Archive for Donald Rumsfeld

The War On Terror, That Campaign Without End Launched 14 Years Ago By George W Bush, Is Tying Itself Up In Ever More Grotesque Contortions.

Posted in Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, ISIS, Tony Blair with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 16, 2015 by sheriffali

On November 9, 2015 The Trial In London Of A Swedish Man, Bherlin Gildo, Accused Of Terrorism In Syria, Collapsed After It Became Clear British Intelligence Had Been Arming The Same Rebel Groups The Defendant Was Charged With Supporting.

ISIS - GEORGE W BUSH 4

The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defense argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.

 

That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armor and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that M16 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” 

ISIS - GEORGE W BUSH

 ISIS - GEORGE W BUSH 2

Of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

 

Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases. Less fortunate was a London cab driver Anis Sardar, who given a life sentence a fortnight earlier   for taking part in 2007 in resistance to the occupation of Iraq by US and British forces. Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva Convention.

 

But terrorism is now squarely in the eye of the beholder. And nowhere is that more so than in the Middle East, where today’s terrorists are tomorrow’s fighters against tyranny – and allies are enemies – often at the bewildering whim of a western policymaker’s conference call.

 

For the past year, US, British and other western forces have been back in Iraq, supposedly in the cause of destroying the hyper-sectarian terror group Islamic State (formerly known as al-Qaida in Iraq). This was after Isis overran huge chunks of Iraqi and Syrian territory and proclaimed a self-styled Islamic caliphate.

 

The campaign isn’t going well. Last month, Isis rolled into the Iraqi city of Ramadi, while on the other side of the now nonexistent border its forces conquered the Syrian town of Palmyra. Al-Qaida’s official franchise, the Nusra Front, has also been making gains in Syria. 

 

Some Iraqis complain that the US sat on its hands while all this was going on. The Americans insist they are trying to avoid civilian casualties, and claim significant successes. Privately, officials say they don’t want to be seen hammering Sunni strongholds in a sectarian war and risk upsetting their Sunni allies in the Gulf.

 

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shown by a recently declassified secret US Intelligence report, written in August 2012 which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

 

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

 

Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later?  The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria. 

 

 That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

 

The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online and the Gulf States are now backing other groups in the Syrian war, such as the Nusra Front. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups, which then come back to bite them, goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage.

 

It was recalibrated during the occupation of Iraq, when US forces led by General Petraeus sponsored an El Salvador style dirty war of sectarian death squads to weaken the Iraqi resistance. And it was reprised in 2011 in the Nato-orchestrated war in Libya, where Isis last week took control of Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.

 

In reality, United States and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. However confused US policy may often be, a weak, partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly.

 

What’s clear is that Isis and its monstrosities won’t be defeated by the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since. Endless western military interventions in the Middle East have brought only destruction and division. It’s the people of the region who can cure this disease – not those who incubated the virus.

 

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

British Guardian Link

http://gu.com/p/49f8p/stw

 

Jeb Bush’s Many Problems Six more reasons to be skeptical of the former Florida governor’s ability to secure the White House in 2016

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 22, 2015 by sheriffali

[The Atlantic] Jeb Bush had a very bad few days last week. They won’t be the last bad days of this campaign. The Iraq question hasn’t been settled and won’t go away. And other questions as awkward and difficult are waiting to be asked.

 

Bush’s ability to raise large amounts of money has distracted attention from the inherent fragility of his campaign. But there are many reasons to be skeptical of his ability to secure the Republican nomination, much less win the White House, and the early months of his undeclared campaign have done little to dispel those doubts. Here are six:

 

Tainted Brand

 

George W. Bush’s popularity has recovered somewhat since he left office.(Thirteen years ago, when he was president, I wrote speeches for him. Now, I write for a magazine.) At the end of 2014, more Americans had a positive than a negative image of him for the first time since 2005. But then, the same is true for Jimmy Carter—rather more so actually. Once an unpopular president has departed office, the defeats and disappointments of his tenure vanish into American amnesia. But that amnesia is highly conditional on the ex-president and his namesakes staying away from politics.

