All of us knew it but couldn't prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.

January 30, 2001 – Bush administration principals (agency heads) meet for the
first time and discuss the Middle East, including Bush’s intention to disengage from the Israel-Palestine peace process and “How Iraq is destabilizing the region.” Bush directs Rumsfeld and JCS chairman Hugh Shelton to examine military options for Iraq; CIA director George Tenet is directed to improve intelligence on the country. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke are both struck by the emphasis on confronting Iraq, an aim consistent with Rumsfeld’s hiring of Wolfowitz and later Feith, well known for their bellicosity on the issue, for high-level Pentagon
positions. (Source: EBB/Franks Timeline (PDF))

When did we invade Afghanistan? Oh, that's right...it was October 7, 2001.

Walking through these documents makes it clear that the Bush Administration -- from Day One -- intended to invade Iraq at some point in their reign of terror. Here is a memo (PDF) dated January 23, 2001 outlining the "Origins of the Iraq Regime Change Policy". This was requested by Vice President-elect Dick Cheney before taking office, presumably as a way to justify policy formation around aggressive US efforts for "regime change" in Iraq.

This memo (PDF) written on November 27, 2001 should send cold chills up and down your spine. It is a list of talking points from Rumsfeld to Franks about how to handle a run-up to a full-scale Iraq invasion. November 27th, 51 days after Afghanistan was invaded. And check this talking point:

enlarge

Continue reading »

Rebeccah Heinrich, a House staffer for Rep. Trent "nuclear terrorism scares me" Franks (R-AZ), has an article in Politico attacking Philip Coyle's nomination for the White House Science and Technology Policy office. Philip has made the error of pointing out the flaws of the national missile defense program, and while his potential future position doesn't involve the program, Rebeccah doesn't want to take the chance that he'll infect people in the White House by, you know, talking to people.

In his appearances before House panels, Coyle’s basic argument has been that Iran or North Korea would not launch a missile attack on the United States. If they do, he argues, they would use multiple missiles, or countermeasures to overwhelm our GMD system.

Coyle’s confidence in these two countries’ rationality is startling. His lack of confidence in our own military leaders and engineers is disconcerting.

America can develop a more robust defense, capable of defending against sophisticated threats — if we make up our minds to achieve it. Just because the system isn’t now capable of handling all future threats doesn’t mean it isn’t worth building or making operational while U.S. engineers improve it.
-----------
Coyle’s nomination is a mistake. So are his ideas. Missile defense is a national security necessity. It’s one that, as a poll shows, 88 percent of Americans support.

The Americans that she cites probably don't know that the US government spends between $8-10 billion a year on the national missile defense research and development, not to mention the $4 billion planned for building Europe's long-range missile defense. Americans probably don't know what the cost of building a large system would be - one required to protect the entire United States - not to mention the annual sustainment costs. Rebeccah would rather hide that from the people, waving her flag of patriotism and idealism instead.

America can develop a more robust defense, capable of defending against sophisticated threats — if we make up our minds to achieve it. Just because the system isn’t now capable of handling all future threats doesn’t mean it isn’t worth building or making operational while U.S. engineers improve it.

Yes, thank you Rebeccah, for providing us with the brilliant rationale for building about every badly run and over-budget defense program, including the F22 and F35 aircraft, the Airborne Laser, the DIVAD program, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and so many others. So what if it doesn't really work? There's always time to improve it later. Overall cost-benefit analyses and low probabilities that the system will ever be used doesn't really matter as much as good intentions, do they?

Rebeccah fronts for a "missile defense caucus" in the House, so she's hardly an unbiased source here. The Politico doesn't want to tell you that, however. It might spoil the surprise. Her attack is unwarranted and illogical, as is the unnamed Republican senator's hold on his nomination. She shouldn't be so upset about a war of words between one influential guy against the missile defense advocates at the Heritage Foundation. But today's political conservatives never seemed to care much about logic and allowing a fair and open debate on defense issues.

Bad enough when terrorists bluff about their intent to obtain nuclear weapons to frighten the general populace - now we have Republican politicians doing the terrorists' work for them. From Talking Points Memo:

Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) was troubled by what might happen when waterboarding and the American right to a fair trial met in a U.S. courtroom. She worried what might happen if terror suspects argued they'd been given "cruel and unusual" punishment at Gitmo.

"This is what scares me because they're in a U.S. court now and the rights are different," she said. "What will they say [about their detention] and what could happen and could they be out among the people again? It's very frightening."

How frightening? Mushroom cloud frightening, according to [Rep. Trent] Franks [R-AZ]. He said that a federal trial would give the suspects "a megaphone to speak to the planet," which he said "only hastens the danger" of, literally, a nuclear terrorist attack.

Yes, we certainly don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, do we? The only thing we need to fear are the fearmongers themselves. Better to dig a nice deep hole at Gitmo, and throw all these Republicans terrorists into it and forget about them. Also present at the Dec 10 event were Rep. Michelle "Kill the Socialists" Bachman (R-MN) and Frank "Crazy Eyes" Gaffney (Center for Security Policy).

I'm going to create a new variant of Godwin's Law.

• Sigger's Law: "As any discussion on terrorism grows longer, the probability of attributing terrorists with nuclear weapons (or similar destructive capabilities) approaches 1."
• Corrolary to Sigger's Law: "Once such an observation is made, the discussion is finished and whoever mentioned terrorist possession of nuclear weapons has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."

Tommy Franks joined Matthews to talk about the six generals (listed here) that have come out and asked for Rummy to get the boot. John finds an interesting nugget embedded in Woodward's book.
Download | play -WMP-pt

Download | play -WMP Pt2

Some of the critics of "the Generals," speaking out have talked about books they may or may not have written as a reason for the criticism. Franks has his book prominently displayed in this interview.

Harry Shearer:

"On Hardball Friday afternoon, Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of the Iraq war, was defending Defense Secretary Rumsfeld against the recent offensive by the retired generals. In passing, he said this:

"Ask him about the 14 months we spent planning this thing."

That would put the operational, as opposed to contingency, planning as having started in roughly January of 2002, about eight months later than what was implied in Joint Chiefs head Peter Pace's statement at the Pentagon briefing earlier this week."

---General Tommy Franks

Somebody does...checkowt Iraq Body Count

Part I Russert definetly asked some good questions on MTP, and of course Rumsfeld did the "Rummy Dance"

Russert:.. Does any of that represent, in your mind, misjudgments made by you or the administration about Iraq?

Rumsfeld: This is in history. Why? Because the enemy has a brain and they're constantly adapting, so we're constantly adapting. Every time there's an adaptation, someone says, "Oh, there's a mistake." It isn't a mistake. It's just reality

Download | play -WMP

Download | play -QT

Also

Russert: Do you think that was a misjudgment?

Rumsfeld: Well, you never know what's going to happen. I presented the president a list of about 15 things that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started.... So a great many of the bad things that could have happened did not happen because of the terrific job that General Franks and his team did.

Please someone get me that list. There are too many things to name, but was it a mistake to go in with not enough troops at the start of the war?...etc...fill in your own misjudgements and I'll post them.

Russert: Was a robust insurgency on your list that you gave the president?

Rumsfeld: I don't remember whether that was on there, but certainly it was discussed the possibility that you could have dead-enders who would fight.

Judd says: That’s convenient