Must see: montage of Bush cabal's Iraq lies

I don't know how I missed this one, but it's been up on YouTube for about 3-4 months now - a great montage of the lies the Bush administration has been shoveling on the American people for the better part of eight years now.

I know what some of you may be thinking - "We get it - the Bush administration has lied to us a great deal."

No so fast. Seriously - John McCain has played more than a small part in propagating these lies, specifically about Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Colin Powell and McCain all got various aspects of the Iraq War wrong, and then years later went in front of the camera to totally deny ever having been wrong. Dick Cheney is the biggest skunk, but McCain doesn't escape it, either.

My point in bringing all of this up is this - Why should we believe these people now, most notably McCain? They haven't gotten one thing right about this war yet.

I snicker and sneer every time I hear McCain say that "victory in Iraq is possible," and "We are Americans and we never surrender." I'd think that someone who spent over five years in a North Vietnam POW camp would realize that sometimes a guerrilla war, and the Iraq War is one, reaches a point where it is untenable to continue.

This point has been made by many, and it bears repeating - at what point do America's interests become more important than Iraq's? I realize that we created the mess over there, but it's costing us soo much money and is created so much havoc and chaos, here's a crazy idea: Maybe if we left, the area might actually stabilize.

Not only that, but I heard this point on a talk show last week that has really stuck with me: In Iraq under Saddam Hussein, if people stepped out of line, they might end up in prison, or they might have had their tongues cut out. Now, people are afraid to leave their homes because they might get blown to kingdom come.

For the last two years now, polls have consistently shown that Iraqis were more confident in their future and had a better quality of life under Saddam than during our occupation.

Well, it's heartening to see that the hundreds of billions of dollars we're spending over there is building up good will with the Iraqi people.

At least Halliburtion is getting rich, and as an added bonus, the company folded up its headquarters and moved it to Dubai, where it will no doubt be scrupulously monitored.

I really do wonder where the press has been these past eight years.

Rummy returns to lie about Tillman murder

I'm so delighted to see that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has crawled out from under his rock to mislead Congress and the American people regarding the Pentagon's cover-up about the death of Cpl. Pat Tillman in Afghanistan.

Here is Rumsfeld's opening statement:

On its face, Rumsfeld's comments sound sincere and heartfelt. Of course, we have strong reason to suspect otherwise. There is increasing evidence that the Pentagon and the Department of Defense knowingly lied about the circumstances surrounding Cpl. Tillman's death. The lies and cover-up served two purposes: 1. To maintain and build public support for the war on terrorism, and 2. To conceal the real truth - that Tillman was killed by Friendly Fire. Even more troubling, there is mounting evidence that he was murdered by a U.S. soldier(s).

Rummy's opening statement is little more than PR boilerplate, but then again, we are used to hearing that from him, because from the beginning of the Bush presidency until his departure from the Pentagon in December of last year, we heard little else from him.

By the way, I love Rummy's use of the word fratricide. The appropriate term in the case of Tillman, would be murder, but that would be unacceptably honest for a guy like Rumsfeld.

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that no one will be held adequately accountable for this national, inexcusable disgrace and cover up? I mean, it's not like appropriate people haven't been held accountable before in this administration for misdeeds, right?

h/t to PoliticsTV for the video clips

Rumsfeld to teach public policy?

This has got to be the most tragically funny news I've seen in a long time.

It appears that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has decided that he wants to teach public policy to graduate and post-graduate students.

That's akin to Don Imus teaching a cultural sensitivity course. Beyond ridiculous.

In my mind, it's no stretch at all to call Rumsfeld the biggest war criminal this country has seen since Lt. William Calley of My Lai fame or former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

In today's Washington Times:

"He's considering a lot of things but he wants to remain engaged in public policy issues and is in the process of creating a foundation that would involve teaching and research fellowships for graduate and post-graduate students," Mr. Di Rita [a Rumsfeld aide] said.

The goal is to promote continued U.S. engagement in world affairs in furtherance of U.S. security interests, Mr. Di Rita said.

It's hard to believe that someone like Rumsfeld, for all of the death and destruction he's caused, to be in this much denial. My only question is, when people are this delusional, do they know it, or are they not even aware of how divorced from reality they really are?

Think Progress has some brilliant suggestions on what Rummy could teach his pupes.

I'm just imagining Professor Rumsfeld imparting his wisdom on his young charges. He should start a PR class, How to have the worst press relations ever in 10 easy steps:

1. How to ask and answer your own question, to the annoyance of millions. "Do I wish we had used more troops in Iraq? Yes! Do I have any credibility left with anyone in the free world because of my arrogance and obfuscations during my tenure as secretary of defense? No." [His habit of asking and answering his own questions is one of the most annoying traits I've ever heard in a civil servant - Richard Nixon's habitual references to himself in the third person rate a close second.]

2. When reporters ask you tough questions, just act like you know more than they do, and that it's complicated. One of my favorite examples of this is during his last press conference as defense secretary, a week or two before the election last fall. At a press, he became reeeeally annoyed with the line of questioning, so at one point, he admonished his questioners to "BACK OFF."

3. Be overly vague when the going gets tough. I'll never forget the press conference when he muttered "stuff happens" while Baghdad was being looted during the mayhem after President Bush declared "major combat operations are over."

4. If all else fails, just be vehement. No one mastered this better than Rummy. Even when he was lying (and that was pretty often), he would just act so emphatic to just try and scare some reporters into thinking he MUST be right. Wrong.

I could fill out the rest of the top ten, but you probably get the point.

Donald Rumsfeld... teaching public policy. As the saying goes, if a man lives long enough, he gets to see everything.

Photos from AP via HuffPo

Tenet should regret it. Does he?

And by "regret it," I mean George Tenet's entire tenure as the director of Central Intelligence.

I already wrote this morning that I'm trying to avoid a lot of press about the book so I can read it with an open mind, but that's becoming more and more difficult to do, since Tenet's book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, is setting off a firestorm in political circles in Washington.

The above clip, put together by a great political Website, Talking Points Memo, lays out in pretty good detail the president spewing a fountain of lies that Tenet was in a position to stop before they happened.

On Meet the Press yesterday, I was floored how many times Tenet said, sometimes in so many words, "I/we (the CIA) should have stopped that, but we didn't..." It makes one wonder why we even have a CIA in the first place, if all the director is going to do is say "yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes" to the president every time he wants to go to war.

