Iraq Defector Admits To Lying About WMDs In Iraq

The defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.

• Man codenamed Curveball 'invented' tales of bioweapons
• Iraqi told lies to try to bring down Saddam Hussein regime
• Fabrications used by US as justification for invasion

The defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons program has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.

Read more ....

Brace Yourself

In what is rumored to be "the biggest leak of military intelligence that has ever occurred," the whistleblower site WikiLeaks is preparing to reveal hundreds of thousands of documents pertaining to the Iraq War. Iain Overton, the editor of a journalism nonprofit in London, told Newsweek he's working with WikiLeaks and other media organizations to process, digest, and publish the information. Here's what's buzzing about the upcoming intelligence leak around the Web:

• This Will Be the Biggest Dump Ever, writes Kim Zetter at Wired: "Pfc. Bradley Manning, who has been charged with improperly downloading and leaking classified information, disclosed to a former hacker in May that he had given WikiLeaks a database covering 500,000 events in the Iraq War between 2004 and 2009. Manning said the database included reports, dates, and latitude and longitude of events, as well as casualty figures. A leak of this sort would vastly dwarf the cache of about 75,000 documents that WikiLeaks published in July from the Afghanistan War. That cache involved field reports from analysts who compiled information from informants and others on incidents and intelligence."

• This Will Probably Contain Info on Detainee Treatment, writes Mark Hosenball at Newsweek: "The Iraq material portrays U.S. forces being involved in a 'bloodbath,' but some of the most disturbing material relates to the abusive treatment of detainees, not by Americans but by Iraqi security forces."

• They'll Try to Prevent Casualties, writes Gautham Nagesh at The Hill: "Overton said his organization is taking seriously U.S. complaints that the Afghanistan leaks have put lives in jeopardy, which is why they are reviewing all reports first for sensitive information rather than posting the raw material. He said WikiLeaks's media partners have agreed to make financial contributions to WikiLeaks to 'help meet productions costs.'"

• A Number of Media Sources Will Get Exclusives, writes Tim Edwards at The First Post:

Iain Overton, editor of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which is working with WikiLeaks to identify specific stories among the documents, told Newsweek that each of the organisations involved this time will come up with its own angle on the material, because "everyone wants their exclusive". He adds that the tranche of documents will be around three times the size of the Afghanistan leak.

• Bringing in the MSM Is a Smart Strategy, writes Michael Collins at The Agonist: "It guarantees maximum publicity. It takes a great deal of heat of Wikileaks as the prime malefactor in the eyes of the national security state. It also impresses on the leaks the imprimatur of the mass media, lending it immediate gravitas."

Sources

• Releasing Iraq War Docs Gautham Nagesh, The Hill
• The Collaborators Mark Hosenball, Newsweek
• Massive Cache Kim Zetter, Wired
• The Leaks Tim Edwards, The Week
• http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/The-Web-Braces-for-Biggest-Wikileaks-Dump-to-Date-4992/
  

McChrystal Pulls a McClellan/MacArthur; About to Get Sacked

Right out of the pages of your tattered US History book, General Stanley McChrystal is about to join George B. McClellan and Douglas MacArthur in the discard pile of American Generals after talking some serious smack about his president outloud. And to Rolling Stone, of all people.

Here are some excerpts of what's about to get him canned and out of the War on Terror.

"Stan" McChrystal voted for Barack Obama, but he was disturbed when the president promoted him without knowing who he was.

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass.

Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

Stanley McChrystal also struggled when he had to convince Barack Obama to give him power for something stupid. (Barack Obama eventually did this, of course.)

Last fall, with his top general calling for more troops, Obama launched a three-month review to re-evaluate the strategy in Afghanistan. "I found that time painful," McChrystal tells me in one of several lengthy interviews. "I was selling an unsellable position." For the general, it was a crash course in Beltway politics – a battle that pitted him against experienced Washington insiders like Vice President Biden, who argued that a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan would plunge America into a military quagmire without weakening international terrorist networks. "The entire COIN [counterinsurgency] strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.

And here's pretty much the biggest problem with the Afghanistan war, Washington, Stanley McChrystal, and 21st century anxiety in general:

In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985." Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows.

Frankly, it's not very helpful." Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.' "

McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on shit."

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from [U.S. special envoy Richard] Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.

