, may I remind everyone of that very public fratricide commited by the Dems against the antiwar Dr Dean who spoke too loudly and clearly the painful truth?

Believe me, if there's anything I can do to rouse the American people, to incite anger against these abuses, to stop future wars and this bleeding debt, to have Rove and Cheney frog-marched out of the White House, I'll volunteer anytime.

Unfortunately, this country is not ready for this. To paraphrase the bon mots of the clever Defense Secretary, you learn to live with the country you have, not the country you want.

Scowcroft has spoken plenty in the past, before the war. The MSM had censored everything he said. Not a peep. I read at least 10 blogs in the past quoting him and his opposition to the upcoming war. He was very angry. But it never went beyond the blogs. Now the MSM is quoting him because the MSM has been forced to speak.
Blame the MSM, not Scowcroft.
The MSM should be indicted!

As an illustration of the "country you have", I accidentally tuned in to a segment of the epitome of the nation's intellect, wit and soul, America's Funniest Home Videos, and witnessed a tape of a tiny blonde girl not older than 5 rattling on "Jeopardy" style, the perfect answers to "Who is the President?" "Who is the VP?" "Who is the National Security Advisor?" etc...and when asked "Who is Bill Clinton?" replied "A jerk " to loud cheers and raucous laughter on camera and in the studio....I teared up...

Makes me appreciate the courage of Paul O'Neil all the more

First, a factual note on New Yorker publication dates: It hits the newsstand on Mondays but always carries an issue publication date that is a week later, i.e., issue that came out on this past Monday was dated 10/24/05. Issue that hits newsstand in two days on 10/24/05 will be dated 10/31/05. That's the one that will have the Scowcroft story. I've subscribed for many years when I lived in both CA and GA, and that issue won't arrive by mail until about Wednesday.

Thanks, Steve, for providing all the fascinating discussion above. I strongly suggest reading John Dean's article in link provided above by Qwerty. Given that Dean is writing on a legal website and his past experience, he probably has the facts right.

What happens if Fitzgerald just closes shop and goes back to Chicago?

The true power in this country lies with the press. Unless they speak out on the NBC Nightly News the average Joe will never know what is really happening. It has gone on since the dawn of "news," but seems so much more insidious now. Perhaps it is because we are living it, because it couldn't have been any better during the civil rights/ Viet Nam era or the riots against Rockefeller/Standard Oil.

The answer to that is even more elusive than what to do about elected officials. How do we change a privately controlled entity? Boycott the advertisers? I already don't buy from their advertisers simply because of my life-style. Will it matter to anyone that lies within the vast swath of unaware Americans? My husband was just telling me that people are SOOO upset that our state's University football team is having a losing season after ten years of winning. Fans put a "For Sale" sign in the coach's yard. Our country is going down a shit-hole and they are more concerned about a damn football team. Makes one very weary and very pessimistic.

A refresher:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry

Read it and weep. Don't get your hopes so high, you get hurt.

Yeah right.

BRER RABBIT: Please oh please Brer Fox, don't throw me in dat briar patch!

Just which pebble began this landslide? There are of course many possible choices. One of them is actually Bush's clearly fraudulent election in 2000. At that point, even a few people who had believed in this man surely saw the truth. There was the pebble.

For me, the turning point came in March with Steve Clemons' effort to keep Bolton from being named our U.N. Ambassador. Thanks to Steve's persistence, more people became aware of what a problem child Bush really is, nominating such an inappropriate person for such an important position. For the first time we saw a few Republicans refuse to walk the Administration's line on a pretty important matter. This gave me hope, which then seemed to disappear when Bush went around the clear advice of the senate that this appointment was an error. At that time, I was certain that we were doomed, that nothing short of a coup d'etat would turn things around.

But looking back from now, I think that Bush's appointment of Bolton was the pebble that started the landslide. Enough Republicans finally realized that this man was dangerous, and could not, would not be stopped. From this event, Cindy Sheehan's campout in Crawford gave courage and confidence to the anti-war (or at least, anti-the-Iraq-war) segment of the population, and exposed Bush's lack of compassion to even more of the group commonly referred to as the Republican Faithful. Bush's distinct emptiness of any kind of compassion whatever was finally and completely clear with the Hurricane Rita debacle, and I think there is no coming back from this. I can actually imagine that George W. Bush will not be President of the United States in 365 days. Until this week, any thoughts of impeachment were laughably foolish wishes because there was no way the Republican-dominated Legislative Branch would go there. Now, however, the piling-on finally makes impeachment look like it is at least something of an option, and not a pipe dream.

We are by no means finished with this. My point is that as frustrated as many of us have been (or still are) with the horribly long time it seems to have taken enough people to speak out, we are now at that place. We will see what happens next week, next month, next year.

For those of you who are angry with people who only now seem to be speaking out, consider this: We do not know what they have gone through to reach this point. In fact, it is possible that some of those people in positions to "do something" actually did try to do something. Perhaps their path was that one over there that is now joining the larger path that our small path is also joining. We have come here from separate journeys, but we are nearly together. Let's get this son of a bitch out of the White House before something worse happens. Please, don't curse them. Welcome them to the path. Once this is over we will again drift apart.