I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around surrounding the various intelligence failures surrounding 9-11 and the War in Iraq. It does seem like any Bush official who is criticized in the book is now running for cover, and they are all using Tenet as a scapegoat.

To be fair, Tenet is not the only official in the Bush administration who could have put a stop to the absurd lies that this administration knowingly used in speeches to promote war with Iraq. Condi Rice could have opened her mouth, but in hindsight, that seems ridiculous, considering the parrot she's become for President Bush these days.

My other question is, where was Colin Powell when all of this was going on? I can almost visualize the rest of the cabinet convening a war game plan while Powell is over in the corner with duct tape over his mouth, in the time-out chair.

One pattern is developing - whenever a former Bush administration official comes out with a book, with his or her version of the truth, and it reflects poorly in any way on Bush, Cheney or Condi, party operatives circle the wagons to protect Bush's already useless reputation like a mother hen protecting her young.

The latest:
Paul O'Neill
Richard Clarke
Christine Todd Whitman
George Tenet

The one person I'm waiting to hear from who used to be very high up in this administration is Powell. I get the feeling we will get a book out of him at some point, but not until Bush leaves office. And there will be others, too. Anyone out there think that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby isn't going to tell his story at some point? I'd be the first in line to buy that book. And as twisted, full of lies, distortions and half-truths as it would be, I'd buy a book by Donald Rumsfeld, too, just so I could shake my head at his ridiculousness.

(Side bar - I wonder if he would write how he talked during his tenure at the Pentagon? "Do I wish we would have planned better for post-war Iraq? Yes." and "Do I regret my open combativeness with the press corps and breathtaking hubris during my time in the Bush administration? No." On second thought, I'd probably wait until I could get a copy of a Rummy book in a used bookstore.)

In the meantime, the president trudges on, defiant and obstinate, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that we will never realize "victory" in Iraq.

The only mystery left of his presidency is just how ow Bush's ratings can go. Currently, at 28 percent (the lowest during his entire time in the White House), he has the lowest approval ratings since Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s.

In the short-term, it's not likely to change much, however. Bush has shown a penchant for ignoring the polls when they don't favor him, and mercilessly pimping them when they support him.

Ex-Bush aide: Kerry was right

This was pretty big news this past weekend - ex-presidential aide Matthew Dowd has spoken out against President Bush, and in a very unequivocal, public way.

Dowd, a former Democrat who was not happy with many things during the Clinton Presidency, was taken in by Bush's messages of "restoring honor and integrity to the Oval Office" and bringing bipartisanship and cooperation to Washington. Dowd switched parties and remained with Bush for the next six years, serving as Bush's chief campaign strategist during the 2004 election.

However, many events began to change his mind - Abu Gharib, Bush's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the decision to keep Donald Rumsfeld on after a number of missteps, and the renomination of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

"I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things," he said during an interview with The New York Times. He added, "I think he's become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in."

During his NYT interview, Dowd stated his faith in Bush's ability was misplaced, and he called for a withdraw from Iraq. In retrospect, Dowd says his faith in Bush was misplaced. You've got plenty of company, Mr. Dowd.

He asserted in the interview that Bush "still approached governing with a 'my way or the highway' mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides." What a surprise.

Dowd said he decided to go public with his disagreement with the administration because his disappointment was so great. He also reasoned he felt an obligation to speak out now because he played a part in Bush's electoral victories.

The most powerful passage from the Times article comes here:

Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled "Kerry Was Right," arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.

"I'm a big believer that in part what we're called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have," Mr. Dowd said. "Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election."

Even more outrageous, and in retrospect, sad, it what Dowd had to say in the interview about Kerry's qualifications to lead a strong national defense:

In television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing "a weak defense," and that the voters "trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq."

But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said.

He said he thought Mr. Bush handled the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks well but "missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice."

The two events that hardened Dowd's resolve to speak out against Bush happened during the summer of 2005, said Dowd: the president's poor decisions regarding Hurricane Katrina, and Bush's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan around the same time that he was entertaining Tour de France Champion Lance Armstrong at his Crawford ranch, said Dowd during the interview.

His thought process was further influenced by working with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger during his 2006 campaign, which had a theme of broad, bi-partisan appeal. (I can relate to Dowd's thinking here - Arnold is most definitely a Republican I would consider voting for were he eligible to run for president, which he is not.)

"I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people," said Dowd, "but bring the country together as a whole.

"If the American public says [it's] done with something, our leaders have to understand what they want," Dowd said. "They’re saying, 'Get out of Iraq.'"

Pretty powerful statements from one of Bush's inner circle. This is by no means a crippling blow, but it comes at a time when Bush needs as few of these stories as possible in the media.

While it's about three years too late, I applaud Dowd for his courage - it's not a stretch that Bush's Rasputin, Karl Rove, will avenge Dowd's change of heart in whatever way he can.

Photos from AP via The Huffington Post

My thoughts on troop funding

I've updated this post - take a look at the 5th video down - the one with Donald Rumsfeld. I posted the wrong one yesterday. This new one isn't quite as good resolution wise, but it's much longer, and you get to hear Rummy tripping over his arrogance when trying to answer the soldiers' questions as he's put on the spot. When you hear the audio, you'll know it doesn't make a difference.



Lots and lots of rhetoric is flowing out of Washington, D.C., about funding and supporting the troops.

Perhaps no one is more eloquent on this subject than Patrick Murphy, a freshmen Democrat from Pennsylvania's 8th District (my old district!). He beat incumbent Republican Mark Fitzpatrick in a bitterly contested and very close election last November - the final vote count was 125,656 to 124,138. You can bet that the Republicans will go after Murphy three times as hard in '08. If we are still living in Pennsylvania next year when the election rolls around (heaven forbid), I'm campaigning for this guy, and contributing, too. He's a wonderful guy, an Iraq war veteran, and a true American patriot. Here's my favorite passage of Murphy's from the video clip above:

To those on the other side of the aisle who are opposed, I want to ask you the same questions that my gunner asked me when I was leading a convoy up and down Ambush Alley one day. He said, "Sir, what are we doing over here? What's our mission? When are these Iraqis going to come off the sidelines and fight for their own country?" So to my colleagues across the aisle - your taunts about supporting our troops ring hollow if you are still unable to answer those questions now four years later.

Pretty tough words from a man who has earned the right to say them. However, something tells me Republicans will figure out a way to try and smear him. If Max Cleland and John Kerry can get smeared, Murphy can to. Watch your back, Patrick. Better yet, Pennsylvania Democrats will have your back, and you can count me among them.



