And now this...

Headline from 19 minutes ago:

Ex-Government Officials Say the Bush Administration Ignored Iraq Corruption

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

Get the whole story at this link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080512/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_corruption



Okay, folks, let's get this straight:

They lied to us about why we should go over there;

They lied to us about why we should attack a sovereign, foreign nation WHICH IS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW;

They lied to us about the "enemy" having weapons of mass destruction, and it's been proven;

They lied about "winning", prematurely;

They lied to us and to themselves about it being a "fast" war (we're going into our seventh--yes, that's seventh--year);

They lied to us about this being a "cheap" war (we're at ONE-HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS now, and still counting);

They lied to us about not losing very many soldiers (we're over 4,000);

They didn't have a plan for the country once they created their power vacuum;

They blew up the country--and continue to do so;

We are now rebuilding same country--THAT WE BLEW UP;

They've given away millions of sweetheart deal contracts;

They didn't compete these same multi-million dollar contracts;

They've literally HANDED OUT millions of dollars in COLD HARD CASH (yeah, there's a good idea, huh?);

They cannot prove that Iran has been supplying arms, in large quantitities, to Iraqi insurgents;

and just generally screwed everything up for the last 7 years and now this--proof positive that this same Bush Administration IGNORED multi-million dollar corruption by the officials in Iraq that we're supposed to be helping and who are supposed to be helping us rebuild their country.

You gotta' be kidding me.

If you were either the bad guys--who want us there to kill us--or the good guys--who want us there so they can take our money--WHY WOULD YOU WANT THE US TO LEAVE??

Oh, yeah, great plan, George. You just keep outdoing yourself.


News flash: John McCain wants to continue on this "path of progress."

(Bang head on wall here).

I'm going to end today's post with a quote from the end of this same article by Senator Byron Dorgan, Head of the Democratic Policy Committee--and then a question: "It is a cruel irony if we are appropriating money next Thursday or did appropriate money last month or last year and that money ends up actually providing the resources for an insurgency in Iraq which ends up killing Americans," said Dorgan, D-N.D.

So the question is, WHY AREN'T YOU ANGRY AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS?

Pentagon Institute calls Iraq War "a major debacle"...

Normally I like and want to write my own stuff out here. After all, it's my blog, right? Besides, I want to both be original and I also want to bring new ideas and thoughts out but I can't say this any more authoritatively--or better--than this.



Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle' with outcome 'in doubt'
By Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott, McClatchy Newspapers

Thu Apr 17, 8:38 PM ET

WASHINGTON — The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.

The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush 's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins , a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.

It was published by the university's National Institute for Strategic Studies , a Defense Department research center.

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.

At the time the report was written last fall, more than 4,000 U.S. and foreign troops, more than 7,500 Iraqi security forces and as many as 82,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and tens of thousands of others wounded, while the cost of the war since March 2003 was estimated at $450 billion .

"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.

The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.

"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq ) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East ," the report continued.

The addition of 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq last year to halt the country's descent into all-out civil war has improved security, but not enough to ensure that the country emerges as a stable democracy at peace with its neighbors, the report said.

"Despite impressive progress in security, the outcome of the war is in doubt," said the report. "Strong majorities of both Iraqis and Americans favor some sort of U.S. withdrawal. Intelligence analysts, however, remind us that the only thing worse than an Iraq with an American army may be an Iraq after a rapid withdrawal of that army."

"For many analysts (including this one), Iraq remains a 'must win,' but for many others, despite obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a 'can't win.'"

The report lays much of the blame for what went wrong in Iraq after the initial U.S. victory at the feet of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld . It says that in November 2001 , before the war in Afghanistan was over, President Bush asked Rumsfeld "to begin planning in secret for potential military operations against Iraq ."

Rumsfeld, who was closely allied with Vice President Dick Cheney , bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the report says, and became "the direct supervisor of the combatant commanders."

" . . . the aggressive, hands-on Rumsfeld," it continues, "cajoled and pushed his way toward a small force and a lightning fast operation." Later, he shut down the military's computerized deployment system, "questioning, delaying or deleting units on the numerous deployment orders that came across his desk."

In part because "long, costly, manpower-intensive post-combat operations were anathema to Rumsfeld," the report says, the U.S. was unprepared to fight what Collins calls "War B," the battle against insurgents and sectarian violence that began in mid-2003, shortly after "War A," the fight against Saddam Hussein's forces, ended.

Compounding the problem was a series of faulty assumptions made by Bush's top aides, among them an expectation fed by Iraqi exiles that Iraqis would be grateful to America for liberating them from Saddam's dictatorship. The administration also expected that " Iraq without Saddam could manage and fund its own reconstruction."