"What happens if Fitzgerald just closes shop and goes back to Chicago?"

Richard Cohen will take all the credit.

Some of you jumped on Scowcroft, among others, for not speaking out sooner. I totally agree in the case of say, Colin Powell. As far as I am concerned Colin Powell is a war criminal for not only having not spoken up, but for having actively sold the lie. Scowcroft, though, has been speaking his mind about the folly of Iraq all along. Apparently this upcoming writeup will just be more succinct and more powerful than what he has had to say in the past. Lets hope that whatever it is that he has had to say or write will move mountains.

Sapere Aude,

Thanks for your first post, which provided some useful context. Please rest assured that you reached those who were willing to listen, though naturally I don't agree with all of it. In particular, I object to Wilkerson's use of the word "cabal" to describe the group of people who consistently won the policy arguments in the White House -- if Cheney and Rumsfeld form a "cabal", then so do Powell and Wilkerson -- and thus to your use of the term for the same reasons.

As for the rest, there's no reasoning with either Dittoheads or Koskids. If next time, you post once and post again on another subject, the rest of us will benefit.

This NYTimes article has just been posted. As we talk about national security, perhaps we should also explore the dangers of dual loyality. Most of the neo con architects of the Iraq War are people with strong ties to Israel. It is time to root them out of our government. They are dangerous to both the United States and to Israel.

Leak Case Renews Questions on War's Rationale

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: October 23, 2005

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 - The legal and political stakes are of the highest order, but the investigation into the disclosure of a covert C.I.A. officer's identity is also just one skirmish in the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq.

That fight has preoccupied the White House for more than three years, repeatedly threatening President Bush's credibility and political standing, and has now once again put the spotlight on Vice President Dick Cheney, who assumed a critical role in assembling and analyzing the evidence about Iraq's weapons programs.

The dispute over the rationale for the war has led to upheaval in the intelligence agencies, left Democrats divided about how aggressively to break with the White House over Iraq and exposed deep rifts within the administration and among Republicans. The combatants' intensity was underscored this week in a speech by Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Colin L. Powell while he was secretary of state..."

http://tinyurl.com/92bvc

"I am grateful for any and all who come out and tell us how this nightmare happened -- and who will help us zero in on what caused this so as to generate the public will not to have it happen again with Iran or the next crisis."

Steve,

Do you see anyone, in a position of actual influence today, who is willing to speak out against an escalation of the war into Syria &/or Iran? Yea, we heard that Rice prevailed on Syria at the beginning of the month, but she made clear to the Senate committee that the administration won't be coming back to congress for permission when they decide the time for action has come.

Don't forget how many Americans voted for the village idiot (Dubya) because they believe he's a "good Christian". ( i.e publicly against abortion and gays, and for 'family values', mom, chevy, and apple pie) It makes me literally SICK how blind and uninformed so many in our country are. Give lots of folks a credit card, some country music, a six pack, and a weekly trip to Walmart, and they're happy. Who said "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public"? The sad thing is, no matter if Bush and his cronies take a dive, which I hope they will, and soon,it won't bring back the countless dead. And,sadly, the next candidate who spins the most believeable fairy tale will get the most votes. I just hope the election won't be stolen again, but nothing would suprise me. I stopped believing in political promises in 1968. I do vote, but nothing has happened yet to bring back my faith in the system. "Ship of Fools" indeed. What a tragedy for our country as for the entire world. And in the end, Bush and his buddies will just retire to lick their wounds (ha) for a minute or two and then count their blood money.

re: how bush sr. must feel about Jr's performance, but that he is terrified of Barb so won't say anything. I believe Roger Waters and crew were quite prescient on this front:

"but in this town it was well known when they got home at night their fat and psychopathic wives would thrash them within inches of their lives"
-pink floyd

Steve, you're traffic is up!

I want to say that in an earler post, I complained about the Scowcroft paper, not because of the timing--but simply because I am wishing that some day the MSM establishment will actually listen when someone besides a Republican criticizes this Administration.

Clearly, I welcome Scowcraft's statements and Wilkerson's, and I thank them for the service they're doing--the truth they're telling.

I meant to say in my post I'm just frustrated that to the establishment, it only counts if you're Republican.

Sigh. Remember how Kucinich was laughed at for wanting to establish a Peace Department? But now, it seems we only listen to someone with war college experience and a GOP-voting card, to hear that torture and wars of choice should be avoided.

I should think the greatest example of our democracy to the rest of the world we so desparately seem to want to share, and the best way of restoring this country's good and true value to its citizens, is to open wide the wound, clean out the poison that is festering and begin a healing process. The doomsayers will always be part of the scenario (look very closely at our History) but we always end up growing stronger because we do not give into their pessimism. It is why our country is so different and why with all its difficulty it remains the democratic mecca of the world by those who love and hate it. We have the ability to withstand many trials without breaking, but we cannot survive without a people who stay involved, question constantly and seek resolution through dialogue and compromise - checks and balances. So, do not denegrate each other for not asking "why not" sooner, for the true importance lays in the fact that we should always ask "why" regardless of the time.

This is what I want to know:

Who was responsible for selecting George to be the Republican candidate for the President of the United States back in 2000? Who thought it was a really good idea? I know the common wisdom is Karl, but please -- he had to have big backing to get the nod.