Speaking of men who have earned the right to talk tough about the War in Iraq...

Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who knows what it's like to wear the uniform, also had some pretty harsh words for the president after the House passed the spending bill which set a withdraw date for our troops.

Murtha at times can be a loose canon, but he's right on here. I flat out love the guy - he's courageous, respected in the military community, and he backs up his tough talk with action. Most importantly, he's got something Dick and Bush can only dream of ever having - credibility on military matters.



But, President Bush was at his bullshitting best following the passage of the House Bill that sets a deadline for the troops to come home.

Let's set the table, shall we? Because there's lots to feast on in this 4:17 meal.

I love how the president never misses an opportunity for a photo-op when it suits him politically, like here, with soldiers and vets lined up behind him. But, did anyone catch the news a few weeks ago that an amputee from the Iraq War was uninvited to a ceremony at the White House because he refused to wear pants instead of shorts? You probably didn't, because it didn't get a whole lot of press. Apparently, we have a president who doesn't like to see the real costs of war, in this case an amputee veteran, unless you count going to the one Marriott-like ward at Walter Reed to meet with a few of our wounded.

Bush wastes no time working in the empty "Support Our Troops" line - which should be to no one's surprise. Too bad Bush wouldn't know the meaning of the phrase if it hit him in the face - lack of adequate body armor, too few troops, mandating stop-loss for troops due to leave the military, ridiculous and appalling conditions for our returning wounded, Bush's proposal to cut health care in his latest budget sent to Congress, the list goes on and on. About the only thing this president does do to support the troops - coming up with slogans the press eats up like a cannoli in South Philly. And "Getting our troops the resources they need to do their job" is another line from the video clip above that's fit for Comedy Central.

But, don't take my word for it - I'm just a blogger who's sick of all the GOP's rhetoric. How about we hear from some people who are out on the front lines, putting their lives on the line each and every day, regardless of the idiocy of this war. Let's roll some tape, shall we?



Pathetic, sad and outrageous that any U.S. soldier would ever, ever have reason to say this on film. Want another example of this administration not giving soldiers the resources they need? Mission Accomplished!...



What an amazing piece of footage. Keith Olbermann is right on the mark - this type of candor from any leader is extraordinarily rare in wartime, so for that I'll at least give Rumsfeld a nanogram of credit.

Most importantly, though, is the fact that these are issues that are raised by troops in the field, so this footage is bulletproof, unlike the armor issued to our military for troops and Hummers. No word yet on whether Dick Cheney has questioned the soldiers' patriotism or if Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity have whined that the soldiers asking Rummy those questions "hate America."

Rummy's whopper "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had" is a line that will live on in infamy. That might be true when you are attacked, like when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but that doesn't hold up for two seconds when referring to the War in Iraq.

Other than that, Rummy's comments defy description. Words fail me to describe the absurdity of his responses. His pathetic answer about production problems as the reason why our troops didn't have the resources they needed at the time (and it still holds true) is probably his biggest lie and distortion during his six years as secretary of defense. To its credit, the press was all over that one, exposing it for the lie that it truly was. I even remember representative from the company that makes body armor being interviewed, and he explained that they had the capacity to make twice as much as they were delivering to the military.

Yes, yes, Rummy's gone, but you know what? These clips are highly indicative of how seriously this administration has taken "supporting the troops" during the four years of the Iraq War (three and a half of which Rummy was the secretary of defense). How dare the Republicans say that Democrats "don't support the troops"! It makes my blood boil. The best way for Democrats to support them is to bring them home, since this administration, and the generals taking marching orders from these people, have not done the job, or have not had the tools to do the job.

This administration has zero credibility, except with the most partisan and ideologically driven voters and Republican hacks. I say this not out of joy (and that's the God's honest truth - believe it if you will) - I say it out of disgust for our troops who continue to come home maimed physically or mentally, or in body bags.

One last thing that really gets my Irish up. Whenever people such as Patrick Murphy, Jack Murtha or Nancy Pelosi propose that we put limitations on additional troops being sent in the field by making sure they are adequately trained and properly equipped, they were venomously attacked by the Bush Administration once more. Can anyone possibly explain what's wrong with that? Nothing, but this administration's only possible response to those who suggested it was to attack the messenger, not the message.

Back to Bush's message above...

If true, (and I'm sure it probably is, to a certain extent) Democrats deserve some criticism for tacking on stuff to a bill that have nothing to do with winning the War on Terrorism. But, that criticism coming from Bush is outright hilarious, since he has made spending an art form. Bush has yet to veto one spending bill during his entire administration, so his whining about Congressional pork rings very hollow.

And the act of tacking stuff onto a bill so the opposing party will vote it down is done by both sides - Republicans did this time and time again during their rule in Congress over the last 12 years. One instance of note came during the creation of the Department of Homeland Security - Repubes tried to take away government workers' right to collective bargaining, knowing full well that Democrats would oppose such a move. When Democrats did, they weren't "concerned with winning the war on terrorism."

Bottom line - Bush doesn't like having to work and negotiate with Democrats, since he never to and showed no propensity for wanting to during his first six years in office. Now, he has no choice. But, my prediction, hardly a revelation, is that he will get out his veto pen instead of trying to come up with solutions, all the while decrying Democrats' "obstructionism."

In a way, the House bill annoys me though - because it gives Bush and his devoted sheep a bit of ammunition. Just watch the tape above - about two minutes in, he's whining about how this bill is depriving the troops of resources just as we are turning the corner (I'm paraphrasing). So many people will listen to that garbage and believe it.

By the way, our arrogant president persists in saying that if Congress cuts off funding, he still won't be forced to accept restrictions and timetables for withdraw? I know even he doesn't believe that. If Congress is successful in cutting off the purse strings, the troops are coming home, and Bush would have little say in the matter. We're far from that happening right now, but this legislative fight is far from over.

I'll end with one more example of this administration's giving our troops old, outdated equipment to do the job in Iraq. This is a campaign ad that was used against former Virginia Senator George Allen last year in his race with Democrat and eventual winner Jim Webb. Take a look...



Now that's supporting the troops!

Sleep tight, Mr. President.

Time for more cartoons

I found some great political cartoons on the Internet today, most of them from Slate Magazine. As many of you know by now, I have a profound love of the political cartoon, especially the biting ones that get straight to the point. The less words the better - I like the story to be told in pictures.

