mofome
Banned
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
<HR>[SIZE=-1]Iran: [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Powell Admits Lies About Iraqi WMDs, Blames Cheney, by Robert Scheer
On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department's top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim....
I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?
"The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote," Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush's State of the Union speech? "That was a big mistake," he said. "It should never have been in the speech. I didn't need Wilson to tell me that there wasn't a Niger connection. He didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. I never believed it." When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn't the president: "That was all Cheney."...
The harsh truth is that this president cherry-picked the intelligence data in making his case for invading Iraq and deliberately kept the public in the dark as to the countervailing analysis at the highest level of the intelligence community. While the president and his top Cabinet officials were fear-mongering with stark images of a "mushroom cloud" over American cities, the leading experts on nuclear weaponry at the Department of Energy (the agency in charge of the U.S. nuclear-weapons program) and the State Department thought the claim of a near-term Iraqi nuclear threat was absurd.
"The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons," said a dissenting analysis from an assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research (INR) in the now infamous 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was cobbled together for the White House before the war. "Iraq may be doing so but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."... THE PRESIDENT played the scoundrel -- even the best of his minions went along with the lies -- and when a former ambassador dared to tell the truth, the White House initiated what Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald calls "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson." That is the important story line. If not for the whistle-blower, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, President Bush's falsehoods about the Iraq nuclear threat likely would never have been exposed. --more [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Iran: [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Bush Fantasyland Fools Plan Another War (excerpt), Maureen Dowd
...In this week's New Yorker, Seymour Hersh writes about the Pentagon planning for a possible strike against the nutty "apocalyptic Shiites," as the former C.I.A. agent Robert Baer calls the Holocaust-denying Ahmadinejad and his chorus line of clerics. Mr. Hersh quotes a source close to the Pentagon saying that Mr. Bush believes "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy." Which makes sense, in a wag-the-camel way, since saving Iraq is not going to be his legacy.
The Bush hawks, who have already proven themselves cultural cretins in Iraq, seem to still be a long way from that humble foreign policy they promised. A former defense official told Mr. Hersh that the plan was based on an administration belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." The official's reaction: "What are they smoking?"
Just as Rummy dismissed questions back in August 2002 about a possible invasion of Iraq as a media "frenzy" ? even as plans were well under way ? the defense chief shrugged off The New Yorker story as "Henny Penny, the sky is falling." Noting that the president is "on a diplomatic track," He Who Should Be Fired said that while W. was obviously concerned about Iran as a country that supports terrorists and wants W.M.D., "it is just simply not useful to get into fantasyland." Yes, the reality-based community of journalists should stay out of fantasyland, which is already overcrowded with hallucinatory Bushies.
W. defended his authorization of a leak to rebut Joseph Wilson's contention that the administration had hyped up a story about Niger selling Saddam uranium. "I wanted people to see the truth," the president said. Of course, sometimes in order to help people see the truth, you've got to tell them a big fat lie.... --more [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Dollar: [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Iran Oil Euro Exchange No Serious Threat To Dollar (excerpt), Paul Krugman
George Whitty, Nyack, N.Y.: To what extent do you believe Iran's declared plans to open an oil exchange denominated in euros this spring factors into the Bush administration's plans for war there? And to what extent do you believe that Iraq's efforts in a similar direction had to do with Bush's subsequent invasion there? Needless to say, any change from the current system in which dollars must be purchased to buy oil would bring about enormous changes in the world dynamic.
Paul Krugman:...First, the currency denomination of oil sales just doesn't matter very much. The U.S. derives...advantages from the special role of the U.S. dollar....Foreign individuals hold a lot of U.S. currency ? actual green stuff. This is, in effect, a zero-interest rate loan. Second, foreign governments, especially in Asia, hold a lot of reserves in low-interest U.S. bonds, another form of cheap loan. Neither of these decisions is likely to change because oil prices are set in euros rather than dollars. So the alleged motivation isn't there. Third, whom do you imagine is dictating U.S. foreign policy based on sophisticated economic arguments? John Snow? Karl Rove? In general, it's a bad idea to assume that people in power know what they're doing. And to imagine that this administration, of all administrations, is driven by deep economic concerns is an unlikely fantasy. --more [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Dollar: [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Krugman And The Big Picture, Jerry Politex
While I have no major disagreements with Paul Krugman's answer to the specifics in George Whitty's questions, I suspect that Krugman and I may part ways on the "big picture" implications. Two major oil producers, Iran and Venezuela, are at the forefront of an anti-U.S. push to move away from the U.S. dollar. While it's not going to happen overnight, it could happen in a decade or two. What will individuals and governments do with all the dollars they have if they don't buy oil? They'll continue to do what they're doing now: buying up the U.S. with American dollars. No longer an owner society, the U.S. is being turned into a one party renter society with two classes, rich and poor, and, while our trade deficit grows and well-paying jobs disappear, war is being used to fuel corporate profits. How long will the world put up with that before it pulls the plug on the dollar? Finally, while Bush foreign policy is based on "national interest," which is generally defined as oil and the continuation of the world dollar, the Bush administration knows exactly what it's doing to the domestic economy, and it's only good for the top 10% of the nation, who might survive the resulting financial storm that's bound to come as a result.[/SIZE]
On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department's top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim....
