The Wrath of Blam-Blam

Blam-Blam and his little Squirt, the most important Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs in our nation’s history, maybe ever Liz Cheney wrote an editorial: here’s an excerpt –

Those who say the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake are essentially saying we would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power. That’s a difficult position to sustain. It is undisputed, and has been confirmed repeatedly in Iraqi government documents captured after the invasion, that Saddam had deep, longstanding, far-reaching relationships with terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda and its affiliates. It is undisputed that Saddam’s Iraq was a state based on terror, overseeing a coordinated program to support global jihadist terrorist organizations. Ansar al Islam, an al Qaeda-linked organization, operated training camps in northern Iraq before the invasion. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the future leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, funneled weapons and fighters into these camps, before the invasion, from his location in Baghdad. We also know, again confirmed in documents captured after the war, that Saddam provided funding, training, and other support to numerous terrorist organizations and individuals over decades, including to Ayman al Zawahiri, the man who leads al Qaeda today.

It is also undisputed that Saddam Hussein had the technology, equipment, facilities, and scientists in place to construct the world’s worst weapons. We know he intended to reconstitute these programs as soon as the international sanctions regime collapsed. He had an advanced nuclear program in place prior to Operation Desert Storm in 1991. In 1998, he kicked the international weapons inspectors out of Iraq. He violated every one of the 17 U.N. Security Council Resolutions passed against him.

Gape in awe at the entire thing.

The Beast Re-Assembles Itself

blam-blam rides again

Somewhere, Dick Cheney is smiling. And probably eating kitten-la-bobs with his follow neocons.

BAGHDAD — He took millions of dollars from the C.I.A., founded and was accused of defrauding the second-biggest bank in Jordan and sold the Bush administration a bill of goods on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

At first championed by the Bush administration’s neoconservatives as a potential leader of Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi ended up persona non grata, effectively barred from the wartime American Embassy here. Now, in an improbable twist of fate, Mr. Chalabi is being talked about as a serious candidate for prime minister. He has also been back to the embassy.

(NYTimes)

Poor Grandpa Walnuts…

…he still thinks he won:

Screen Shot 2014-06-13 at 10.13.15 AM

Yelling at the clouds:

“Everybody in his national security team, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ought to be replaced,” the Arizona Republican told reporters ahead of a classified Senate Armed Services Committee briefing on the deteriorating situation in Iraq. “It’s a colossal failure of American security policy.”

As opposed to getting lied into a war for oil and a decade long cluster*ck, eh Walnuts?

War Criminal Declines Commencement Speech

condi-gagging

Former secretary of state and unindicted Iraq war criminal Condoleeza Rice has declined to give the commencement address at Rutgers University in New Jersey:

“Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families,” Rice said. “Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time.”

Let’s just say that the students and faculty at the school led some very successful protests to keep Mistress Condi off campus, as it should be.

It’s amazing to me that anyone would think of inviting one of the architects of the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the country to do anything, other than to apologize to the world for her part in crimes against humanity.

UPDATE 1: I comment on this over at Liberaland, thanks to a remark from Scissorhead Roket for opening my eyes a bit more.

In Which ex-CIA Director Hayden Mansplains The Skirts To Us

egghead.jpg

Former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden suggested Sunday that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) might have compromised the objectivity of a report on CIA interrogation techniques because she personally wants to change them.

On “Fox News Sunday,” Hayden cited comments Feinstein made last month in which she said declassifying the report would “ensure that an un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted.”

Hayden suggested Feinstein feels too strongly about the issue on an “emotional” level.

“That sentence — that motivation for the report — may show deep, emotional feeling on the part of the senator, but I don’t think it leads you to an objective report,” Hayden said.

I dislike Dianne Feinstein, she’s an unrepentant hawk who supported every military weapon program and was unwavering in her support of Chimpy’s Great Adventure.

But there’s one thing I do know about her: she’s tough as nails. There is nothing emotional about her. I suspect that she pushed her kids out of the nest with gusto and relish, and so I doubt very much that her emotions have ever gotten the better of her.

So besides the obvious sexism here—and it doesn’t get much more obvious than this—it makes me wonder what is in this report that Egghead Hayden really doesn’t want released? That’s a pretty desperate fourth and forty play.

Could it be… torture? Let’s call it by its real name, not some weasel-speak harsh interrogation technique. It was the policy of the United States to torture prisoners of war in off-shore gulags beyond the reach of our own laws. Blam-blam and Chimpy broke every last shred of decency we had in the world’s eyes, and they continue to walk the earth free.

(WaPo via Crooks and Liars)

What Charlie Said X10

carebear empty suit and words blingee

Brother Pierce nails it:

In merciful brief, the president attempted to explain to the world why the self-destructive and mendacious decision of the United States to engage in aggressive war in Iraq in contravention of god alone knows how many provisions of international law was manifestly different — politically, legally, and morally — from Vladimir Putin’s land grabbing in and around Ukraine. Before anyone gave him a chance to be president, and throughout his unlikely rise to the White House, the president famously called the war in Iraq “the wrong war in the wrong place.” It was the first stark difference between the president and Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary campaign and the clearest difference between the president and Senator John McCain in that year’s general election. It represented the cleanest break available to the country from the bloody stupdity of the previous administration. It was the seedbed for all the hope and all the change. The problem arose when the architects of the American fiasco were allowed to escape any real accounting for what they’d done in Iraq and to the United States. There was no public punishment, no public shaming, no indication from the new administration that it was ready to demand penance from the old. And yesterday, the president illustrated quite clearly the size of the corner in which his basic philosophy had painted him.

Go read the whole thing at Esquire.

NYTimes conveniently forgets…

Chimpy and the banner

Chimpy and the banner

…the root cause of why democracy isn’t spreading in the mideast.

Take it away, Gray Lady:

The images of recent days have an eerie familiarity, as if the horrors of the past decade were being played back: masked gunmen recapturing the Iraqi cities of Falluja and Ramadi, where so many American soldiers died fighting them. Car bombs exploding amid the elegance of downtown Beirut. The charnel house of Syria’s worsening civil war.

But for all its echoes, the bloodshed that has engulfed Iraq, Lebanon and Syria in the past two weeks exposes something new and destabilizing: the emergence of a post-American Middle East in which no broker has the power, or the will, to contain the region’s sectarian hatreds.

Amid this vacuum, fanatical Islamists have flourished in both Iraq and Syria under the banner of Al Qaeda, as the two countries’ conflicts amplify each other and foster ever-deeper radicalism. Behind much of it is the bitter rivalry of two great oil powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia, whose rulers — claiming to represent Shiite and Sunni Islam, respectively — cynically deploy a sectarian agenda that makes almost any sort of accommodation a heresy.

Um, gee, I seem to recall not that long ago the so-called Arab Spring had Chimpy’s apologists claiming that it would never have happened without him…

UPDATE 1: Robert Perry at Consortium News has a rebuttal. It’s worth the read.