what purgatory inhabit we
what called upon gods and spirits
what discourse
what bounds seen unseen define and limit us
what purpose created
what questions troll too deep

beware
all are plantations online owned

disbelieve me
chill the wrong spines

To this date no one has been held accountable for the propaganda leading up to the war less than a year later on March 20, 2003.  And probably never will...

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarized the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbors to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

A fleet of hybrid vehicles, some bearing tags for the Democratic National Convention, sits parked in the storage lot of a former rental car company at Denver International Airport in Denver Tuesday July 22, 2008.

 The committee hosting the Democratic National Convention is using the city's gas pumps to fill up on fuel, avoiding state and federal highway taxes, officials said today.

"There's something there that just doesn't seem right to me because, in a sense, you're saying then that the officials who pass the laws are not willing to live by them, and that concerns me," Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz said.

The issue came up during the council's weekly meeting with Mayor John Hickenlooper when the Public Works Department requested authorization to be reimbursed by the Denver 2008 Convention Host Committee for use of "fueling facilities, fuel and car washes."

"By doing it this way, by running it through our Fleet Maintenance, that means that that fuel does not pay state or federal highway taxes," Faatz said.

Christine Downs, a public works spokeswoman, said the host committee is not paying the city's locked-in fuel rate but one that's based on the weekly cost of gas. Downs was unable to provide council members an example.

Downs said the contract with the host committee started in March and that $9,700 had been expended so far. The city anticipates making $466,125 total from the contract, she said.

Faatz asked if it was customary to have "fleets for dignitaries" not pay for highway taxes if they're using government fuel facilities.

Hickenlooper said it was.

"I believe this is only for elected officials, government dignitaries," Hickenlooper told Faatz.

"My understanding is in Washington or wherever where this happens on a regular basis, that it's standard operating procedure. I do know for a fact that they're doing the same exact thing in Minneapolis," which is hosting the Republican National Convention, the mayor said.

"Hummmmm," Faatz said.

Hummmmm is right.

Teresa McFarland, a spokeswoman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul host committee, said they're getting their gas at the pump.

"We're not getting a tax break on fuel," she said. "That's not the set-up at this end."

After the meeting, Faatz said it was wrong for the DNC host committee to get a tax break.

"I am just troubled by not having the payment of taxes for what I consider to be a privately funded party, and that's what the host committee is: it's a private organization," she said.

"The DNC is not government. The RNC is not government," said Faatz, who, at the time, had been told that the "same exact thing" was happening in Minneapolis-St. Paul. "They are political parties and they are putting on a huge party, and that is not providing services to each and every citizen each day."

In Colorado, consumers pay 40.4 cents in taxes on every gallon of gasoline. That includes the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon and the Colorado gasoline tax of 22 cents per gallon.

"If you've got a 14-gallon tank, on the average, that's about $5.66 that they don't have to pay for fill up," Councilman Charlie Brown said.

Brown also questioned the need for car washes.

"Why are we washing cars in the middle of a drought?" he asked. "Where are the green police when we need them? Are they poking around restaurants to see that nobody fries food?"
Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Poetry by John Berryman - Dream Song 40:

I'm scared a lonely. Never see my son,
easy be not to see anyone,
combers out to sea
know they're goin somewhere but not me.
Got a little poison, got a little gun,
I'm scared a lonely.

I'm scared a only one thing, which is me,
from othering I don't take nothin, see,
for any hound dog's sake.
But this is where I livin, where I rake
my leaves and cop my promise, this' where we
cry oursel's awake.

Wishin was dyin but I gotta make
it all this way to that bed on these feet
where peoples said to meet.
Maybe but even if I see my son
forever never, get back on the take,
free, black & forty-one.

In my first year at my negative-heel alternative whole grain college, I took a poetry class/seminar. There couldn't have been more than 6 students.It was "American Poetry" and we did Berryman's "Homage to Mistress Bradstreet" and when the brilliant other students in the class were puzzling over a line, I said "he's talking about an apple"

So I got fond of Berryman and when I read Dream Song 40 within a few years after the class, I had to think-is he aping a black man's experience or is he a really good poet that transcends such shit?