How do we ensure that this NEVER, EVER happens again?

I tire of reading all of this armchair, Tuesday-evening quarterbacking. Steve is right: the internals of the clocks of national security and foreign policy are as complex as any weather system, and those who give us, who are NOT part of those systems, insight into their workings are to be commended, if only for their contributions to education.

All of us are taking advantage of this multifaceted shield that protects our right to voice our opinions and espouse our theories. Even our privilege of being ignorant and disrespectful of the impact of their careers is gained thru their sacrifices, despair, frustrations and caution, just as those benefits are advanced by their successes at piloting our ship of state.

As an outsider, I am grateful to Mr. Clemons for publicizing and getting others who are involved in running our country to publicize their work. Though I respect your collective right to hold any position you want, I am starting to see several commenters here as ideologues as vile and putrid as Limbaugh and O'Reilly. You are trying to portray people who have been hard at work in their careers as ne'er-do-wells, bums and vagrants. Yet it is you who have done nothing but pollute the discourse.

I wish you would replace your feelings about these people with action that works to undo the damage GWB has wrought upon my country. Go do something good for the United States and it's citizens, like Steve is.

Snowcroft made critical but discrete comments about Bush Jr foreign policy in past, not sure what Wilkerson ever said publically though.

There were lots of ex admin people (O'Neill, Clarke, etc) who made critical comments in past but they were simply cast into the darkness never to be heard from again.

The big question though is: how come these people aren't being cast into the darkness? And just how did the singing AG let Fitzgerald do his job without obstruction? They've done it before.

Something has changed. Clearly, the media is back on the leash. A change of faces has been requested and is coming. Who is this Gerben character and why has he made the public his opinion that Bush Jr should clean house?

What has happened behind the scenes?

Jeezus. As top aid to Sec State, you are not free to go rattling off to the press. If you do you are a loose cannon with a short tenure. Those of us opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning did every thing we could on the outside, but that was not enough to deter the war. We needed help from those on the inside and from Congress who needs to step up to the plate.

Those on the inside are going to have to pick and choose their battles. In order to get Iraq policy turned around, we will need good people on the inside that can steer policy in the correct direction. If the good people all run to the press to mouth off, the only ones left in the administration would be the John Boltons. That said, now is the time for the good guys on the inside to start leaking information.

They are trying hard not to trash Bush Jr because another Bush will run in 2008. When all fails, the bush's loyalists play the "JR is retarded" card and it has worked wonderfully for them.

Why can't reporters ask Papa Bush about the current traitorgate? Ask Papa questions like does he think his son is proctecting traitors ? What about the fact that Rove has not been fired yet?

Another reason Scowcroft is blasting away now, as he promised way back, is 'cuz NeoCrazies are making noise about Syria & Iran. Scowcroft said he'd support Impeachment if they tried to do that. I'll see if I can find the link. It was in a speech to some group.

It's hard to take someone who got bamboozled by Ali G seriously.

Ali: Did they ever catch the people who sent Tampax through the post?

Scowcroft: No, they did not. And it wasn't Tampax, it was anthrax.

Ali: I think they is different brand names. Like we say pavement, you say sidewalk whatever. There is different words for the—

Scowcroft: Well, maybe, but anthrax is the germ and Tampax is something very different.

"no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public"

Either Mark Twain or P.T. Barnum. Or Mark Twain paraphrasing P.T. Barnum, more likely.

Whoops! Googled it and it is H.L. Mencken. I guess only guys with letters for first names come up with these witticisms....

Vaughan,

"But now, it seems we only listen to someone with war college experience and a GOP-voting card, to hear that torture and wars of choice should be avoided. "

Who is 'we'? 'We' meaning you and me, already knew these things. It's the rest of the country 'we' that need convincing.

"success has many fathers but failure is an orphan."

i'm not sure why i'm starting with that quote but one thing that i am sure of is that palo has never been in a position similar to larry wilkerson. he's quick to judge but i'll bet he doesn't know whereof he speaks. wilkerson's standing up now has weight because he stayed at his post and worked to get things done right. he's a military man for god's sakes! i'm not a republican and i got out of the military as soon as my enlistment was up, but i respect anyone who has made the sacrifices of a military career and led an honorable life. americans don't want to be bothered with politics for the most part but somebody's got to do it. and the rest of us need to, at least, pay attention, and that's what too many of us haven't been doing.

what about congress? forget about labels. that's all a big diversion any way. who stood up against the war at the beginning? one person that i know of! one person: senator byrd. he said it was a big mistake and we didn't know what we were in for. who said so in the last presidential campaign? "that crazy," howard dean. the mainstream media tried to shoot him down from the beginning, and they kept at it until they got him. then they ridiculed him repeatedly.

joe wilson took on the bush administration.
during the past month THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA repeatedly claim that he was a liar ("Tweetie" of "Hardball" is a notable example, often letting his guests do this and not challenging them about it).

if we really care what happens to this country, if we really want change to happen we must help and support the larry wilkersons and brent scowcrofts and the ian fishbacks and the patrick fitzgeralds or NOTHING WILL CHANGE. and there IS a neocon cabal in the bush administration, but it doesn't stop there. washington is rife with it, and it doesn't stop there. right now the bush administration is nervous, the heritage foundation is nervous and certain foreign lobbyists are nervous. we've no guarantee that a meaningful change can be made but we'd better try by working together, staying alert and rewarding those who either speak up or have some chance at making a difference.