This one hits close to home, but it's true.

I'm really going to miss Dick Cheney after 1.20.09, because there is no one I love disliking more than him, and that's saying something, considering the level of incompetence of many in the Bush Administration. Above are just a few examples of the absolute bunk that comes out of Cheney's pie hole.

This one is money. I'm SO tired of the idiotic, oversimplification of Cut and Run. I love it that when Great Britain announces its withdraw of forces from Iraq, it's "a sign of the success" in Iraq, but when Democrats want to bring our troops home, it's Cut and Run. Damn liberal media!

Speaks for itself. I'll have more on the Cheney close call a bit later.

Another one that's tragically right on the money. I was listening to Sean Insanity this past week, and I heard him blabbering on about how we should be going to war with Iran and how we should be treating that country in the strictest possible terms. Mark him down as another Republican who knows nothing of war, since he never served, but who is all gung ho to send more troops to another country. If it comes to war with Iran, it comes to war, but, unlike Iraq, let's exhaust all diplomatic options first. Since up until this past week we haven't even been talking to Iran, we've got a long way to go before we can declare that we gave diplomacy every chance to work.

I'll have more on this one soon, too, but the cartoon is a good summary of what is going on with cervical cancer vaccines.

Right on the money. Thank God for small favors - President Bush returned to the Gulf Coast this past week for the first time in six months. Without even checking, I wonder how many times Bush has been back to his Crawford "Ranch" since he last visited Hurricane Katrina victims? And I wonder if a stop off in New Orleans, Mississippi and other hard hit areas from the worst natural disaster in history would really have been that inconvenient?

Katrina and the federal government's response (and seeming indifference) to it reminds me at least a little to Hurricane Andrew, a devastating Category 5 hurricane that struck south Florida in 1992. President George H.W. Bush was slow to respond to that disaster, but not on the scale of the ineptitude of his son's handling of Katrina.

Good for Al Gore. He's battled Republican lies, slander, distortions and outright lies for decades, but, with the exception of the 2000 presidential election, he's rarely melted like so many polar ice caps. This week saw more of the Karl Rove playbook, when an allegedly non-biased think talk went after him for his electricity bills, less than 24 hours after his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Oscar for best documentary. The Swiftboating sure was swift, and thankfully, so was the revelation that the whole attack on Gore was bunk.

Love it.

This one hits close to home, too, because of bitter memories I have about the '04 presidential campaign. Yes, Kerry flip flopped (I'm soooooo effin' tired of that term) on several issues, but Bush's list was twice as long. And, what did we get from the Kerry camp? Silence.

This time around, so far it's McCain, Giuliani and Romney who are doing their best to be all things to all people. All three of the GOP front runners have, thus far, switched positions more than a porn star.

When I say I love political cartoons that say a lot by saying a little, this is the kind I'm talking about, and this one almost certainly is the truth. But, we'll probably never know Libby's whole story, or how Bush & his cohorts lied to get us into the war, considering this administration's Nixon-like penchant for secrecy.

I'd be remiss if I left out the Walter Reed controversy. This story is far from over & bears watching over the coming months, if not years.

It's hard to comprehend how our troops are being treated and "cared for" at Walter Reed and elsewhere.

It looks like help finally is on the way, thanks to some investigative journalism on the part of two Washington Post reporters, Dana Priest and Anne Hull. In a day where responsible and relevant journalism is becoming more scarce by the day, it was good to see that journalism can still function as The Fourth Estate, thereby effectively bringing about much needed change in our government. There isn't nearly enough of this today.

I don't think it's overreaching to say that if something happened today with the scope and size of Watergate, it would probably go at least partially unreported or perhaps even covered up. Lazy journalism is now the norm; slipshod reporting can no longer be referred to as isolated or seldom seen. Lazy journalists have been around for hundreds of years, but the level and quality of journalism seems to be regressing.

So, it appears that Bush never knew about conditions at Reed. I don't accept that, but even if I did, how could this have happened at the Pentagon? Where was defense department oversight? Two words: Donald Rumsfeld.

Another one right on the money.

Phew! Okay, that's enough cartoons for a while. But, I found all of these today and I couldn't decide which ones to post, so I decided to put 'em all up.

Massive fraud in Iraq, & who gets screwed?

That would be the American taxpayer.

Last week, it was reported that there has been massive fraud in Iraq, and billions (yes, BILLIONS) of dollars are missing and can't be traced. Reports vary between $10-$12 billion in unaccounted funds, and that number is certain to climb higher when all of the dispensation of money is examined. But, the billion dollar question is, will this fiasco get investigated at all?

The Democrats had better have game on this one, because this is the chief reason America brought the Democrats back to power - to bring about much needed change and oversight to our government, something we haven't had during the entire Bush Administration.

Billions of dollars wasted - this is what happens when there's no oversight in our government. David M. Walker, the Comptroller General and head of the Government Accountability Office, has publicly said, "There is no accountability" regarding the missing money.

I can't overstate my outrage about these reports. This war is bankrupting my generation, and at least a few generations to follow. And, what's the response from this administration and this government? So far, not much.

Even more stupefying ~ the government reportedly sent entire planes filled with pallets of money to Iraq, and no one knows where the money went. And we're not talking chump change here - we're talking about $12 billion in cash, at least. It's just beyond words.I'd really love to know where all of the people are who typically complain and whine about our sending billions overseas, to countries like Africa, etc? Nowhere to be found is where.

I've got an idea ~ how about an airplane filled with $12 billion in cash land at the airport in New Orleans, and have it distributed to the needy who still have no homes, 1/2 a city and a host of troubles, including levees that still aren't nearly as adequate as they need to be. (With oversight, of course - something foreign to this government, so it seems.) If that happened, there would be a big outcry about "giving money to the poor." Guaranteed.

But, there hasn't been much of an uproar about this issue, and it's inexcusable.

There should be an immediate investigation by Congress, and I urge all of you to write your U.S. House of Representative (Click Here) and your Senators (Click Here) and demand they do something about it. (I've already written my U.S. House Rep. and both of my Senators.)

Here's a brief passage from the New York Times that I found online tonight from its February 7 edition (yea, I'm a little behind on blogging):

A House committee report on Tuesday questioned whether some of the billions of dollars in cash shipped to Iraq after the American invasion -- mostly in huge, shrink-wrapped stacks of $100 bills -- might have ended up with the insurgent groups now battling American troops.