Usually in the mornings I turn on a local talk radio station for weather and traffic.  It isnt really righty at that hour.  Mostly local news with call ins.  The station leans conservative though.  Aside from the two drive time shows its mostly national syndicated wingers.

So this morn they were discussing - and distancing - themselves from savage.  They were encouraging listeners to call because they might drop savage if the public is done with him.

I find it unbelievable that these particular comments caused such a stir.  I guess its ok to call for gays to be put in concentartion camps and say things about Michelle Obama that we at PFF wouldnt even say in jest.

While the donklesphere has been crusading against Billo and Imus, Savage has been spreading filth for years.  With Billo I just think he is wrong and stupid.  Savage has actually offended me time and again.  His hatefilled comments arent satire and not funny and offer no real substance on any issue.  Glenn Beck looks liek Ted Kopell compared to him. He has suggested viloence time and again. He is also a lying Zionist propagandist who chimes in when ever Israel is getting bad press.

I hate to forget to turn the radio off because if I dont he will be on when I get home at nite.

Yes, radio stations should drop him but not for his comments about retards.  

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City-actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we've had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war-only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

An Athens court rejected an injunction application by Dimitris Lambrou, a magazine editor, to ban the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece (OLKE), from using the word 'lesbian' in their title in a sexual context.

"Today's decision is unacceptable and an insult to the people of Lesbos and their three thousand year long history", said Mr Lambrou.

"The decision means that we will appeal instantly to a higher court and, at the appropriate time, to the European Court of Human Rights".

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

Welcome to Day 43 of ImpeachmentWatch™, your daily diary that tracks Impeachment, whether the Mainstream Media covers it or not.

Why isn't Impeachment on Nancy Pelosi's Table?

The Speaker's excuses are frivolous. One does not agree to remain complicit with tyranny on the illusion fact finding might be divisive. Division is the intent of the Framers: To ensure power is not centralized, and divided. Pelosi supports centralizing unchecked power under tyranny.

Even when Democrats retook the House and Senate, the first thing they did was declare -- almost pridefully -- that "impeachment was off the table." It was like a fire chief announcing that "response to house fires is off the table," or a district attorney declaring that "rape prosecutions are off the table."

I suppose one would have to be a dedicated hermit not to know that Barack Obama is making a tour of the war zones this week. The networks sent all three anchors, the troops are cheering for him (Except of course for the generals, who fear for their jobs and reputations.) and the bullshit media  hoopla is almost deafening. (Or at least it would be if I actually turned on my TV and allowed the hypnotism to do its work.

However...in case you have any doubts about who has been tapped to be the new King, please contrast that extended pre-coronation tour with the plight of the other team that has been tabbed as the designated patsy in this little sham.

From the Manchester Union Leader a nastily right wing paper for generations.

In Manchester last night, there was just one reporter and one photographer waiting for McCain as his plane -- a white, blue and gold Boeing 737-400 emblazoned with his campaign slogan, "Reform, Prosperity, Peace" -- touched down on the Wiggins Airways tarmac.

The Vietnam War veteran limped as he made his way down the metal stairway, a leather briefcase in one hand and a cell phone in the other, and walked straight into an awaiting Chevy Suburban.

Note the germane words here:

"...just one reporter..." and "limped".

Mmmm HMMMM!!!

M'man McCain is the first presidential candidate ever to succeed in being a lame duck before the conventions even convened.

Quite an accomplishment.

Congrats, Mac.

Yer playin' yer part well.

The world needs supporting actors jes' like it does stars.

SEE ya, chunky!!!

Ya shoulda had a V8.

AG

"You're blocking, you're blocking...stop repressing your genocidal urges towards Muslims & Croats!"

(CNN) -- Bosnian Serb war crimes fugitive Radovan Karadzic was so convinced of his disguise he regularly contributed to a health magazine as he brazenly built up his profile as an alternative medical practitioner, The Associated Press reported Tuesday.

the selfish powerful
know fear

zombies and puppets and trolls
oh my

then we all trade places