The report also singles out the Bush administration's national security apparatus and implicitly President Bush and both of his national security advisers, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley , saying that "senior national security officials exhibited in many instances an imperious attitude, exerting power and pressure where diplomacy and bargaining might have had a better effect."

Collins ends his report by quoting Winston Churchill , who said: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. . . . Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think that he also had a chance."

To read the report:

www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf

Copyright © 2007 Yahoo


As an aside, I will say that I quoted this Churchill quote a year or more ago, out here, on the 'net, way before it was here. ke

McCain: sayin' the right thing

Okay, first things first.

Let me make it very clear that I am not a "McCain man". I am absolutely not, in any way for John McCain or for him for the Presidency of the United States in the year 2008. I never voted for him and never will. I did wish it were him instead of the current knucklehead we ended up with, precisely because I didn't think he'd be as bad for us as I thought W would be--and, apparently, I was more than just a little correct in that. I don't think he would have attacked another, foreign sovereign nation, which is so clearly, unalterably against international law. Also, he probably wouldn't have screwed us all up the way this, again, knucklehead has.

All that said, I will say that John McCain said the absolute right thing this week when he said he would not bail out any banks, construction firms or home buyers with government money. He said they made their mistakes and they'd have to live with them.

And you know? He's right.

The banks made lousy--possibly illegal--loans to home buyers and a whole bunch of greedy nincompoops signed off on what were just incredibly stupid home loans because they either believed they could afford them or they were told they could afford them, or both.

We shouldn't now bail them out and we shouldn't have to.

Senator McCain probably only said this to pander to the Conservatives in the party, I'm thinking, and he's only trying to simply prove how Conservative he REALLY is but, hey, he said it and, let me say it again, he was right.

Now, two things have or will have come out of this. First, because everyone's jumping all over him--mostly Democrats--he'll never say it again, which is too bad because--let me repeat--HE WAS RIGHT. Second, the Democrats have jumped all over this saying he's "Mr. Do-nothing" when it comes to the economy, which is nonsense and very close to a lie.

It's wrong and wrong-headed.

Look around. We have a pile of debt as a nation, and it's just getting bigger. Millions, billions and trillions larger. We can't afford to keep bailing out people who do the wrong thing anyway, in business. We just can't. We don't have the money anymore. We don't have that capability. And if we did, we still shouldn't. If your brother always got drunk and blew his paycheck and didn't take care of his family but gambled his money away, instead, would you forever throw money at his problems? No, you wouldn't. And you shouldn't, even if you could and the same applies here.

Now, connected to this bigger picture is the likelihood of a coming recession. Yes, I said the word: recession. (At the beginning of these things--which always come around, folks, I have news for you--people always freak out and only refer to it as "the 'R' word", like a) we've never done this before and b) it's the end of the world.)

I have news for you--we've lived through recessions before and we will again. And again. And again.

And we have to. It's called the business cycle, ladies and gentlemen, and they are a fact of life. They are a fact of the business world. If you don't have busts, you can't have booms. If you get very descriptive of them, you start sounding like Peter Sellers playing Chauncey in the movie "Being There", where you say things about there being a Winter, and then Spring comes along, with new growth.

BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS. And it's what needs to happen.

So when everyone starts talking about pumping money into the economy because, God forbid, we can't have a recession, I want to scream.

Let me say it again: WE NEED RECESSIONS. We need downturns so we clear out the crap. We need downturns so we later have upturns.

And for Hillary and Barack and any politician to say we have to pump money into the economy, I say bunk. More crap. We do not. We decidedly do not.

WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. We don't have the funds to keep pumping in. IT ISN'T THERE.

And secondly, WE NEED DOWNTURNS. Throwing money at this recession is a mistake.

I'm not saying "tough" when someone loses their job, no. Actually, what I'm saying is that people inevitably lose their jobs. They'll need to go out with their skills and get a new job, yes, either with what skill set they have or they'll have to get some more training. (News flash: we need LOTS more computer people! And nurses! and teachers! Maybe train there).

So, when I hear politicians pandering that there needs to be more money sent out or given to some group, I just want to say "No! Enough!". And someone needs to. Senator McCain did and he's being vilified for it and it's wrong. He's right.

I hope he has the conservative guts to stick with what he said.

I bet he doesn't.

Here we go again (2nd post in one day, too!)

Hud chief resigns amid criminal probe (don'tcha just love this Bush Administration?)

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, his tenure tarnished by allegations of political favoritism and a criminal investigation, announced his resignation Monday amid the wreckage of the national housing crisis.

He leaves behind a trail of unanswered questions about whether he tilted the Department of Housing and Urban Development toward Republican contractors and cronies.