The report was released by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee at a hearing when Democrats sharply questioned the former American civilian administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, about lax management of the nearly $12 billion in cash shipped to Iraq between May 2003 and June 2004.

Mr. Bremer defended his performance as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, noting that the United States had to bring tons of American dollars into Iraq because the country had no functioning banking system.

''We had to pay Iraqis in cash,'' Mr. Bremer said of the money, most of which came from Iraqi oil sales. ''Delay would have been demoralizing and unfair to millions of Iraqi families.''

Unfair to Iraqi families, eh, Mr. Bremer? How about how unfair it is to American families? Has anyone considered that far out notion? Then again, I should take anything Bremer says with a grain of salt - his mismanagement of Iraq is well documented, and his decisions disastrous. For all we know, Bremer, one of the biggest disgraces in the history of American government, could have a Swiss bank account with a a million or two stashed away. How the hell would anyone know?

Even more damning is that neither our government nor the Iraqi government can answer whether any of the money ended up in the hands of our enemies in Iraq, who are picking off our troops just about every day.

Bremer is just the tip of the iceberg, though. There are many other people who need to be held accountable in this financial fiasco, the depths of which have only begun to be explored. Where is Donald Rumsfeld in all of this? Dick Cheney? Paul Wolfowitz? President Bush?

This is more than politics, folks - it's fraud, grand larceny, and treason. I don't care who is in the White House ~ this criminal behavior needs to be made public, and the guilty people need to be held accountable. I'm not holding my breath, but that's not good enough, either. We cannot afford, literally and figuratively, to let this one pass.

Predictably, some Republicans are just eager to sweep the whole mess under the rug, just like the good 'ole days during the GOP's reign in Congress during the last 12 years. I hope and pray that is not the ultimate outcome of this mess.

More from the Times article:

Republican committee members accused the panel's Democratic leaders of rehashing old allegations against Mr. Bremer and the conduct of American forces in Iraq for political gain.

''Self-righteous finger-wagging will not make Iraq any more secure,'' said Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, the [House Oversight and Government Reform] panel's ranking Republican. He said Mr. Bremer was asked to take charge of a ''country with, basically, no government.''

Really, Tom? There's a difference between political sniping and certain issues that should transcend traditional politics as usual. This is one of those issues. This isn't about political gain for the Democrats, or at least it shouldn't be. An investigation should go after whomever is responsible, be it corporations, politicians, Republicans, Democrats, etc. From no-bid contracts, to cronyism, fraud and downright criminal behavior, this investigation should rip the lid off of all of it. One thing's for sure - an investigation won't happen unless we demand one.

If you can pick one thing that has happened during this administration to write your elected Congressional representatives about, this is it.

So, let's get going.

McCain's split personality examined

It's becoming impossible to keep track of Judas John McCain's multiple stances on any given position. Last weekend, the flip-flop du jour was Roe v. Wade. This time, McCain stated publicly that the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S. should be no more, stating, "I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned."

This position stands in stark contrast to his previous multiple positions on abortion. Take a quick read of these, from Media Matters:

On August 25, 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that McCain had told its editorial board:

"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. ... But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations."

The Chronicle added:

But on Sunday [August 22, 1999], in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, McCain said he favors the ultimate repeal of Roe vs. Wade, "but we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe vs. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be (undergoing) illegal and dangerous operations."

The next day, according to the Chronicle, McCain issued what the Chronicle called a "clarification," which reportedly stated: "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal."

On the June 19, 2005, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, however, McCain adopted yet another position, saying that he agreed "to some degree" that Roe should be overturned, but adding: "I don't think it is [going to be overturned] at least not any time soon."

In 2006, McCain issued a statement indicating that if he were the governor of South Dakota, he "would have signed" a controversial bill outlawing all abortions except in those situations in which the life of the woman is threatened, but that he "would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included."

That's pretty impressive, actually. I guess McCain's Straight Talk Express [circa 2000 presidential campaign - bus at right] is trying to make each and every stop on the road from Pro-Life to Pro-Choice and back again. If that's McCain's goal, it's time for the president to land on an aircraft carrier again, because it's Mission Accomplished.

However, it seems that McCain is just getting started when it comes to wearing all sorts of phoney hats in a laughable attempt to appeal to everyone right of moderates on the political scale. Earlier this week, the Arizona Senator let fly probably one of his biggest whoppers to date. Read on...

It now seems, according to McCain, that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wasn't so great after all. What bravado! What courage! Start measuring the Oval Office drapes, Senator, because you've got this baby all but sewn up.

Quickly now - except for the heartiest of neocons, who among you didn't come to that conclusion years ago? Rumsfeld's arrogance, pomposity, hubris and incompetence were on display from practically day one of the Bush Administration. Even more importantly, who could disagree that McCain is calling Rummy crummy purely for political gain to curry favor among conservatives and moderates for his presidential campaign?

Take a read on what McCain said on Tuesday in South Carolina (from ABC News.com):

"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," McCain said to applause.

However, McCain was singing a different tune shortly after Rumsfeld resigned in November, when he said:

"While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service."

If John Kerry was guilty of some flip flopping in 2004 (I won't get started on that smear campaign), then John McCain has grown a dorsal fin.

Thanks for standing up to Rumsfeld when it really counted, Senator. Sleep tight tonight, you moron. I'm sure the troops in Iraq really appreciate your candor about one of the principle architects of this misguided war, post mortem.

It strikes me as beyond ironic that McCain would slam Rummy much in the same way that he was smeared in the very same state in 2000 by the Bush campaign. I'm in no way defending Rumsfeld, who I do believe will go down as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history, but it cracks me up (and enrages me) that McCain is emptying rounds from his political machine gun into the dead carcass of Donald Rumsfeld NOW, four months after his resignation.

Now that takes real political courage.



I have to once more bring you one of my favorite videos in this embryonic 2008 presidential campaign - McCain vs. McCain. It's quality stuff.

Top picture graphic from JG
Third photo from top from AP

Teddy: We've lost the moral authority

In less than 48 hours, the documentary film Ghosts of Abu Ghraib premieres on HBO. The film is directed by Rory Kennedy, the youngest child of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Ethel Kennedy. By most accounts that I've read ahead of time, the film packs a pretty powerful punch, and how could it not, considering the subject matter?

In a column today on Arianna Huffington's Website, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy has a point when he says that "It may well be the steepest and deepest fall from grace in our history."

"Yet at every opportunity, the Administration has tried to minimize the problem and avoid responsibility for it," he wrote.