 

Bobby Kennedy could credibly seek the presidency in 1968 because so many Americans loved his martyred brother. Franklin Roosevelt shared a name with a hugely popular cousin. Even defeated one-term presidents can boost a relative if they remain popular within their party: Robert Alfonso Taft could plausibly aspire to follow the lead of his father, William Howard Taft; George W. Bush did follow George H.W. Bush. But none of Herbert Hoover’s relatives have run for high office. Subsequent James Earl Carters have likewise pursued other endeavors. There have been no more new Nixons—and Nixon resigned from office only 1 point less popular than George W. Bush in October, 2008.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/jeb-bush-cant-win/393656/

JEB BUSH - MAY 22 15 JEB BUSH - MAY 22 15 - 2

Warmongers; McCain Told Netanyahu “Show Contempt For Obama And Bomb Iran;” John Bolton In The NYT Said; “Only Option, US Must Bomb Iran”

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 31, 2015 by sheriffali

According to a 2013 study by the Costs of War Project at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost the United States more than $4 trillion. Over the coming decades, that number will likely rise by trillions more. If you include America’s military operations in Pakistan, these wars have taken the lives of roughly 300,000 people. And almost 15 years later, both Iraq and Afghanistan are virtually failed states.

 

This does not mean The New York Times should never publish op-eds proposing new wars. Although always tragic, war can sometimes be less horrible than the alternative. And it does not mean The New York Times should never publish op-eds by people who have supported disastrous wars. Even commentators who have made huge errors in the past may still contribute useful arguments in the present. At least I hope so, given that I supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq myself.

 

But what The New York Times should not do is let people who have supported disastrous wars in the past propose new wars casually. If you want to advocate for a new war in the most prestigious newspaper in the United States, you should have to grapple, at least briefly, with the potential dangers. Given the costs, both financial and human, of America’s post-9/11 conflicts, that’s not too much to ask.

 

Which brings me to John Bolton’s Thursday New York Times op-ed, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Bolton was both a booster, and a minor architect, of the war in Iraq. As George W. Bush’s undersecretary of state in late 2002, he told the BBC that, “We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq.” He added that, “the Iraqi people would be unique in history if they didn’t welcome the overthrow of this dictatorial regime,” and that although building a democracy would prove a “difficult task,” the people of Iraq “are fully competent to do it.” So competent, in fact, that “the American role [in post-war Iraq] actually will be fairly minimal.”

 

That’s what Bolton said publicly. Privately, according to a 2005 report by the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee, he distributed classified information about Joe Wilson in an attempt to smear the former ambassador, who was then questioning President Bush’s claim that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. Bolton also played a key role in forcing out Jose Bustani, director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, because he feared Bustani’s inspectors in Iraq would undermine the case for war. It was behavior like this that led Washington Post columnist David Ignatius to observe that Bolton “epitomizes the politicization of intelligence that helped produce the fiasco over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.”

 

Should this disqualify Bolton from penning a New York Times op-ed urging America to bomb Iran? No. But it should have disqualified him from penning the op-ed he published on Thursday.

 

In the section of his op-ed in which he calls for war, Bolton writes:

 

The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.

 

Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

 

That’s it. Robert Gates, who led the CIA under George H.W. Bush before becoming George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s defense secretary, has said bombing Iran could prove a “catastrophe,” and that Iran’s “capacity to wage a series of terror attacks across the Middle East aimed at us and our friends, and dramatically worsen the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere is hard to overestimate.” Meir Dagan, who led Israel’s external spy service, the Mossad, from 2002 to 2011, has warned that an attack on Iran “would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.” In the aftermath of a military strike, he added, “The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible.”

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 JOHN McCAIN - 10 JOHN BOLTON LARGE IDIOT 3

http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/john-bolton-times-iran-bomb-war/388850/

 

 

Saddam Hussein’s Elite Force “The Republican Guards,” Is ISIS!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 6, 2014 by sheriffali

When Bush And Cheney Blindly Invaded Iraq And Toppled Saddam Hussein, They Fired Hussein’s Entire Army Including Iraq’s Highly Trained Republican Guards And The Fiasco You See Today, Is The Result Of The Bush Administration Illegal Invasion Of Iraq, And Bad Decisions By The Right Wing Neocons, RWNJ!

 

George W Bush, Dick Cheney and his Band of Right-Wing-Nutt-Jobs, Republican Neocons; their unintelligent, ignorant, arrogant phantasmagoric rationales and internecine Policies, have and will continue to haunt us for years to come.

 

Immediately after toppling Saddam Hussein the Neocons lead by Paul Bremer, Bush appointed Administrator/Envoy, fired the hundreds of thousands of Iraq’s Military in 2003, including Iraq’s best fighting force, Hussein’s Republican Guards. Did the Bush Administration have a functioning brain within their decision making? Did they think that hundreds of thousands of Troops with no other jobs but Military would just somehow vanish into thin air?

 

The Republican Guards knows the lay of the Iraq Land better than anyone in the world and unless we remained in Iraq as a permanent Occupier, Iraq’s Elite Force was going to wait their turn to take revenge and they certainly have in the Form Of ISIS. The lighting speed for which they have and continue to seize territory inside Iraq is no mystery. After all, Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq from 1979 until he was captured in December 2003. For 24 years the Republican Guards received tremendous benefits from Hussein and their only job was to protect Saddam from any uprising within Iraq for which they lived a very comfortable life.  

