The Blue State

Rumseld charged in France

This is sure to anger conservative talk radio.  This, and anything else having to do with France:

Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld got an unpleasantsurprise during his visit to France today when human rights groupsfiled a complaint with the Paris Prosecutor before the “Court of FirstInstance” (Tribunal de Grande Instance) charging the chief architect ofPresident George W. Bush's "war on terror" with ordering andauthorizing torture.

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with theCenter for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center forConstitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League forHuman Rights (LDH) filed the complaint while Rumsfeld was in Paris fora talk sponsored by Foreign Policy magazine, and under French law, aninvestigation must be opened if an alleged torturer is inside France.

“France is under the obligation to investigate and prosecuteRumsfeld’s accountability for crimes of torture in Guantanamo andIraq," said FIDH President Souhayr Belhassen. "France has no choice butto open an investigation if an alleged torturer is on its territory. Ihope that the fight against impunity will not be sacrificed in the nameof politics. We call on France to refuse to be a safe haven forcriminals.”

“The filing of this French case against Rumsfeld demonstrates thatwe will not rest until those U.S. officials involved in the tortureprogram are brought to justice," said CCR President Michael Ratner."Rumsfeld must understand that he has no place to hide. A torturer isan enemy of all humankind.”

Rumsfeld touts his work on Afghanistan as "big success"

Afghanistan's drug trade has doubled over the last two years, and has risen 34% since the beginning of 2007.  Security is almost non-existent outside of Kabul.  Yet, in an interview with GQ Magazine, Ronald Rumsfeld bragged that Afghanistan turned out to be a big success, and that plans for postwar Iraq actually did exist:

"Look at Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, 28 million people are free. Theyhave their own president, they have their own parliament. Improved alot on the streets."

All your theories worked there, in other words.

"It'sbeen a big success! The Iraqi government has not been successful asyet. And, uh, it's gonna take some time and some effort."

When do you see it resolved?

"I'm not gonna get into that."

Right.But if you distill the general sense…the measured general sense…of whatthe American public feels about Iraq right now, it would be: a plan inbut not a plan out. Do you agree with that?

"No! No, no! Themilitary has to have plans for post-major-conflict stabilization, andthey did. And, uh, the focus of the insurgents and the terrorists andthe Al Qaeda have put on Iraq… It's enormously important to them."

But you sleep okay?

"I do. Always have."

Generations from now, Rumsfeld will were as an example of what future Defense Secretary hopefuls should not have: arrogance, clouded judgment and a disregard for realism.

The darkest of all suspicions about Rumsfeld's postwar strategy

Why the Administration may have purposely encouraged looting after the fall of Baghdad.

Over the last four years, I have been personally conflicted over which was more outrageously horrible: the decision to go to war in the first place, or the manner in which postwar planning was executed?  Both were bad, no doubt there.  But there was something said about the latter last night on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher that jolted my emotions.  Let me say that as someone that follows politics on a daily basis, I am rarely shocked.  But what I heard last night personally disturbed me, and will get all of you grinding your teeth.

Remember all the looting throughout Iraq after the US invaded?  Many Pentagon-types concede that the US should have done a better job protecting the Iraqi infrastructure.  Well, according to former U.S. Ambassador Barbara Bodine, one of the three panel guests on the show, the Administration actually wanted there to be mass looting in Baghdad because it would help downsize government.  In other words, Rumsfeld wanted to implement Ronald Reagan's limited government model in Iraq.

So I did some digging on the issue.  I found a 2003 story in The Nation magazine that confirmed this strategy.  It's quite disturbing that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would want there to be looting.  But it all makes perfect sense:

As the Bush Administration becomes increasingly open about its plans toprivatize Iraq's state industries and parts of the government, Bremer'sde-Baathification takes on new meaning. Is he working only to get rid ofBaath Party members, or is he also working to shrink the public sectoras a whole so that hospitals, schools and even the army are primed forprivatization by US firms? Just as reconstruction is the guise forprivatization, de-Baathification looks a lot like disguised downsizing.