coyote

I tend to agree with sapere aude that being critical of someone's timing for voicing opposition is a bit gratuitous at this point. However, under more normal circumstances it would have been a 'Profiles in Courage' moment had a significant resignation or two at the cabinet level taken place especially in light of the significant worldwide sentiment against the war in those weeks leading up to the conflict. That is easy to say here in hindsight but not so easy to do particularly when you consider the lockstep Republican Congressional support, not to mention a good deal of public support as well, for the Administration that existed at the time. My guess is it would have been a futile gesture.

Why it would have been futile begs the question, what was driving Administration policy at that point. There are two basic political philosophies and people often move between the two depending upon the issue under discussion at the time. These days, for Republicans the dominant philosophy is 'Every man for himself'. For Democrats it is 'We're all in this together'. From the time we are babies we are subjected to both and at some point each of us picks the one that we personally are most comfortable with. The fringe groups on both the left and the right tend to take the philosophy to the extreme and marry it to ideology making them dangerous if they get into a position of power. Usually the more radical folk get sifted out during our election process. Unfortunately for America in the last two elections a few slid in under the American peoples' radar. For some it was obvious from the outset. For most of the American people, who frankly pay too little attention to this stuff, mostly because they are scrambling from day to day just to make ends meet, it has, only too slowly for many, just begun to dawn on them what has happened.

It hasn't been so long since Republicans held the White House that one could say they have lost the capability to govern effectively if they put their mind to it. Thus, one is left, by default, with the conclusion that this Administration seems to not be as interested in governing effectively as much as just having their hands on the levers of power so they can try out some of their fonder ideological ideas. After all, several are signatories to PNAC. I suspect that if Katrina had not come along to awaken the public by putting an exclamation point on the incompetence, the Bush Administration likely would have skated all the way to the end of term two without the majority of the American people noticing.

The wild card is Mr. Fitzgerald. If he folds his tent next week without issuing any indictments the Bush Administration is safe and will feel empowered to continue on their merry way. In that case I think Republicans will be able to recover their balance and hold onto Congress in the 2006 elections. I think this because at this point I don't see any Democrats on the horizon who even know what their philosophy is any more let alone are able to explain it to what would be a receptive public if they could. If Mr. Fitzgerald does issue indictments and that process drags on into 2006 then I think the public will go into 'throw the bums out' mode and there will be a power shift in 2006. That will spell the end of the Bush Administration. Pick the scenario you like best. (One possible alternative: maybe someone who knows how to reach the DNC can explain to them in simple one syllable words that they need to reconnect with the American people philosophically and use it to differentiate themselves from this Republican Party in an effective way. After all, it isn't as if there is any lack of examples to use)

The White House is hinting at a Presidential Finding on Syria; coincidentally, the federal prosecutor is preparing indictments on Treasongate. Could enlarging the war to Syria, collide with the indictments and bury them under the thunder?

Just accidentally, of course.

on a completly unrelated matter

October 04, 2005
Judith Miller: The Grossest Kind of War-Profiteer
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000999.html

shows up here:
http://fetish-lesbian-toe.sweetipo.pp.ru/
scroll down

The DNC? Are you serious? War-voting Dems???
Frankly, all untainted, conscientious politicians should immediately quit their parties and run as indies or form a new party.

http://fetish-lesbian-toe.sweetipo.pp.ru/

is now gone

thanks to google, it's still here:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:R3DQyC1yLuQJ:fetish-lesbian-toe.sweetipo.pp.ru/+%22fetish-lesbian-toe%22+sweetipo&hl=en

why was that page there, and gone 2 minutes later ?? oooh, spooky, all hallow's eve and all

Cowards ? If we weren't all cowards, we would have liberated our Constitution from these zionist Neocon interlopers. And if that means a second Civil War so be it.

Its beginning to sound like maybe a few people are waking from the hypnotic spell cast by the gang of thieves occupying the White House. Some of the insiders, for reasons of their own I suspect, have begun to speak out about some of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans going on there, shenanigans that we are finally beginning to realize have worked to the detriment of our country.

To all who are newly roused to anger I have these comments to make:
Last year this country succumbed to a snake oil salesman. This guy used all his craftiness to sell us a bill of goods and we fell for his line of overblown rhetoric (...destroy the evil empire and spread freedom around the world...) hook, line and sinker and voted him back into office.

Now we're starting to find out just what we bought ourselves because we were such willing pawns. All it took was a slick appeal to our fears, our prejudices and our uncertainties. All it took was playing to the lowest part of ourselves, and we gave away the store. This man, this george bush, has lied to the public about the war that has proven so costly to our nation and has staffed government agencies with his political cronies, unleashing on the American public a leadership that is vastly less experienced and less qualified, putting into place people whose most significant qualification for their jobs is their allegiance to w.

This was the administration that was voted back into office because it convinced a voting public willing to abdicate its responsibility to think for itself, in favor of a falling for a cheap play on the emotions of a frightened nation, this man, george bush, managed to convince the voting public that he could protect us better than "the other side".

