The Osterley Times

Monday, November 23, 2009

Leaked documents reveal No 10 cover-up over Iraq invasion.

British military commanders were so shocked by the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion that they believe members of the British and US governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes by breaching the duty outlined in the Geneva convention to safeguard civilians in a conflict, the Guardian has been told.

And this lack of preparation came about because Tony Blair's government wanted to conceal from the British public his intention to invade Iraq, maintaining his public stance that war was not inevitable and that what he really sought was Iraqi disarmament.

But the documents reveal what many of us have long suspected; Blair was always going to war, he just wanted it to appear as if there were other options.

Significantly, the documents support what officials have earlier admitted – that the army was not allowed to prepare properly for the Iraq invasion in 2002 so as not to alert parliament and the UN that Blair was already determined to go to war.

The documents add: "In Whitehall, the internal operational security regime, in which only very small numbers of officers and officials were allowed to become involved [in Iraq invasion preparations] constrained broader planning for combat operations and subsequent phases effectively until Dec 23 2002."

Blair had in effect promised George Bush that he would join the US-led invasion when, as late as July 2002, he was denying to MPs that preparations were being made for military action. The leaked documents reveal that "from March 2002 or May at the latest there was a significant possibility of a large-scale British operation".

Documents leaked in 2005 show that, almost a year before the invasion, Blair was privately preparing to commit Britain to war and topple Saddam Hussein, despite warnings from his closest advisers that it was unjustified. They also show how Blair was planning to justify regime change as an objective, despite warnings from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, that the "desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.

Now, there are military commanders arguing that Blair could be prosecuted as a war criminal for failing to adequately prepare for the avoidance of civilian casualties. I would say that the invasion itself, which occurred outside of the United Nations Charter, would be enough to warrant such a prosecution.

However, as we'll never get to see Blair prosecuted as he should be, we can only hope that Chilcot avoids producing another whitewashed report and that he assigns the blame squarely where it is deserved.

Blair lied. And he did so repeatedly. He had long promised Bush that Britain would join the US in an invasion. But he wanted to hide this fact from the general public.

This meant that all preparation for that war had to be done without alerting the public and the UN to what was actually going on.

Inevitably, this left the armed forces ill prepared. But what did Blair care? He got what he wanted and that was war.

UPDATE:

The key question: Is Blair a war criminal?

We've had umpteen Iraq inquiries already, but this one should be different. Its terms of reference are open. Previous inquiries concentrated on the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the misuse of intelligence to make the case for war, the "dodgy dossier" and so on. But there are plenty of other questions, starting with the big one: was this a war of aggression and therefore a war crime? There were two views about its legality, and the then attorney general seems to have held both of them.

There is mounting evidence that this was, at the very least, a war of choice. Saddam was complying with the inspectors, therefore there really was no need for Bush and Blair not to allow them to complete their task.

However, there are some of us - myself included -who think that the entire UN route was simply carried out to placate Blair and that a decision had already been made to invade. That's why Bush spoke of the UN's need to prove it's relevance. He was announcing at that point that the UN could either give him what he wanted - permission to invade - or it could deem itself to be as relevant as the League of Nations.

I think there are very few people who seriously think that Bush and Blair were not always going to invade no matter what the UN said.

Click here for full article.

Senate votes to begin full debate on US healthcare reforms.

With the Senate voting for a full debate on Obama's healthcare proposals, snakes like Joe Lieberman can prepare to enjoy their moment in the sun.

However, there were indications of more problems ahead for the US president as several senators crucial to winning the vote said they would not support the legislation as it is currently written.

They said this was because of the inclusion of a government-run insurance option, albeit one falling far short of that proposed by Obama after public protests and heavy lobbying by the health insurance industry.

The Senate voted along party lines, with all 58 Democrats and two independents producing exactly the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster.

However, we have now reached the exact point at which Lieberman, now joined by two others, has all along threatened to use the filibuster.

If he does this the Democrats really do need to come down on him as hard as they can. Remove his chairmanships and kick him out of the caucus.

Obama has got the US nearer than it has ever been to establishing some form of universal healthcare. It would be a tragedy if this was to fail at this point, especially if it was filibustered with the help of people supposedly on the Democratic side of the debate.

The bill drawn up by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is designed to ensure 94% of Americans are covered by health insurance by – among other things – offering government-run health insurance, alongside private companies, that individual states could opt out of if they objected.