You know, Lincoln was famously quoted as saying, "If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time." Despite this, he was the most popular of that army's commanders with its soldiers, who felt that he had their morale and well-being as paramount concerns. The analogy doesn't work here. McChrystal was shooting - and shooting his mouth off too.

General McClellan also failed to maintain the trust of Lincoln, and proved to be frustratingly derisive of, and insubordinate to, his commander-in-chief. After he was relieved of command, McClellan became the unsuccessful Democratic nominee opposing Lincoln in the 1864 presidential election. Perhaps there's something to that in the McChrystal story? MacArthur was just a little too happy to pursue the Korean War.

Rolling Stone?!
Oh, also, the General loves Bud Light Lime, and his favorite movie was Talladega Nights. Now that's more up to par with the Rolling Stone interviews I'm used to.

Here's some more excerpts from Rolling Stone magazine profile

Obama Waffles

Obama meets with Iraqi foreign minister, assures him he won't pull out troops any time soon.

Could it be that Obama is planning to pivot? That is, what if he goes to Iraq and suddenly declares upon his return that he has been persuaded that the surge has made a difference, that things are going much better, and that he is now convinced victory is both possible and crucial?

On the downside, he would risk alienating those among his supporters who crave defeat in Iraq, either for ideological reasons or out of sheer hatred for George W. Bush?

Well, there's no reason to support this supposed downside. Nancy and the boys have done absolutely nothing to stop Bush or even open any investigations. The Supreme Court has done more to stop Bush Administration policies than the Democratically controlled Congress.

Why?

I think this is the beginning of the Democrat party's complete and total turn around on the war. They will suddenly, almost out of no where, declare that it's their turn to "make it right" or they'll use some other catch phrase from Phil Collins -- to protect Iraq and the world from the Iranian bomb. But they will start this campaign by keeping the exact same plan that Bush has already adhered to the entire course of the war. But since it'll be on "Their Watch" there's no way they'll let a complete and total failure be pinned on them... It'll be like Nixon taking over Nam. Pretty much the same, with some bombing in Cambodia. And if they fail, they can always point fingers at Bush.

They will declare all the victories of all the wars that Democrats have fought (WWII ought to come up a couple more times than the Bay of Pigs or Vietnam, methinks...) and how critical it is for America to stand up to Iran.... and somehow everyone will have collectively forgotten that George Bush has been saying the EXACT thing for seven years.

Or they're complete spineless idiots and WILL let the failure fall on their shoulders the second they take the keys into Washington for 2 years. Immediately following the Republicans will rebuild their party to re-invade Iraq. Like the Hulk movies, we'll be re-invading Iraq every 5 years.

Iraq War Updates (with links)

Chevron Corp. and other international oil companies are negotiating with the Iraq Ministry of Oil to begin tapping (finally) into some of the country's largest oil fields, according to published reports. (here's that Link)

The big 4,000 tombstone has been placed, making the media go ape-nuts, remembering that there IS A WAR ON. However, a Pew poll finds that Americans are unaware of the Iraq death toll.. (here's THAT link) Only 28% were correct in saying 4K. A quarter said 5K or more. Everyone else was low balling it. Sounds like a bell curve to me?

Meanwhile, it looks like oil prices may be going back up as the Sadr ceasefire seems to be unraveling... there have been suggestions that the "The Surge" hasn't lowered the death count - The Sadr ceasefire has. (links to those stories)

Petreaus said he has proof that Iran was behind the latest rocket attacks on the Green Zone. The rockets were Iranian-made and supplied by the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. (link to that one)

The day after Cheney left the area, plans were being made for radiation fallout from Iran's nuclear plants being attacked. (Link-O)

Hey, who's winning American Idol? (linky)

And Remember -

If you drive a car, you support the war.

Getting Attention

War protesters halt traffic, recall dead

AP story leaps into a new window, doesn't shower

Protesters blocked traffic and government buildings in Washington, acted out a Baghdad street scene in Syracuse, N.Y., and banged drums in a parade through San Francisco on Wednesday to mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Now that seems to be the way to call attention to your cause nowadays. You block traffic. Ironic or poetic that they're blocking traffic?

Meanwhile at the IRS, about 100 protesters led by a marching band gathered at the main entrance. Several jumped barricades and sat down in front of the doors and were immediately detained. The demonstrators said they were focusing on the IRS, among other institutions, because it gathers taxes used to fund the war.