Now we're angry because the government has done such a poor job protecting us, such a poor job of conducting the war. We are mad because this government has managed to get us deeply embedded in the quagmire of a war that cannot be won, a war that has cost nearly 2000 American lives and thousands more injured and maimed. We’re mad because this government has gutted the national disaster management agency, which led to the failure to protect and rescue Katrina disaster victims. And, we’re angry because now we are finally beginning to realize we have been lied to as we hear of those lies from those in the inner circle who have finally begun to tell us the truth.

But we didn't really ask anything of him, did we? We took what he said at face value and didn't bother to check the facts. We let him back in, we let him send our people off to fight and die in a war that we were lied to about from the beginning, we let him put unqualified people in these jobs and watched while the experienced veterans of these agencies have been leaving wholesale, leaving the political hacks in charge. Now, the glaring inadequacies of just one of these political appointees has been exposed in the face of the most catastrophic natural disaster in our history. And, there are others. They are quietly gutting agencies that are supposed to protect and keep us safe.

When its all said and done, we really have only ourselves to blame.

And please...put a stop to this Colin Powell "good soldier" nonsense. A good soldier is above all dedicated to serving the honour and integrity of his country, not unswerving loyalty to the Fuhrer!!

And I'm not being idealistic but realistic when I talk about honour and integrity. These and morals, principles, rules are all concepts that evolve from successful models of human interaction leading to mutual prosperity and success of the species. The other models, genocide, wars, strong swallowing the weak, have proved to be occasionally and briefly successful, but ultimately destructive.

Well, I will make one final post today with far fewer expletives – the spouse reviewed a few of my posts and said I should be ashamed of myself - and then I will, once again, retreat to the shadows from where I can passively but more safely review the provocative thoughts I often relish to find here. (I’ve been told, it seems since I began posting a few days ago I’ve received a respectful increase in attempted computer intrusions. Well, I guess I’ve ticked off some people on both sides of the aisle. Oh well, c’est la vie…)

Regarding today’s post, I read Holbrooke’s article early this morning in the WP and found it rather amusing. With all due respect to Richard Holbrooke, it is no secret within the beltway that he has historically hated Powell. I am not surprised, as a result of his fervent hatred - he finds most satisfying the predicament Powell currently finds himself in due to his involvement with the Bushies and, that unable to contain, himself, Holbrooke has found it necessary to pour salt on the old general’s wounds. That being said, I did find his overwhelming defense of Condi somewhat surprising – perhaps, Holbrooke’s attempting to jockey for a position in a future Condi administration if Hilary can’t beat her.

Anyway, regarding my last post, I do think Holbrooke hits on a major point in addressing Condi’s ability and I look forward to seeing what Steve and his associates think about her in the future. The truth is to this cranky, old soldier is that it’s all about Condi. Whatever do I mean? Let me explain. I am referring to the big picture. I think history will show that Condi Rice will have proven to be a greater foe to the immediate safety and security of our country than even, as Wilkerson, has asserted the “cabal” has.

Out of all the major players, however, she is the one for whom I have the most respect. Oh, of course, no one can supersede Powell for being a hero in his own right. Likewise, no one can prove to be a truer patriot or a more decent human being. That being said, Condi is the one to be feared – more than Rummie and Cheney. She is the devious one who quietly plans her very next move, all the while exploiting the other major players’ weaknesses and ineptitudes.

Let us remember, Powell was Condi’s mentor. He spent much time encouraging her endeavors, ultimately giving her the hand up she needed, and how did she repay him? Did she assist him while she was NSC and he was SECSTATE? Since she was winning the President’s ear over did she come to Powell’s defense when pals Rummie and Cheney were against him? No, she did not assist him in his endeavors. Instead, she quietly stood in the shadows, whispering into Bush’s ears, appearing as if she stood – although not publicly – with the “cabal”, while simultaneously whispering to Powell she was still on his side, too.

By playing both sides, she achieved three goals. First, by not appearing a threat to the “cabal”, she won Rummie’s respect and Cheney’s approval, both of which she needed to get Bush to trust her more. Second, by not agreeing with the dissenting Powell, she demonstrated loyalty to Bush – the trait he, being as insecure a man as he is, values most, and, third, by appearing to keep Powell somewhat within her circle, she would be able to offer a valuable service to the President at a later time.

Hundreds of people have asked why didn’t Powell jump ship before the last campaign, claiming that, if he had, Bush would have been finished. To those Powell critics who have made such claims, I say, “I heartily agree.” Had Powell not lent his popularity to the President during the past election, Bush would never have had a chance and, although I’m certain Bush would never admit it, now, he knew it then. I assert (and, of course, this is all conjecture on my part) Bush knew it so well during the last campaign that he encouraged Condi Rice to assist him in his attempt to keep Powell on board. If you recall, during the last campaign, there were supposed administration leaks that Rummie would be leaving as soon as Bush were reelected. Numerous articles were written about beltway rumors alleging Condi would take the SECDEF position. Of course, Condi refuted such claims in subsequent interviews all the while noting she was expanding the size of her Watergate Apartment, something one might very well do if they were to be elevated to another higher position.