Reid said it was morally right that reform of the US healthcare system, in a country in which half of all bankruptcies are the result of medical bills and half of those are among people who have private health insurance, would now be debated by the full Senate.

"Imagine if, instead of debating whether to abolish slavery, instead of debating whether giving women and minorities a right to vote, those who disagreed were muted, discussion was killed," he added.

Opinion polls have shown that a clear majority of Americans support the inclusion of publicly run health insurance.

Lieberman has already made it perfectly clear that public opinion on this subject is of little interest to him.

Indeed, he pretended that this subject hadn't even been part of Obama's campaign.

"This is a kindof 11th hour addition to a debate that's gone on for decades," Lieberman told reporters tonight. "Nobody's ever talked about a public option before. Not even in the presidential campaign last year."

I asked in response, "How do you reconcile your contention that the public option wasn't part of the presidential campaign given that all three of the [leading Democratic] candidates had something along the lines of the public option in their white papers?'

"Not really, not from what I've seen. There was a little--there was a line about the possibility of it in an Obama health care policy paper," Lieberman said.

(That line read, "Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program, available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees," and went on from there.)

I said, "And at the time Senator Clinton, and John Edwards also had..."

"Edwards probably had it more than anybody else," Lieberman said. "But Clinton, Obama, McCain--I don't see it. Anyway, I'm opposed to it."

The American public have made their views on this perfectly plain. Every opinion poll says that a large majority want a public option in healthcare.

Snakes like Lieberman, a man who once ran on the Democratic ticket, now appears to be against decades of Democratic policy. The Democrats have always favoured universal healthcare, so it's very odd that former Democrats like Lieberman now find the entire notion so repugnant.

First, he favoured the Iraq war, now he opposes a public option in healthcare; was he ever really a Democrat?

Click here for full article.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

O'Reilly freaks out over Moussaoui trial: "Four years! Four years of bull!"

Listen as O'Reilly invites on guests and then simply shouts at them.

He's incensed that terrorists are going to be given a trial. It's quite clear that he doesn't believe in the American system of justice. And, sadly, that's increasingly becoming the Republican position.

Where I will give O'Reilly credit is that I could never imagine Beck debating any point with two Democrats.

Borelli on Hannity: A "big message" in black community is "you are owed something... and don't have to work hard"

We are used to watching fat dorks like Hannity blame poor people for their own poverty, but they usually don't bring race into the equation. I thought they hated all poor people equally.

Dobbs gave up on $9M to Pursue Birther Nonsense.

The New York Post are reporting that Lou Dobbs was warned in July of this year to drop birther stories about the president, and that Dobbs became incensed by this.

"It seems this story is dead because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef," read Klein's memo to employees of "Lou Dobbs Tonight."

Klein's move incensed Dobbs, who wasn't shy about telling off his boss.

"They have been talking pretty regularly since then," a source said. "And it's been pretty bad."

What does it say about Dobbs that he continued with this nonsense despite the fact that his employers were ordering him to back off?

I am all for journalistic licence, and for people to resist the attempts of those higher up to silence them when they are in pursuit of the truth, but Dobbs was doing this in an attempt to prove that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

In doing so he put himself in bed with Orly Taitz and some of the most irrational people on the political map.

At that point his job was always in jeopardy, and yet Dobbs persisted. Indeed, it is looking as if Dobbs jumped from CNN before he was pushed.

Last month, Dobbs' William Morris agent, CNN sources said, bluntly told Klein: "You're unhappy, he's unhappy. Let him go."

Dobbs told Klein in recent weeks he wanted to go "the opinion route," laying the final groundwork for his departure.

CNN had been unlikely to renew Dobbs' contract in 2011 anyway, sources said.

CNN is pushing hard to position itself as a middle-of-the-road news source, between left-leaning MSNBC and conservative Fox News Channel.

"Lou was polluting the CNN brand," said a TV insider.

I presume that Dobbs persisted with the birther stories - despite the warnings from above - because he has genuinely convinced himself that there must be something to these stories.

That makes him an utter idiot. A total whackjob. I could understand him pushing this nonsense if he felt that it helped his ratings by feeding the tinfoil hat wearers, but if he genuinely believed in this nonsense then he's sadder than I realised.

The departure came at significant personal cost to Dobbs, who still had 1½ years left in his back-loaded, five-year, $35 million contract. Dobbs' final year would have brought him $9 million.