 

This is not a defense of Saddam Hussein but to his credit when he Governed Iraq there was no Terrorist Groups of any kind inside of Iraq. In addition Hussein kept Iran in check because he fought a land war with Iran from 1980 to 1988 and Hussein was the Victor.

 

President Obama and his Military Advisors are correct in their thinking and that is, Military Action can only delay consequences but it is no apothecary for a long term solution. For any sanity to prevail in Iraq, the Iraqis are going to have to come to a balanced Political solution, whereby, all Iraqis would have a vested interest in their country and in so doing, they wouldn’t only expel the perpetrators, ISIS, Al Qaeda and the likes, they would keep them out from returning.

 

This is an article Paul Bremer wrote in the Wall Street Journal earlier this year;

 

 Bremer penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal under the headline “Only America Can Prevent a Disaster in Iraq,” in which he argued for some form of U.S. troops on the ground there. After 4,490 American lives lost and $1.7 trillion spent, Erin Burnett asked him, “How can you advocate any more people, any more lives going to risk for that country?”

 

 

“Because it’s in our interest,” Bremer responded matter-of-factly, going to elaborate that the U.S. cannot allow Iraq to become a home base for terrorists like those that constitute the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

 

Taking on the role of the skeptical viewers, Burnett asked Bremer, “Aren’t you the one who got us into this mess?” She confronted Bremer with video from 2003 of him heralding Iraq’s “hopeful” future after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

 

Bremer defended his words and the actions the Bush administration took to bring democracy to Iraq, instead blaming the Obama administration for presiding over the deterioration of those gains over the last few years.

 

“We won don’t you know. And if we’d just ignored the status of forces agreement and said we were going to stay there forever whether the Iraqis wanted us there or not, we could have proven it. These guys need to go slither back into the holes they crawled out of.”

 

The people that have advocated that United States Military remain permanently in Iraq, do you see, can you find, their sons and daughters being part of that occupation. As a matter of fact, the instigators of re-invading Iraq, 97% of them are “Draft Dodgers.”

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 BARACK OBAMA - BUSH - IRAQ REP GUARDS

CNN using John McCain and Fox News using Dick Cheney; different Companies but the same agenda! Bash and Discredit President Obama!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 11, 2014 by sheriffali

There isn’t any doubt that Fox News is definitely Anti-Obama. They don’t disguise their disdain for the President and all of their Hosts and their Guests, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld and the likes, their agendas are crystal clear.

 

However, in the case of CNN one has to look much farther. Notice CNN’S affinity with John McCain. If you want to find McCain you have to look no further than CNN. Is it because CNN is seeking objective facts from John McCain? No! CNN can count on McCain to the tell the biggest of lies and misinformation and whether it is Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Candy Crowley or others, they never question McCain’s distorted promulgation of blatant lies. For CNN, John McCain is their Guy to stir up commotions that are always factually untrue. For CNN that is News.

 

In 2013 John McCain was in Syria and he took out a photograph with members of ISIS. At that time McCain was highly critical of President Obama for not supporting ISIS. Then in 2014 the same John McCain is calling for President Obama to attack ISIS.  

 

Subsequent to President Obama’s speech on ISIS Wednesday night September 10, 2014, Anderson Cooper had multiple guests on his program. James Carney, the former White House Spokesman for President Obama and in addition to the other Guests, like a magician, Anderson Cooper pulled out John McCain as did Clint Eastwood and his Magnum in his Dirty Harry Movies.

 

McCain sat there and confronted Mr. Carney with lies, deception and everything that would allow the most uniformed to sense the insanity McCain possess, however, Anderson Cooper never once, challenged McCain. Does Anderson Cooper know the facts? Of course he does, but that is where the Cross Roads of CNN and FOX meet. Bash and discredit the President.

 

McCain claim that Obama willfully didn’t leave a residual force in Iraq is absolutely untrue. Nour al-Maliki, the man that was living in Iran in exile for 20 years, was appointed by Bush and Cheney as Prime Minister of Iraq. Bush signed an agreement in 2008 that all American Combat Forces would leave Iraq by December 31, 2011. Earlier in 2011 the Obama Administration sought a signed Status of Forces Agreement from Mr. Maliki. Maliki refused and there was no way to leave American Forces in Iraq without them being subjected to Iraqi law. There is no mystery as to why Maliki didn’t sign the agreement and that is because Maliki’s orders came from Iran and Iran didn’t want American forces in Iraq.