Like Teddy or hate him, how can a logical person who has even passively followed the Abu Ghraib fiasco disagree, regardless of political persuasion? The most frightening part of the abuse and torture tragedy is that there are Americans who feel that nothing wrong occurred at the prison. Count Rush Limbaugh among them, who infamously said that all he saw in the photographs were "soldiers having a good time." Sick, demented, sad and preposterous.

Quick aside about Ted Kennedy, by the way. Can Republicans possibly be any more trite than bringing up Chappaquiddick every five minutes? Probably my favorite Republican bumper sticker of all time reads, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns. My reply to that bumper sticker would be this: George Bush's Iraq War has killed more Americans than 3,000 of Ted Kennedy's cars. No question Kennedy got off easy and that Mary Jo Kopechne's death was tragic, but to hear some people tell it, he killed her in cold blood and walked away scott free. Politics aside, does anyone really believe that? Teddy's got a lot of warts, most self-inflicted, and that scandal tops the list, but he's done a lot of good for our country, too. Oh yea, and can we all agree that he and his members of his have made some pretty tragic sacrifices because they wanted to serve their country? Okay, Kennedy rant over.

Kennedy's right - the images are still disturbing to look at. I remember the shock, horror and disbelief I felt when I first saw the images.

In my lifetime, since I've been old enough to remember and follow politics, I can't think of any single event (Aside from the current War in Iraq itself) that has damaged our credibility and moral standing with the rest of the world more than Abu Ghraib.

I'll rephrase - Abu Ghraib is my generation's My Lai. Okay, that might be overstating the case a bit - over 100 innocent Vietnamese were killed in that tragedy. I'm not suggesting that Abu Ghraib is equal, I'm merely suggesting that its impact is equal.

We are America - we are supposed to stand for Democracy, freedom, peace and human rights. This war has put all four of those into doubt, and Abu Ghraib only exacerbated our free fall as the moral authority in the free world.

Adding to many Americans' frustration is the lack of any sort of in-depth, independent investigation of the scandal. In the days following Abu Ghraib going public, the Bush Administration seemed more intent at castigating those who exposed the scandal than getting to the bottom of what happened. And I won't even recap the absurdity of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comments.

Kennedy writes:

What we got instead were nine incomplete and self-serving internal investigations by the Pentagon. None of the investigators were given the authority to challenge the conduct of the civilian command. The report of the Schlesinger Panel found that abuses were "widespread" and that there was "both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels." But Secretary Rumsfeld refused to let the panel to consider personal accountability for the abuses.

The Republican rubber-stamp Congress was complicit in the Administration's efforts to evade responsibility.

I know that the DemocratIC Congress has better things to do right now, like determining whether to fund President Bush's troop escalation, but once time permits, I certainly hope Congress initiates a bona fide investigation into Abu Ghraib, one with teeth and subpoena power.

Don't forget to check out Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, which premieres this Thursday night on HBO at 9:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Saddam swings, Iraq sings

So, Saddam now has flames licking at his ass. And there isn't a wet eye in the Western Hemisphere about it, and probably not in the Eastern Hemisphere, either. This is not in doubt.

Above, Saddam tries on a large hemp necklace on his way to meet Adolf Hitler...

... and the aftermath (above) - Saddam suffers from one wicked hangover. Personally, I think we could have done better. ...

Yea, this would have been a righteous and funny way to send Saddam on his way, but then again, Dick is such a poor shot, he probably couldn't have done the job anyway.

I don't mean to sound like a typical bloodthirsty American. In fact, in a minute I'll get to how I find a lot of American bloodlust very distasteful and disgraceful, but first, more pictures. These are powerful images, and I'm not posting them to glorify Hussein's execution, but these pics are part of history, part of history for this absurd war.

Most Iraqis seem to be celebrating Saddam's demise, but then again, I don't trust what the American media shows us. There's lots of distortion and people with agendas who publish pictures like the one above. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that many Iraqis are quite happy that Hussein is dead. ...

...Like these people, who hanged Saddam in effigy in Baghdad.

However, when you consider what Iraqis are now suffering through, it's not like they are living in paradise. Instead of Hussein slaughtering people, now terrorists are doing the same thing because of America's occupation of Iraq. And YES, it IS an occupation.

Honestly, though, I'm surprised that our bloodthirsty government didn't air the execution on pay per view. And if you think that's ridiculous, you sure as hell haven't been paying attention since this war began. Only a government like ours could come up with fucking playing cards to promote all of the terrorists it wants dead. And we wonder why people around the world hate us.

I don't mean to sound so sarcastic (wait, yes I do), but it's hard not to be cynical about the publicity surrounding Hussein's execution. This administration has tried to manipulate the media to its benefit at every single turn before and during this war. Let's take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?

Anyone remember the "spontaneous" toppling of the Hussein statue in Baghdad? This has been written about at length, but it was anything but spontaneous. It was a goddamn PR sham. If you watched it as much as I did on TV (and it was impossible to avoid the coverage, if you had your TV on at all - I think QVC even broke into programming), you realized the whole spectacle was blatant pseudo-spontaneity. Remember the American Marine climbing a ladder and putting an American flag over Hussein's face, only to be replaced by an Iraqi flag a few minutes later? Ooops.

I love the fact that this picture exists, and I'm sure it irks the shit out of Rumsfeld, Bush and the rest of this administration. It's from 1983, when Rumsfeld flew to Baghdad to meet with Hussein. The historical record reflects that as long as Hussein was OUR dictator, we turned a blind eye on what he was doing, and that included when he was slaughtering thousands and thousands of his own people.

In the 1980s, when Iraq was fighting Iran, we sold Hussein millions in U.S. weaponry, including poison gas, which he used on his own people and Iranians in the Iran/Iraq War from 1980-1988. Of course, these gassings were used as one of the many justifications for going to war in 2003.

And many conveniently forget that Hussein gassed hundreds of thousands of Kurds following the 1991 Gulf War, and we did NOTHING. Yes, you read that right - NOTHING. And that was after the CIA promised the Kurds that we would intercede on their behalf if they raised up against Saddam. But again, the current Bush administration used 15-20 year old atrocities that we did nothing about at the time as a reason to go to war in 2003. And soooo many Republicans I know bought into the Bush administration's PR spin machine.

Ahh, forget about all of this crap. Just one question - anyone remember Osama bin Laden? Oh, I forgot - Bush is keeping us safer by spending billions of dollars and hundreds of our young in Iraq.