I argue everyone got it wrong, then, including the General whom I pity for having been so utterly naive. I argue Condi was planning to expand her apartment during the campaign because she knew very well she would be the next Secretary of State and SecState’s, in contrast to SecDef’s do a lot of entertaining at home. However, in order to obtain her goal she would have to assist the President in keeping Powell on board until the election was over so that they could win in the first place. Ultimately, I allege she assisted the President and Cheney in their attempts to make Colin Powell think she would replace Rumsfeld and make him think, with Rummie gone, Condi, Powell, and Bush would fix many of the problems Rummie had created. Unfortunately though for Powell, he was very wrong. Sad as it to say, I assert the brilliant hero was badly duped, and, although he says he chose to stay, I agree with those who say Bush forced Powell out.

With Powell gone, and Condi as SECSTATE, there would be only two left to dispose of, Cheney and Rummie, and, for Condi, it would not be so difficult to deal with the scandal-ridden duo. In essence, all she would have to do – which I argue she has done quite well and is doing - is delicately distance herself from the “cabal” publicly while earnestly doing the best job she could at State.

Additionally, I argue that, now, if the “cabal” does implode and the President finds himself at the bottom of a hole in need of help, Condi will be the one to ride in on the white charger and save him. If Cheney goes and the opportunity affords itself, Condi will jockey for it and I think will easily get it. Then - although none of this is funny - the ultimate joke will be on Bush. Over the past four years, Condi will have done nothing except enable the “cabal” and castrate Powell until, as the result of both, Bush would be brought so low, he would need her to come and save him, ultimately thrusting Condi, a woman with very little formative experience, into a much more favorable seat from which to seek the presidency.

In the end, it is because of Condi that, after spending years supporting Republican causes and serving my country, I will vote for Hilary Clinton if the two woman are on the ticket. I will agree with Dick Morris that Hilary is consumed with her desire to be President. I will also agree with him that she has made a history of recreating herself in an effort to achieve that goal. I will also note she brings some very questionable baggage to the table. That all being said – and it’s a lot- I am certain she would never ever sell the country out as Condi has nor do I think Hilary would ever risk the lives of thousands of American and allied soldiers and innocent Iraqis simply for the purpose of adding one more notch – although an impressive one – to her resume.

I have just spent a lot of time reading all of the discussion here -- and i think this blog has some of the best exchanges on serious issues i have seen anywhere. very little vapid stuff, and passion flows here about ideas, rather than just junk.

I just want to say that "sapere aude" has been trying to figure out what makes Steve Clemmons tick. From just looking back at the archive on this blog, it's clear to me that Steve Clemons is one hell of a strategist. He's rolling bowling balls into this White House and using players on the White House team to do it.

It's very impressive to watch his handiwork -- and "Meet the Press" at this very moment is debating the Wilkerson speech. . .and Scowcroft article.

This blog is becoming very powerful -- for the forces of good.

I think it's important for progressives not to do as the Republicans do, namely to ignore particular evidence in favor of big, self-righteous generalizations.

As several posts above remind us, Scowcroft came out publicly against Bush's Iraq venture before the war was launched and did what he could to stop it. It would seem, from some of the posts, that the right has no monopoly on selective amnesia: how can anyone have forgotten this so quickly? Scowcroft has behaved honorably from very early in the whole debacle. He should earn our gratitude and respect.

Powell is a different story. He let Bush use him and spit him out. He knew that the administration's presentation at the UN was mostly crap but gave it anyway. He may have tried to moderate policies by working behind the scenes, but no one took his advice. He should have resigned when he saw that no one would listen to him. He was still thinking like a soldier, who is not supposed to question his orders, instead of a cabinet member serving an administration (supposedly) accountable to the people. I wouldn't call Powell a "coward," but he forgot where his principle loyalties ought to lie: to the American people, not to Bush and Rumsfeld. You could call him an opportunist, though not a very shrewd one. He hoped that his service to Bush would advance his own career, but in the event it ruined him. He is damaged goods now.

I don't know much about Wilkerson, but the posts in his defense persuade me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's easier to be pure when you have no public visibility, no power, no ruthless Rovian bastards eager to destroy you for speaking out. Give Scowcroft credit; he spoke up when there was still a chance to change course, though the Bushies weren't listening to him or anyone else. Powell failed us, but even so, better he should speak up now, indirectly, through his associates, than never at all.

We can't go back in time and undo the last 5 years. All we can do is put an end to Bush's power before he does further damage. If that involves late hits and opportunistic piling on, well, that's the way political reversals of fortune happen. What has changed is that others are hearing the voices of isolated truth-tellers who were crying in the wilderness a year or two ago. Honor and praise to those who stood up first, before it was safe; but to complete what they began, we need the others.

Then we can spend the next decade or two trying to reverse the harm Bush has already inflicted.

Paul Breslin
Evanston

Excellent posts. I come to the discussion very late, but it seems apparent that the one thing this administration has been ultimately successful at is dividing the country. On the left, Dems and Independents are extremely angry at the vilification they've endured for decades: being labeled terrorist-enablers, anti-patriotic, pacifists, ad infinitum. On the right, the GOPers and the Independents are angry at being betrayed -- the moderates among them marginalized even though they remain the majority of the party.