I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?
"The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote," Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush's State of the Union speech? "That was a big mistake," he said. "It should never have been in the speech. I didn't need Wilson to tell me that there wasn't a Niger connection. He didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. I never believed it." When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn't the president: "That was all Cheney."...
The harsh truth is that this president cherry-picked the intelligence data in making his case for invading Iraq and deliberately kept the public in the dark as to the countervailing analysis at the highest level of the intelligence community. While the president and his top Cabinet officials were fear-mongering with stark images of a "mushroom cloud" over American cities, the leading experts on nuclear weaponry at the Department of Energy (the agency in charge of the U.S. nuclear-weapons program) and the State Department thought the claim of a near-term Iraqi nuclear threat was absurd.
"The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons," said a dissenting analysis from an assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research (INR) in the now infamous 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was cobbled together for the White House before the war. "Iraq may be doing so but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."... THE PRESIDENT played the scoundrel -- even the best of his minions went along with the lies -- and when a former ambassador dared to tell the truth, the White House initiated what Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald calls "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson." That is the important story line. If not for the whistle-blower, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, President Bush's falsehoods about the Iraq nuclear threat likely would never have been exposed. --more [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Iran: [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Bush Fantasyland Fools Plan Another War (excerpt), Maureen Dowd
...In this week's New Yorker, Seymour Hersh writes about the Pentagon planning for a possible strike against the nutty "apocalyptic Shiites," as the former C.I.A. agent Robert Baer calls the Holocaust-denying Ahmadinejad and his chorus line of clerics. Mr. Hersh quotes a source close to the Pentagon saying that Mr. Bush believes "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy." Which makes sense, in a wag-the-camel way, since saving Iraq is not going to be his legacy.
The Bush hawks, who have already proven themselves cultural cretins in Iraq, seem to still be a long way from that humble foreign policy they promised. A former defense official told Mr. Hersh that the plan was based on an administration belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." The official's reaction: "What are they smoking?"
Just as Rummy dismissed questions back in August 2002 about a possible invasion of Iraq as a media "frenzy" ? even as plans were well under way ? the defense chief shrugged off The New Yorker story as "Henny Penny, the sky is falling." Noting that the president is "on a diplomatic track," He Who Should Be Fired said that while W. was obviously concerned about Iran as a country that supports terrorists and wants W.M.D., "it is just simply not useful to get into fantasyland." Yes, the reality-based community of journalists should stay out of fantasyland, which is already overcrowded with hallucinatory Bushies.
W. defended his authorization of a leak to rebut Joseph Wilson's contention that the administration had hyped up a story about Niger selling Saddam uranium. "I wanted people to see the truth," the president said. Of course, sometimes in order to help people see the truth, you've got to tell them a big fat lie.... --more [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Dollar: [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Iran Oil Euro Exchange No Serious Threat To Dollar (excerpt), Paul Krugman
George Whitty, Nyack, N.Y.: To what extent do you believe Iran's declared plans to open an oil exchange denominated in euros this spring factors into the Bush administration's plans for war there? And to what extent do you believe that Iraq's efforts in a similar direction had to do with Bush's subsequent invasion there? Needless to say, any change from the current system in which dollars must be purchased to buy oil would bring about enormous changes in the world dynamic.
Paul Krugman:...First, the currency denomination of oil sales just doesn't matter very much. The U.S. derives...advantages from the special role of the U.S. dollar....Foreign individuals hold a lot of U.S. currency ? actual green stuff. This is, in effect, a zero-interest rate loan. Second, foreign governments, especially in Asia, hold a lot of reserves in low-interest U.S. bonds, another form of cheap loan. Neither of these decisions is likely to change because oil prices are set in euros rather than dollars. So the alleged motivation isn't there. Third, whom do you imagine is dictating U.S. foreign policy based on sophisticated economic arguments? John Snow? Karl Rove? In general, it's a bad idea to assume that people in power know what they're doing. And to imagine that this administration, of all administrations, is driven by deep economic concerns is an unlikely fantasy. --more [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Dollar: [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Krugman And The Big Picture, Jerry Politex
While I have no major disagreements with Paul Krugman's answer to the specifics in George Whitty's questions, I suspect that Krugman and I may part ways on the "big picture" implications. Two major oil producers, Iran and Venezuela, are at the forefront of an anti-U.S. push to move away from the U.S. dollar. While it's not going to happen overnight, it could happen in a decade or two. What will individuals and governments do with all the dollars they have if they don't buy oil? They'll continue to do what they're doing now: buying up the U.S. with American dollars. No longer an owner society, the U.S. is being turned into a one party renter society with two classes, rich and poor, and, while our trade deficit grows and well-paying jobs disappear, war is being used to fuel corporate profits. How long will the world put up with that before it pulls the plug on the dollar? Finally, while Bush foreign policy is based on "national interest," which is generally defined as oil and the continuation of the world dollar, the Bush administration knows exactly what it's doing to the domestic economy, and it's only good for the top 10% of the nation, who might survive the resulting financial storm that's bound to come as a result.[/SIZE]