Three of the most incompetent people ever to hold public office after the announcement of Saddam's hanging (above). Bush announced today that Hussein's execution "would not bring an end to the violence" in Iraq. Thanks, genius. You're just full of wisdom, aren't you, Mr. President? Oh, and someone tell Dick the dick that you don't close both buttons on a two-button jacket.

I wouldn't trust these three to organize a class reunion. Only 674 days to go until the 2008 election. It can't get here quickly enough.

Heckofa job, Rummy!

So, Bush took the step he should've taken at least a year ago, and he does it the day after the election - Donald Rumsfeld is fired. Of course, the Bush administration isn't spinning it that way - he decided to step down, or the two mutually agreed that a change needed to be made. Right. Rummy would have stayed until the end of Bush's presidency if it had been up to him.

The million dollar question has been all week: If Bush had done this two days before the election, would it have made a difference? My first thought is that I don't think so - it would have been resented by just as many as it would have pleased. Allow me to explain.

Bush and Rove DID try a big news event right before the election that didn't seem to work - the Saddam Hussein verdict. I think many saw it as a PR ploy to fire up the conservative base, but it wasn't enough. All the proof you need that the Saddam verdict was a stunt for votes: the entire verdict wasn't ready - Hussein didn't know why he was guilty - it wasn't supposed to be ready until Thursday - two days after the election.

No, firing Rummy a few days or even weeks before the election would not have helped, because it would have given liberals just as much ammo as it would have given conservatives. The liberals would have said, "See? Things are going horribly in Iraq, just as we've been saying, and now Bush is waking up to that." Firing Rummy a year ago might have helped Bush, but not a few days or weeks before the election.

The big controversy about the firing was that Bush, just last week, claimed that "Cheney and Rumsfeld are doing a great job" and would be retained. Maybe Bush should have said, "They are doing well as long as Republicans retain control of Congress." It's so obvious that Bush lied to the press for a number of reasons, but here's two - he admitted as much during the press conference above, and you don't announce a replacement for Secretary of Defense in just minutes. That much is clear.

What I found entertaining is Bush's explanation - that he didn't want to influence an election. Are you kidding me? I'm still, a few days after this press conference, unsure how to take his statement. Was he arrogantly implying that sacking Rumsfeld on Friday, Nov. 3 would have allowed Congress to remain in control of Republicans? As I've already stated, sacking Rumsfeld last week would have done as much harm than good, and maybe more.

I don't know much about Robert Gates, but I do know this much: 1. He will have to be confirmed by a Democratically controlled Senate, and 2. Just changing defense secretaries isn't nearly enough; we need a change in policy. However, a change tone and management style at the Pentagon can't be anything other than good at this point.



MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman from Florida, had this to say about Rumsfeld - pretty poignant and poisonous, but thought provoking, too.

He really is hated, and not just by liberals and Democrats.

One more Rummy funny

Evidently, soon-to-be-former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is feeling a bit more courageous in "flipping off" detractors, both metaphorically and physically. Right back at ya, Rummy. I wonder how the families of over 2,800 soldiers who have been killed would feel about watching this video? And folks, "finger" was no accident - this is a man who's been in public service for over 30 years - if he doesn't know the importance of non-verbal gestures by now, he never will. Then again, Rumsfeld has failed to grasp so many basic concepts that even a political neophyte can, maybe I should even give Rummy the benefit of the doubt here, too. Bottom line - it's kinda funny, but really, it's another sad chapter in his nearly six-year tenure as defense secretary.

Rummy is funny!

My friend Tony sent this to me a little while ago, and I had to pass it along - hilarious! I'm going to miss Crummy Rummy in a way - one of the worst secretaries of defense we've ever had and a press conference catastrophe on most occasions, but he sure was fun to make fun of. What I'll really miss is his excruciatingly annoying habit of asking questions to himself and then answering them...

Rummy: Am I sorry that we invaded Iraq with no plan, not enough troops and bad intelligence?

Rummy: No, I'm not.

Rummy: Do I wish I had never taken this job?

Rummy: Yes, I do.

Rummy: Am I the most arrogant son of a bitch ever to head up the Defense Department?

Rummy: Absolutely! [One of his favorite words]

Too bad you aren't taking Cheney with you. But then again I can only handle so much joy in one week.

The sweet taste of victory

Yesterday can only be described as both a crazy and historic day in American politics. It's a day I'll always remember, much like the day after President Clinton triumphed over incumbent President George H.W. Bush in 1992, but yesterday wasn't quite that sweet. Okay, it wasn't close, but it is second in my fondest political memories. Rummy "resigns," Webb wins Virginia, the Democrats now control Congress.

Webb takes the race, but Allen hasn't conceded. But, with AP & NBC News calling the race, the pressure's on for Allen to submit. His concession could come as early as tonight.

Yesterday, I took the day off from blogging to just relax, and crash very early last night. On election night, I went to bed just prior to the announcement that Jim Talent lost his bid for reelection in Missouri, so I woke up to that with a big cheer. Before retiring last night, I was reasonably sure that John Tester would win in Montana, and I saw that Jim Webb had pulled ahead.

So, I was pretty hopeful when I got home last night, and then, THE news - AP called Webb the winner in Virginia, followed by NBC News. To nominate myself for Understatement of the Year, this was/is big news.

Oh, and I haven't even gotten to Donald Rumsfeld yet.

But, I'll get to that all in due time - I've got so much to blog about in the last few days, it's tough to figure out where to begin. I have to get to class in a little bit, so I'll just offer up a few pictures, with lots more to come later today...

Okay, it's not exactly "Dewey Defeats Truman" as far as historic newspaper covers, but yesterday's Philadelphia Daily News made me laugh and was worth a picture.


I got this a few weeks ago in the mail, and I love it - my Bush Countdown key chain. 725 days to go, people, and make no mistake, the early jockeying for the nominations of both parties has already started. After the holidays, the announcements will start; Barack Obama has already announced that he will make his intentions known in January.

Anyway, get your own Bush Countdown key chain at http://www.xpressyourview.com/, and enter VICTORY in your shopping basket and save 20 percent off your order.

But, before I go, I'll leave you with this, until later today - a piece in the current issue of Vanity Fair. It's a stunning indictment of Bush's Iraq policy and includes comments from Richard Pearle and Kenneth Adelman, two of the Iraq War's neoconservative architects.

Neo Culpa

As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence. In a series of exclusive interviews, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness. Target No. 1: the president himself.