Brian Bickett, 29, was among the first arrested. The high school theater teacher from New York City said he had never engaged in civil disobedience before.

"We need to find lots of different ways to resist the war, and I decided to try this," he said.

Here at the Cap'n's table - I still say that if you want to stop the war - stop driving.

Sure, it's that easy. If every kid did it, then our politicians would follow suit to what the people are doing - since, you know, it's a popularity contest after all. You stop driving and using petroleum based products (stop needlessly consuming at Target and Wal•Mart every week) then our society will change, our dependence on foreign oil will change, and our policies to protect our way of life that is dependant on the security of that oil will change.

Since that's not going to happen - GET THE F*CK OUT OF MY F*CKING WAY, Goddamn Hippies!

Corn CO2 Bad Too

The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming. Link to story

Could you imagine some guy in a white shirt and a pocket protector stepping up to a combine in Iowa?

"Um, yeah, Hi guys! How are you? Yeah, about all that corn you're growing to turn it into gasoline? Yeah, sorry, but you're doing it wrong."



Let's face it, as long as Iowa is the first state in the Union to decide who will be our next president, there will be corn subsidies and corn over production, and silly ways to get rid of that excess corn. Putting it in Soda Pop is just one example - however this idea of getting America off of oil and on to corn isn't new... it might already be in your gas tank. And it's not just in the Midwest anymore where it's (probably) a law to have 10% corn in your gas.

So now we find out that corn gas is just as bad, maybe worse, than gas fumes? Surprised? I'm not. Is it going to change anything. Not a chance.

The question is - what's more dangerous? Long term dependence on foreign oil which demands American lives and treasury depletion? ... or a little ozone damage and some climate change?

Really - that's the decision we're going to have to make.

Me? I'm all for longer summers in Canada... why? So we can grow more corn! Of course!

Open Letter to Joe Lieberman

Dear Mr. Lieberman~

Unlike many other residents (and in my case former resident) of Connecticut, I will not lie to you. You, sir, are a disgrace to the United States of America. Not to a political party, mind you, but to the country you profess to serve.

I did not vote for you in the 2000 election. I did not vote for one of my favorite candidates (Mr. Gore) because of you and his wife Tipper. At the time I did not think you a dangerous warhawk, I thought you dangerous for your desire to take away American's rights of free speech and freedom to share information. I was opposed to the censoring of music, television, movies, and video games that you were advocating.

You continue to do this even now, at the same time you demand freedom and democracy for the Middle East. Iran already censors their information, Senator, they do not need your help to do it. I understand that war is fun. They show the cool night-eye vision goggles on CNN and things go BOOM Their are bright colors and fires and chaos and cool weaponry for the History channel. I understand. What I think you are failing to grasp is that their are human beings involved in this war. Real breathing (or formerly breathing) people. And they are dying on both sides in the tens of thousands.

I know you were and continue to be for the war for your own personal religious reasons. I have read and re-read the Old Testament and have yet to find the "blow the shit out of your enemies" section of the text. I did see the "turn the other cheek" part but that assumes that you were hit on your cheek in the first place. I read the "love your enemies" part and the "be kind to your fellow man" area but something probably got lost in the translation.

Recently, you encouraged the president to not only continue in Iraq but to expand the war into Iran.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

You were able to come to this conclusion by traveling to Iraq and speaking with the soldiers. Sir, these men are soldiers. There job is not to give you answers but to protect our country and our people. In turn, they ask for honesty and for you to look out for them. With armor, weapons and necessary equipment to fund a war and the best care available if they are injured while fighting for the country. You took their answers to your questions and parlayed them to us falsely then had the gumption to act shocked that they are not happy.

During Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) trip to Iraq two weeks ago, McClatchy published an article highlighting how several soldiers who met with Lieberman had wanted to ask him, "When are we going to get out of here?" Others told McClatchy, "We’re waiting to get blown up," and "We’re not making any progress," but said they didn’t feel comfortable telling Lieberman their true feelings. One said he thought he would be demoted if he spoke openly.

This morning on CNN, Lieberman was asked about the article and appeared to blame the soldiers for not being honest with him. "I was really upset about it," he said, because "I sat at a table with a bunch of our soldiers there" and "was asking them to speak to me from their heart."