 

Hence, John McCain’s claim on Anderson Cooper’s program September 10, 2014 that we could have left troops in Iraq, is blatantly untrue.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 CNN - FOX - OBAMA

 

Wake up America! George W Bush and his Administration damage to America will take two decades plus to repair; Obama is doing his best, but he is not GOD! Bush and Cheney Blood Oil Money!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 11, 2014 by sheriffali

Cheney’s Company Halliburton benefitted 39.5 Billion from the Iraq War and many others in the Bush Administration are benefactors of the death and destruction we created in 2003 to this present day. All of the money made by the parasitic plagues that eats away at society is BLOOD MONEY.  They should all remember; Karma works both ways; it can be a blessing or a curse. You reap what you sow!

 

In the photograph attached with this blog you would see the Provinces of Iraq; ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, British Petroleum and Total. Yes, deny it to your heart’s content, but Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq for OIL!

 

4,500 American Soldiers lost their lives; over 50,000 severely injured; tens of thousands suffer with mental problems; we have spent 1.7 trillion dollars thus far; we killed 100,000 plus Iraqis and yes, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Condoleezza Rice and others in the Bush Administration committed War Crimes against Americans and against Iraqis.

 

But, when America or Israel commits crimes, there is an automatic exemption for the Criminals. I am no defender of Vladimir Putin and what he did in Crimea is wrong, but so are we. I am also no defender of any terrorists or terror group, but the Palestinians are fighting to break a 47 year siege by Israel of their Air, Land and Sea Border. And yes, America has the power to force Israel to lift the siege and allow the Palestinians to live out their God given dreams and aspirations, but, 47 years later, Israel is still killing the people, committing genocide and there isn’t any outburst in America, rather, not all, but many Americans applaud what Israel has done and is doing.

 

President Obama inherited the worst situation than any other American President in the past 70 years; he managed to stop the hemorrhaging of Unemployment, Housing, Our Financial System; More than doubled the Stock Market; kept us out of Wars and where is the gratitude? By a margin of 60%, if the Polls are correct, Americans are dissatisfied with the Job Obama is doing.  

 

All of the Media, Television, Radio, News Papers, Magazines and Publishers are owned by six [6] Corporations and yes, the Media is complicit in all of this debauchery. Look at CNN or FOX, both continually have the War Criminals as guests, lambasting Obama for the disaster they created and they are treated by the Hosts of these two Television Stations with the utmost respect. However, every opportunity natural or forced, the Media in general, tramples over President Obama.

 

More often than not, I wonder just how Mr. Obama feels about how he is treated and the words of Frederick Douglass is a stalk reminder, as how accurately Mr. Douglass articulated the Republican Legislators behavior towards the African American. Mr. Douglass said;

 

“Though the colored man is no longer subject to barter and sale, he is surrounded by an adverse settlement which fetters all his movements. In his downward course he meets with no resistance, but his course upward is resented and resisted at every step of his progress.

 

If he comes in ignorance, rags and wretchedness he conforms to the popular belief of his character, and in that character he is welcome; but if he shall come as a gentleman, a scholar and a statesman, he is hailed as a contradiction to the national faith concerning his race, and his coming is resented as impudence.” [Republican Frederick Douglass, September 25 1883]

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 AMERICA - BUSH - CHENEY BLOOD OIL MONEY AUG 11 14

 

John Bolton, Former Ambassador under George W Bush spent $14,000.00 on Twitter Ads Bashing Obama

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 24, 2014 by sheriffali

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, a Republican who said he is mulling a run for president in 2016, is a somewhat ubiquitous presence for politicos on Twitter.

 

The Washington Post documented in July how users who search for terms like “GOP” or even just “politics” on Twitter are greeted with ads from Bolton blasting President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. For example, Business Insider just did a Twitter search for “Benghazi” and was presented with ads featuring surveys asking if Israel is justified in its conflict with Hamas and if we agree that “Iran is taking America to the cleaners.” 

 

These ads weren’t free. According to the July federal campaign finance filings, Bolton’s PAC spent $30,000 on online advertising and his super PAC spent another $20,000. Of that total, $14,353 went to Twitter ads, Bolton spokesman Garrett Marquis told Business Insider.

 

We must never forget that John Bolton along with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and others in the Bush gang are the people that that got us into Iraq and the badly mismanaged war in Afghanistan at a cost of thousands of American lives, in excess of 50,129 wounded at a cost of 5.1 trillion dollars to date.

 

Republicans and Fox News slams President Obama 24/7 while idolizing Vladimir Putin – the Incarnate Stalin. Imagine, Americans that are so hell bent on wanting Obama to falter at the cost of America, they worship the killer of the 298 people that were killed on the Malaysian Flight!

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 FOX NEWS AND REPUBLICANS IDOLIZE PUTIN