We need to ask ourselves what the purpose was behind Reagan's ideology?  Why do conservative Washington insiders want limited government?  Is it because their brand of government would be more efficient, or because the phrase "limited government" is code for selling democracy to the highest bidder?

Republican leaders want you to think that less government means less spending and more rights for you.  But actually, there will be spending no matter what.  It's just a question of who will be in charge.  Do you want government, which is bound by disclosure laws, to do the work?  Or do you want corporations, whose motives are less about spreading democracy than making a profit on Wall Street?  Oh boy have we been used!

But the main idea is that Rumsfeld wanted this "limited government" model to be implemented.  He tried.  He failed.  Now there is no end in sight.

Rumsfeld ready to profit off his failures

Less than one year after stepping down and Donald Rumsfeld is already planning to cash in.  The former Secretary of Defense is looking for a book deal so he can re-justify the Iraq war -- assuming all of us will listen:

While a deal has not yetbeen struck, Mr. Rumsfeld has toured New York publishing houses with anoutline of his book in an effort to gauge how much information he wouldhave to disclose in the memoir in order to justify a large cash advance.

A principal for the publicity firm Shirley & Banister, CraigShirley, said such a book would have a better-than-fair shot ofbecoming a bestseller if it was properly marketed, well-written, andcontained interesting new content. In addition, the publisher of theconservative imprint Regnery, Marji Ross, estimated the formersecretary would command at least a six-figure advance. Someone like Mr.Rumsfeld, who has a loyal following and yet sparks a lot ofcontroversy, is good for book sales, she said.

According to Media Bistro, Rumsfeld also met with the book publishing company Penguin last month.

So it's pretty clear that Donald Rumsfeld intends to rewrite his own legacy, and make money doing it -- sort of a sweet two-for-one deal.  He may only succeed on the latter.  But Rumsfeld cannot stop history from judging him as a failure.  He tried to fight a war on the cheap.  The military did not like him.  His war strategy failed.  I'd say his place in history is already sealed.

4 years later, UN to finally end search for Saddam's WMD

Earlier this month The Blue State reported that 20 UN inspectors were still searching for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Now that search is near an end.  According to the International Herald Tribune, the United States and Great Britain have requested that the group end its search:

The United States and Britain have circulated a new proposal to themembers of the Security Council to "terminate immediately the mandates"of the weapons inspectors. Staff meetings on the latest proposal havealready taken place, and officials say that the permanent councilmembers, each of whom has veto power, appear ready to let theinspection group meet its end.

Back in March 2003, following the successful US invasion, Donald Rumsfeld was somewhat upset when asked by reporters why no one could find the weapons:

STEPHANOPOULOS: [I]s it curious to you that given howmuch control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, theyhaven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think — let me take that, both pieces —the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forcescontrol is substantial. It happens not to be the area whereweapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are.They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south andnorth somewhat.

Ah, those were the times!

Q: What Do You Call a Song Titled 'Let's Impeach The President'? A: A Good Start

I feel compelled to find and post the truth every time I hear Our GreatPresident open his mouth which has become synonymous with lying.Thanks again to "granny" for sending us the link for the video.

It didn't take the liberal bloggers and general long public to react and speak outagainst the dems for caving in on the funding bill. And it seems that theybetter grow a set quickly before we start shopping around. Think about this fora moment, you tell your spouse or significant other you are going shopping, butinstead go to a friends house...simple right? umm, NO!, you are confronted bythem and are told you lied. Maybe that's a simple minded analogy, but comparethat to The President of the United States lying on an ongoing basis, changingthe story and then his supporters actually lie further to support him. Wrong,just plain old everyday kindergartenly,  fundamentally, unacceptably wrong.

Well lets start this thing....

'Let's Impeach The President' Song by Neil Youg. Check out Neils page of Song Videos HERE.(check out the hompage)The Lyrics are HERE.