Many here point to Hurricane Katrina as the catalyst, but I respectfully submit it was the Schiavo debacle that finally set off the Klaxons.

The radicals on both ends of the spectrum -- the uber Christians and neocons on the right and the uber pacifists on the left -- have distorted the dialogue and ramped up the volume to such an extent that it is extremely difficult to breathe, let alone have a rational debate on the issues.

IMHO, Wilkerson must be commended for speaking out. We can add his voice to a growing throng that wants signficant change. Almost two months ago, Zogby polled the question of impeachment. Back then 41 percent voted for impeachment pre-Katrina. A more recent poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org reflected an increase to approximately 50 percent. Now Scowcroft will add his voice. And many more must speak out.

I agree with sapere_aude that Condi is the most dangerous member of the administration. If Cheney does resign, it is quite possible Bush will elevate her to the Vice Presidency. Therefore, we must push back with every voice available to prevent that from happening.

What is unclear to me, since it has never before happened in this country, is what will happen if Rove and Libby (and other high-level figures) are indicted and removed, Cheney resigns, and Bush is impeached. Hastert would rise, to be sure, but I do not believe that anywhere have we prepared for a full-scale change in leadership other than during an election. It does not happen in America; it happens in third-world countries. Wrong.

I am aware that a plan of succession was debated in Congress should a terrorist take out most of D.C., but was a bill introduced and passed? Likely, it was but as an amendment to a much larger piece of legislation.

And one last thing. Many have written here that Bush was elected in November, but I beg to differ. The Ohio Coingate scandal is the tip of the iceberg. The GAO just this past week issued a scathing report on the dangers inherent electronic voting. Rep. Conyers issued a 102-page report on the discrepancies in the Ohio vote, and the report is quite damning. We must have a bipartisan push to reform our voting systems and our election laws in this country, and we cannot tolerate more whitewashs like the Baker-Carter Commission report. The only "nonpartisan" voting rights "expert" allowed to testify during its hearings is the same Jim Dyke (RNC wheeler-dealer) who is currently shepherding the Miers nomination through the Senate.

First, we must remove the current administration, prosecute the criminals within it, and restore our country. Promptly attending to that worthwhile task on a bipartisan basis would do a great deal to restore our tarnished international reputation.

Second, we all must cooperate and work closely together to ensure that future elections are not tainted by partisan dirty tricks and hacked electronic voting so that future "cabals" cannot highjack our country from its people.

And last, we must work our way out of the quagmire in the Middle East, and for that reason we must embrace the Scowcrofts and the Wilkersons and the Clarkes and the O'Neills and all the rest of the patriots on both sides of the spectrum in order to accomplish what presently seems to be almost impossible.

Let's all stop kvetching and get to work.

OPTIONS & ODDS
US Elections 2008: Will Bush finish his term?
Closing Date: Nov 03, 2008 06:00 GMT -4
Select if you think that Georg W. Bush will finish his full second term as President of the United States of America. Bush must be in office until the day of the 2008 elections for YES to be the winning option.
Option Win Odds
YES 1.17
NO 4

WWW.INTERTOPS.COM

I think Colin Powell forgot that loyalty to his country is best expressed by loyalty to one's country, not by loyalty to an institution or loyalty to a man. There is a point where "inveterate optimism" can only be termed wilful blindness.

I had zero expectations of Bush, Cheney, etc., I did have high expectations of Powell, and so he disappoints me the most.

Re: Wilkerson, I'm glad he spoke up. A person like him (or me or you), when the stakes are high, has to choose to act at the right moment, when it has a chance of having an effect. We can all be pure-conscienced moral people, true to our private convictions but failures as in not having been able to change anything for the better, or by weighing in at the right moment, and people like you and me get usually only one right moment in such a situation, we might make a difference. Getting slaughtered for no reason is a futile gesture.

I wouldn't curse him, cast aspersions on his honor or courage. One may disagree with his decision to speak out now rather than one year ago, but one has to show him some respect.

I am a very radically liberal person, but I happen to agree with Sapere Aude. I say we should give credit where credit is due. Wilkerson couldn't have stopped the war. No offense intended, but let's be real. Now is a great time for him to come out. Wilkerson's speech is one more stick of dynamite in the blast to open the doors of perception in the mindset of this country. If Wilkerson had thought that he could have prevented the Iraq war by coming out earlier, then of course he should have done so. But the UN didn't buy Powell's speech, and that didn't stop the war. The inspectors said they couldn't find WMDs, and that didn't stop the war. In my opinion, for the good of the country and for the good of the world, anyone jumping off the neocon bandwagon at any time should be welcomed with open arms. Let's try to make it as easy as possible and encourage the ones who do, not jump on their case. The changes we are all hoping for may not be happening in time to bring back the many thousands of lives lost in Iraq, but we may still be able to prevent spreading the chaos and destruction to Syria and Iran and the rest of the world.