The move comes at a shaky time for the economy, with soaring mortgage foreclosures imperiling the nation's credit markets.

In announcing that his last day at HUD will be April 18, Jackson said only, "There comes a time when one must attend more diligently to personal and family matters."

Some Congressional Democrats had pushed for him to leave.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said that while Jackson's resignation is "appropriate, it does nothing to address the Bush administration's wait-and-don't-see posture to our nation's housing crisis."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said HUD will be called on to work with Congress on assisting refinancing for borrowers faced with imminent foreclosure.

The ethical allegations against Jackson "meant that the Bush administration's ineffective housing policies were being burdened by an even more ineffective HUD Secretary," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said after Jackson's announcement.

President Bush called Jackson "a strong leader and a good man." Ties between the two men go back to the 1980s when they lived in the same Dallas neighborhood. It was Jackson's personal ties to Bush that brought him to Washington, where he displayed a forceful personal style at HUD for seven years, first as the agency's No. 2 official and since 2004 in the top slot.

Despite a strong commitment to housing for those in need, Jackson was capable of ill-advised public comments.

Last year, after the subprime mortgage crisis erupted, many policymakers underlined the disproportionate impact of the high-risk, high-cost mortgages on minorities and the elderly, who often are targets of predatory lending practices that lure people into loans they are incapable of repaying.

Asked about the problems with subprime mortgages last June, Jackson insisted that many such borrowers were not unsophisticated, low-income people but what he called "Yuppies, Buppies and Guppies" — well-educated, young, black and gay upwardly mobile achievers — with expensive cars who bought $400,000 homes with little or no money down.

In announcing his departure, Jackson said that in his time at HUD, "We have helped families keep their homes. We have transformed public housing. We have reduced chronic homelessness. And we have preserved affordable housing and increased minority homeownership."

Bush has been cool to the idea of a big federal housing rescue. "The temptation of Washington is to say that anything short of a massive government intervention in the housing market amounts to inaction," the president said recently. "I strongly disagree with that sentiment."

On Monday on his way out of the country for a trip built around a NATO summit, Bush said he wants Congress to modernize HUD's Federal Housing Administration, allowing more struggling homeowners to refinance their mortgages.

In October, the National Journal first reported on the criminal investigation of Jackson. The FBI has been examining the ties between Jackson and a friend who was paid $392,000 by Jackson's department as a construction manager in New Orleans. Jackson's friend got the job after Jackson asked a staff member to pass along his name to the Housing Authority of New Orleans.

In another instance of alleged favoritism that came to light in February, the Philadelphia housing authority alleges that Jackson retaliated against the agency because it refused to award a vacant lot worth $2 million to soul-music producer-turned-community developer Kenny Gamble for redevelopment of a public housing complex.

Jackson's problems began in 2006, when he told a group of commercial real estate executives that he had revoked a contract because the applicant who thanked him said he did not like President Bush. Jackson later told investigators "I lied" when he made the remark about taking back the contract.

The probe of Jackson's comment by the HUD inspector general ended with no action taken against him, but the investigators brought to light friction between the HUD secretary and some contractors who have long done business with the agency, a number of them donors to Democrats. On Monday, the IG's office said it had seen Jackson's latest remarks and "there is nothing more that we can add."

In the IG probe, some of Jackson's own aides contradicted his account of one incident in which investigators found the HUD secretary had blocked a contract for several months to one heavily Democratic donor. Jackson blamed his aides for the delay in the award.

Jackson was the first black leader of the housing authority in Dallas, where his integration efforts caused clashes with some local homeowners in predominantly white neighborhoods.

___

Associated Press writers Marcy Gordon, Ben Feller, Hope Yen and Devlin Barrett contributed to this report

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

did you ever have a friend...

...to whom you gave everything--all committment, everything? You thought you were so close. Really tight, right? The tightest?

And then you found they lied to you? Big time?

That's how the United Kingdom must feel right now.

An AP story today: "The United States said on Thursday it had expressed regret to close ally Britain over inaccurate information Washington gave about U.S. planes carrying terrorism suspects that refueled on a British island."

ew.

ow.

That smarts.

You know what? "Inaccurate information" from a close friend sure sounds like "lie", doesn't it? It does to me. It would if I were Britain. Especially given this administration's penchant for doing whatever it wants, with whomever it wants, however it wants, whenever it wants. If ever there were an organization whose "ends justified their means", it's this bunch--especially Mssrs. Cheney, Rove and the guy who's supposed to be in charge.

Oh, well. Another day in the neighborhood, eh? "We're sorry, we swear." "We didn't lie to you, honest." "We won't do it again, we swear."

Yeah. Right.




Let's have a great weekend, y'all.