I do not like Andy Dick in just about everything I have ever seen himin...except this video

'Bush Idiot Speech'

Here is a huge list of anti-warsongs worth a peak. Listof Bush lies.

There is just so much more content which could be added to this post, but Ineed to move on from this "consumption" of me.

A Stroll Down Memory Lane aka. Lying Culdesac (o'crap)

With all the "fresh" elephant Sh*t flying around these days from theadministration, I thought posting a few of the old charms would bereminiscent of looking through an old family photo album. There are probablymany more, but let's start with these.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - President George W. Bush,
State of the Union, 2003

"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam, when you talk about the
war on terror." - President George W. Bush, September 25, 2002

"There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda
and the Iraqi government - Vice President Dick Cheney, 2004

"What I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more
sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network." -Secretary
Colin Powell, 2003

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and
Saddam and al Qaeda - because there was a relationship between Iraq and al
Qaeda. - President George W. Bush, 2004

"We don't know." - Vice President Dick Cheney, on whether there was a
relationship between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks

"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time
armed by Saddam Hussein." - President George W. Bush, State of the Union,
2003

'Keith Olbermann takes a “look back” at Bush’s first months in office leading up to 9/11' Thanks to Crooks & Liars (from Sept 2006)

The Bill Moyer's Documentary.

For anyone that didn't get a chance to see Bill Moyer's Documentary "Buying The War", you can view it online HERE. It's a "Two Thumbs Up" (the admins. thumbs up America's ass).

You can go to News Hounds and scroll to see the Fox nut jobs wrongly "bash" (and lie about) Moyers.

Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincolnwearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant"Mission Accomplished" banner. He was hailed by media stars as a"breathtaking" example of presidential leadership in toppling SaddamHussein. Despite profound questions over the failure to locate weaponsof mass destruction and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in thepress confirmed the White House's claim that the war was won. MSNBC'sChris Matthews declared, "We're all neo-cons now;" NPR's Bob Edwardssaid, "The war in Iraq is essentially over;" and Fortune magazine'sJeff Birnbaum said, "It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraqreally was in the broadest context."

Rumsfeld: I stand for 8-10 hours, why shouldn't they?

In a recently declassified 2002 Pentagon memo, Donald Rumsfeld displayed the typical shoot-from-the-hip thoughtlessness that we had come to eventually expect from him during his time as Secretary of Defense.  The memo was an order that Donald Rumsfeld signed pertaining to interrogation techniques.

The following was what Rumsfeld wrote as a side-comment on the document:

"..I stand for 8-10 hours a day.  Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

Was that necessary?  If anything, he could have at least put the document into a larger context:

• How would these techniques impact U.S. reputation abroad?
• How would these techniques impact U.S. national security?
• Are these techniques appropriate for a civilized democracy in the 21st century?

Instead, we got a comment that came from the gut, not from the head.

Cheney: I know more about Donald than you

Dick Cheney is on the offensive, only this time it's not against Democrats.  In an interview with ABC News, the Vice President criticized John McCain for calling Donald Rumsfeld "one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."

Cheney's defense: I was there, so you don't know anything:

"I think Don's a great secretary. I know a little bit about thejob," said Cheney, a former defense secretary. "I've watched what he'sdone over there for six years. I think he did a superb job in terms ofmanaging the Pentagon under extraordinarily difficult circumstances."

Cheneyalso countered McCain's assertion that the vice president misled Bushwhen it came to Iraq. "John said some nasty things about me the otherday, and then next time he saw me, ran over to me and apologized,"Cheney said. "Maybe he'll apologize to Rumsfeld."

Under Cheney's logic, if you think Scotty Pippen is better than Michael Jordan and someone disagrees, all you have to reply is that you know Scotty Pippen, so that makes your opinion more valid than theirs.  That line of argument is one of many logical fallacies that the Vice President has used to justify his Administration's policies.