So, he was willing to sacrifice $9 million rather than drop this nonsense about Obama and Kenya.

And there's worse news still for Dobbs:

A Fox News Channel spokeswoman insisted her network wasn't interested in hiring the veteran.

I thought he would have found an open door over at Fox News, so that genuinely surprised me. It appears that Dobbs is too whacky even for the channel that hires Glenn Beck. How far out there do you have to be for that to happen?

Far out enough to believe that Obama was born in Kenya and willing to give up $9 million a year in order to pursue that theory I suppose.

Click here for full article.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Just Do It... I Don't Care What You Do... But DO IT!

Beltway logic:

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right.

So, making a decision quickly is far more important than whether or not one makes the right decision?

Isn't that the logic that led the US into Iraq? Why is Broder considered an intellectual when he is actually spouting spurious nonsense?

Read his article here.

FACT CHECK: Palin's book goes rogue on some facts.

Why am I not remotely surprised by this? AP have studied Palin's new book and found lies like this all over it:

PALIN: Rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes to Obama. She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in business, "you'll have to be brave enough to fail."

THE FACTS: Palin is blurring the lines between Obama's stimulus plan — a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts — and the federal bailout that Republican presidential candidate John McCain voted for and President George W. Bush signed.

Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as McCain's vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said "taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution, to the problems on Wall Street." A week later, she said "ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy."

During the vice presidential debate in October, Palin praised McCain for being "instrumental in bringing folks together" to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said "it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in."

That's only one of the twelve examples which AP have found of Palin simply re-inventing what happened to suit the needs of her tea party audience.

This is what we witnessed her do throughout the election. Andrew Sullivan compiled a list of the many, many lies she told when running for VP, so we shouldn't be remotely surprised that her new book continues to promote them as if they are true.

Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.
Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla's police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.
Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.
Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an ~~oil~~ gas pipeline "began" under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.
Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.
Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.
Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country's domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.
Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.

The list goes on and on and on.

But, Palin's audience don't care about what is true. That's the saddest thing. They care that she is against abortion. As long as that's true, nothing else matters.

During last years campaign I was astonished at just how many lies the McCain-Palin ticket were telling. It was the least honest campaign I have seen in my lifetime. Indeed, eventually the lying became so prolific that even the MSM couldn't ignore it any longer.

But, despite eventually being called on it, Palin's book continues her casual relationship with the truth. I can only presume that she doesn't care because her audience doesn't.

Click here for full article.

Kruathammer: Giving KSM the rights of an American Citizen is Unconscionable.

The inevitable right wing noise machine has kicked into action, decrying Obama for treating KSM and others as "ordinary criminals". I notice that Kruathammer identifies "ordinary criminals" as burglars etc. Of course, ordinary criminals are sometimes serial killers, rapists, and worse. In Austria recently we had the case of Josef Fritzl, a man who kidnapped his own daughter and repeatedly raped her for years whilst keeping her locked in his own cellar. I know that this crime is much more serious than burglary, but the seriousness of the crime is reflected in the sentencing; the venue for the hearing - a court of law - does not change because some crimes are more horrific than others.

So, I am with Karl Levin, KSM should be treated like the common terrorist criminal that he is. Kruathammer appears to buy into the Republican notion that one can't be a criminal and a terrorist. As if the fact that KSM and others declared war on the United States gives them the powers of a state and elevates them above the position which I think they deserve, which is deluded narcissist.

Timothy McVeigh also declared a sort of war against his own country, but no-one argued that, as a terrorist, he must be treated outside of the United States legal system.

Individuals who declare war on country's are usually regarded as nutcases and tried in criminal courts.

Kruathammer and the Republicans seem determined to give these guys a status which they simply do not deserve. I find it truly baffling that they would wish to elevate these people into warriors.

UPDATE:

I am glad that Cenk feels the exact same way that I do about this. This has nothing to do with KSM, this is about American defining her values.

UPDATE II:

Booman has a very interesting theory as to why right wingers are so up in arms over all this.

The right is afraid that these folks will be convicted and sentenced to death for a crime that can proven without resorting to torture. And, then, what will be left of their justification for despoiling our country's reputation for upholding human rights?
Their continued expression of fear at the prospect of having these terrorists present on American soil is pathetic. They ought to spend the rest of their days huddling in their 1950's-built nuclear bombshelters. The only thing they fear more than terrorist attacks is having to face up to the pointlessness of what has been done with their support.

I think that is a very well made point.