I also have issue with your reaction to the politicalization of the Department of Justice. You recently voted against cloture in the lack of confidence vote against Alberto Gonzalez. You claimed that you voted against ending the discussion claiming "[i]t is an expression of opposition to spending any more time on a resolution that will accomplish nothing, instead of going ahead with the next item of business, which is energy legislation." You realize the irony in that statement, right? You voted against ending the discussion of the no confidence vote because you did not want to talk about it. There were more important things ahead.

Well, the politicalization of the Justice Department is one of the most crucial items that our Congress should work to fix. The basis of our democracy rests on it. This is not a political stunt. This is defense of our constitution.

In the past year, there has been an increase of defendants claiming that the charges brought against them are political ploys and not true charges.
The controversy has drained morale from U.S. attorney offices around the country. And now, legal experts and former Justice Department officials say, it is casting a shadow over the integrity of the department and its corps of career prosecutors in court.

There has long been a presumption that, because they represented the Justice Department, prosecutors had no political agenda and their word could be trusted. But some legal experts say the controversy threatens to undermine their credibility.

"It provides defendants an opportunity to make an argument that would not have been made two years ago," said Daniel J. French, a former U.S. attorney in Albany, N.Y. "It has a tremendously corrosive effect."

Defense lawyers in political corruption cases often argue to juries that the prosecution was motivated by politics, especially when the prosecutor happens to be of a different political party than the defendant.

Let me decipher this for you because you seem to have issues doing it yourself. There are three branches of government. Each with separate and independent powers, They are the Executive, Legislative, and the Judicial. This is Separation of Power. The founding fathers thought that with human nature being the way it is one day we just might elect a person because we would want to have a beer with them rather than by who would do the best job. In turn by having others make sure that they don't do anything like start an unfounded war or turn the government of this country into a Corporate Branch.

The most important of these is the Justice Department. It's job is to ensure that whatever else happens, there will be a non-political set of eyes on the issue and it will be resolved fairly. Congressman, you are trying to put an end to a fair and just criminal system.

You have recently said about Alberto Gonzalez, "... Attorney General Gonzales is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, and it's time for him to really look into his own heart and soul, as tough as it is, and ask whether he should continue in this job. And it is time for the Senate to move on right now..."

Unreal. You, sir, should look into your heart and soul and decide, as tough as it is, and ask if YOU should keep your job. You should decide now if you are with America or against her. Decide well. Our country depends on it.

One F

Nancy Surrenders

Without getting any concessions from Bush on the Iraq funding bill, it appears that the opposition has folded and completely given up.

Pelosi, Hoyer, Obey, Emanuel- all caved to the statue of Bush. I have a feeling the discussion after the meeting went something like this, "Oh well, time to go on break for Memorial Day! Hey that's okay, Iraq will just end when Bush is out of office. But we'll LOOK strong by kind of pretending to stand up to him for a few minutes. Okay, you're right, a couple seconds."

And the part that no one seems to have figured out - This war isn't going to end when Bush leaves office. (Shock!) What's this you say? Hey, check the banner.

Believe it or not, the D or the R's are not going to end the war.
If you think they are - you. are. wrong.

The big question I wonder - was this an engineered failure, or are these people really that stupid?

They keep thinking that Bush is a dunce.

I think of this battle much like that of Luke Skywalker just before he left to 'talk' to the Emperor. "Do not underestimate the power of the Emperor." were Yoda's final words.
Did Luke listen? Hell no - and what happened? Electric hell fire flew out of the Emperor's hands, and that pretty much almost killed him.

Now, granted, Yoda didn't exactly tell him, "Hey, this wrinkled up prune is a Dark Lord of the Sith and threw the friggin' Senate at me once." Luckily for Luke, all of his Daddy issues were resolved at the right moment. But that's not my point. The point is that the Democrats continue to underestimate Bush on every opportunity that is handed to them.

They just keep failing.

These are our leaders? These people expect to win by a landslide next election? They had better start showing more brains than, "well, we're for whatever Bush is against." That hasn't worked in 2 presidential elections.

It should be mentioned, that the Dems won the last Congressional election. Or, the other side of that black/white coin is that the Repubs lost because of two words: Mukaka and Abramoff. And even with that, it was a close horse race. Then there's our Vice President who almost was kicked out without so much a kiss goodbye in the Senate.

Bottom line. Stand up. Be leaders. Or shut your mouth and don't be surprised when you are replaced by even more incompetent people from the oposing party in 'o8.