I was a teenager in the 1960s, and I remember well the Vietnam war and the progression of the movement against it. One of the greatest things for that movement was the coming out of the Vietnam Veterans against the war. It was their coming out that truly woke up the population to the fact that people can be against a war without being cowards. Most people really didn't know that. If those of us who hoped for peace had shunned the veterans for doing too little too late, what good would that have served? The sheer desperation of those times may have had something to do with the gratitude felt towards the veterans against the war. There were so many dying, so many thousands upon thousands. A complete wasting day after day. Nobody that I knew felt we could afford to criticize those whose support for the movement did not come at the beginning. All of our support for ending the war was crucial. And that is the case today. I was very surprised to find people on this website so critical of Wilkerson for not coming out sooner. We should be jumping for joy! Liberals cannot afford to sink into intolerance. We're all so different. That's why we're liberals. If there were a mold to fit into, we wouldn't be liberals would we? Who the heck cares if he's not eligible for the "I told you so club"? We can't expect everybody to be as smart as we are, can we? There's already plenty of people to blame for starting this war and "staying the course". Let's recognize the positive steps as positive steps, and add those steps to the path of waging peace. Let's not forget the priority is to end the dang war.

Let us look, not to the past, but to the future. Iraq is likely to come apart while Bush is still in office, indeed within the next year. We will not be able to sustain our current troop levels, and the political machinery for a well-founded civil war is emerging from our "nation building" efforts. If Bush finds himself losing the military war, what will he do? Nuke Sunni population centers?

Folks, this could get much, mush, worse.

Thanks to the cranky old soldier for his thoughtful discourse and interesting insights. And to Steve Clemons, who puts so much effort into making the country better.

Who knows how difficult it is to be in the shoes of Wilkerson, except the man himself? Life is complicated, and we don't make decisions with the benefit of hindsight. Give him the benefit of the doubt, at least, and thank him for serving his country by coming forward to submit to what are sure to be terrible efforts to discredit and perhaps hurt him. (See: Clarke, Diulio, Wilson and O'Neill for reference.) Same for Scowcroft and Powell. Maybe we are so righteous we would have had the courage to do whatever some of the posters above think these folks should have done, or maybe not. I do not believe that the rest of the country would have listened to them before the war.

Clinton used to say that Democrats want to fall in love. I think the corollary is that we are merciless with people who disappoint us, like Powell.

We should not want to become the people we despise. I am so out of patience, if I ever had any, with rightwingers. For Limbaugh and his ilk, it is never enough to disagree. Hatred and slanderous accusations must spew out to bolster whatever policy is being advocated. Bush Good; Liberals Bad. End of Analysis. And the GOPers fall in line like ducklings with their party's received wisdom. How many talking heads uttered the words "criminalization of politics" this weekend?

But if we condemn these antics on the right, then how to justify personal and vituperative attacks from the left? How do profanity and accusations of cowardice accomplish anything positive, such as encouraging other insiders to speak out?

We should not be so involved in looking backward that we fail to avoid what is coming. The rear view is terrible, especially for those whose losses from the war are the deaths and maiming of loved ones. But it seems apparent that an attack on Iran is on the menu--perhaps soon--and we should do anything we can to derail it. That might include being supportive of whistleblowers and dissenters, as well as being insistent with our elected representatives and the media. Here in Iowa, I am starting to pay close attention to the people who want to be President, assuming that some of them will have the stomach for cleaning up the mess.

I am confident that every post on this page reflects a person who cares deeply about our country. Why else would we be so angry about what has happened to it? We should look for the good in each other, and treat people who are trying to be faithful public servants, however imperfectly, with respect.

We must be the country we want, if we are ever to have it.

John B and Koreyel;
Only the Left had spoken against this despicable administration of crooks, thugs and incompetents from the outset. The Right, like the good little robots they are, had to sit obediently and tow the party line of patriotism and disgust for any and all not prepared to prostrate themselves on the altar of Neo-Con greed and Imperialism. The sentient on this planet have been courageously railing against the deceit and duplicity which has been the calling card of the worst Presidency in the history of your nation.
Still, take the criticism when you can get it; for over 5 years there has been zero critique or analysis coming from the far Right, so better late than never indeed.
Wait until Rove and Libby are indicted; Dumbya won't have a clue how to button his shirt without his favorite lackeys around to show him how it's done.
Sweet....

Lets be fair! the democrats were the ones who gave this president so much power. Their share of this mess is 60%. The united states needs a third party if it is going to servive

CLUE TIME! Apparently some of you have had your heads under a rock regarding foreign policy these last many years going clear back to the Clinton presidency.

What has Scowcroft been saying for all that time?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

http://www.clw.org/iraq/archives/2005/01/brent_scowcroft.html

http://www.usip.org/events/pre2002/scowcroft_cib.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/29/1077989419687.html

OMG! The man's been talking about sensible foreign policy since he stepped down from office, clear through the Clinton years and all throughout the Bush administration's tenure.

But hey, spout off in your ignorant comments about Scowcroft. Most of you don't even know who he is, let alone what he's been saying for years.

Some of you need to read Susan's comment: "We must be the country we want, if we are ever to have it." There's a piece of good advice that some of you need to take.

With regard to the question of how the AG could have appointed an honest prosecuter, I think that Ashcroft is an honest man. Sure I disagreed with his fundamentalist views (when I lived in St Louis in the 80's), but I admired his honesty about abortion at a time when most politicians would not give an honest answer. At least he really believed in that biblical nonsense. I presume that he was chosen to appease the party faithful--oops.