By David Rose
Vanity Fair
November 3, 2006

I remember sitting with Richard Perle in his suite at London's Grosvenor House hotel and receiving a private lecture on the importance of securing victory in Iraq. "Iraq is a very good candidate for democratic reform," he said. "It won't be Westminster overnight, but the great democracies of the world didn't achieve the full, rich structure of democratic governance overnight. The Iraqis have a decent chance of succeeding." Perle seemed to exude the scent of liberation, as well as a whiff of gunpowder. It was February 2003, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the culmination of his long campaign on behalf of regime change in Iraq, was less than a month away.

Three years later, Perle and I meet again at his home outside Washington, D.C. It is October, the worst month for U.S. casualties in Iraq in almost two years, and Republicans are bracing for losses in the upcoming midterm elections. As he looks into my eyes, speaking slowly and with obvious deliberation, Perle is unrecognizable as the confident hawk who, as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, had invited the exiled Iraqi dissident Ahmad Chalabi to its first meeting after 9/11. "The levels of brutality that we've seen are truly horrifying, and I have to say, I underestimated the depravity," Perle says now, adding that total defeat—an American withdrawal that leaves Iraq as an anarchic "failed state"—is not yet inevitable but is becoming more likely. "And then," says Perle, "you'll get all the mayhem that the world is capable of creating."

According to Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President George W. Bush. Perle says, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty."

Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."

Having spoken with Perle, I wonder: What do the rest of the pro-war neoconservatives think? If the much caricatured "Prince of Darkness" is now plagued with doubt, how do his comrades-in-arms feel? I am particularly interested in finding out because I interviewed many neocons before the invasion and, like many people, found much to admire in their vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East.

I expect to encounter disappointment. What I find instead is despair, and fury at the incompetence of the Bush administration the neoconservatives once saw as their brightest hope.
To David Frum, the former White House speechwriter who co-wrote Bush's 2002 State of the Union address that accused Iraq of being part of an "axis of evil," it now looks as if defeat may be inescapable, because "the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them." This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on "failure at the center"—starting with President Bush.

Kenneth Adelman, a life-long neocon activist and Pentagon insider who served on the Defense Policy Board until 2005, wrote a famous op-ed article in The Washington Post in February 2002, arguing: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Now he says, "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

Fearing that worse is still to come, Adelman believes that neoconservatism itself—what he defines as "the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world"—is dead, at least for a generation. After Iraq, he says, "it's not going to sell." And if he, too, had his time over, Adelman says, "I would write an article that would be skeptical over whether there would be a performance that would be good enough to implement our policy. The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless, just useless. I guess that's what I would have said: that Bush's arguments are absolutely right, but you know what, you just have to put them in the drawer marked can't do. And that's very different from let's go."

I spend the better part of two weeks in conversations with some of the most respected voices among the neoconservative elite. What I discover is that none of them is optimistic. All of them have regrets, not only about what has happened but also, in many cases, about the roles they played. Their dismay extends beyond the tactical issues of whether America did right or wrong, to the underlying question of whether exporting democracy is something America knows how to do.

I will present my findings in full in the January issue of Vanity Fair, which will reach newsstands in New York and L.A. on December 6 and nationally by December 12. In the meantime, here is a brief survey of some of what I heard from the war's remorseful proponents.

Richard Perle: "In the administration that I served [Perle was an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan], there was a one-sentence description of the decision-making process when consensus could not be reached among disputatious departments: 'The president makes the decision.' [Bush] did not make decisions, in part because the machinery of government that he nominally ran was actually running him. The National Security Council was not serving [Bush] properly. He regarded [then National-Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice] as part of the family."

Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute freedom scholar: "Ask yourself who the most powerful people in the White House are. They are women who are in love with the president: Laura [Bush], Condi, Harriet Miers, and Karen Hughes."

Frank Gaffney, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan and founder of the Center for Security Policy: "[Bush] doesn't in fact seem to be a man of principle who's steadfastly pursuing what he thinks is the right course. He talks about it, but the policy doesn't track with the rhetoric, and that's what creates the incoherence that causes us problems around the world and at home. It also creates the sense that you can take him on with impunity."

Kenneth Adelman: "The most dispiriting and awful moment of the whole administration was the day that Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to [former C.I.A. director] George Tenet, General Tommy Franks, and [Coalition Provisional Authority chief] Jerry [Paul] Bremer—three of the most incompetent people who've ever served in such key spots. And they get the highest civilian honor a president can bestow on anyone! That was the day I checked out of this administration. It was then I thought, There's no seriousness here, these are not serious people. If he had been serious, the president would have realized that those three are each directly responsible for the disaster of Iraq."

David Frum: "I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything."

Michael Rubin, former Pentagon Office of Special Plans and Coalition Provisional Authority staffer: "Where I most blame George Bush is that through his rhetoric people trusted him, people believed him. Reformists came out of the woodwork and exposed themselves." By failing to match his rhetoric with action, Rubin adds, Bush has betrayed Iraqi reformers in a way that is "not much different from what his father did on February 15, 1991, when he called the Iraqi people to rise up, and then had second thoughts and didn't do anything once they did."

Richard Perle: "Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad. I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war. I was in favor of bringing down Saddam. Nobody said, 'Go design the campaign to do that.' I had no responsibility for that."

Kenneth Adelman: "The problem here is not a selling job. The problem is a performance job.… Rumsfeld has said that the war could never be lost in Iraq, it could only be lost in Washington. I don't think that's true at all. We're losing in Iraq.… I've worked with [Rumsfeld] three times in my life. I've been to each of his houses, in Chicago, Taos, Santa Fe, Santo Domingo, and Las Vegas. I'm very, very fond of him, but I'm crushed by his performance. Did he change, or were we wrong in the past? Or is it that he was never really challenged before? I don't know. He certainly fooled me."

Eliot Cohen, director of the strategic-studies program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and member of the Defense Policy Board: "I wouldn't be surprised if what we end up drifting toward is some sort of withdrawal on some sort of timetable and leaving the place in a pretty ghastly mess.… I do think it's going to end up encouraging various strands of Islamism, both Shia and Sunni, and probably will bring de-stabilization of some regimes of a more traditional kind, which already have their problems.… The best news is that the United States remains a healthy, vibrant, vigorous society. So in a real pinch, we can still pull ourselves together. Unfortunately, it will probably take another big hit. And a very different quality of leadership. Maybe we'll get it."