Category Archives: The Shrub War

Pentagon Hawk Richard Perle Admits That Shrub War Was Illegal Under International Law

2 Replies

Is illegal. Not was illegal. The damn thing isn’t over yet!

War Critics Astonished as U.S. Hawk Admits Invasion Was Illegal
By Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger for The Guardian UK.

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.”
President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq – also the British government’s publicly stated view – or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.
But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that “international law … would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone”, and this would have been morally unacceptable…
The Pentagon adviser’s views, he added, underlined “a divergence of view between the British government and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it’s the case that international law doesn’t permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law”.
Mr Perle’s view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America’s “sovereign authority to use force” to defeat the threat from Baghdad…
“I think Perle’s statement has the virtue of honesty,” said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal.
“And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along.”
The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.
Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay.
The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was “very sensitive” to British sentiment. “We also expect to be resolving this in the near future,” he told the BBC.
That provides no comfort for Jennings

Vice Chairman Of The U.S. Joint Chiefs Of Staff Says That Osama Bin Laden Is No Longer Target Of War On Terror

1 Reply

From the “what the hell are you talking about?” file, this news is just in from the Shrub Administration: Bin Laden’s No Longer Enemy #1.
That means that this “War On Terror” now officially has nothing to do with 911 (as if it ever was).
All you have to do is “take yourself out of the picture,” and our Army will stop chasing you!
What a great deal!
U.S. General Says Bin Laden ‘Out of the Picture’
By Yousuf Azimy for Reuters.

A senior U.S. general said on Friday that al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden (news – web sites) had “taken himself out of the picture” and that his capture was not essential to winning the “war on terror.”
General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at U.S. military headquarters just north of Kabul that the 11,500-strong U.S.-led force hunting al Qaeda and Taliban militants was not focusing on individuals.
“He (bin Laden) has taken himself out of the picture,” Pace told reporters after visiting U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan (news – web sites).
“It is not an individual that is as important as is the ongoing campaign of the coalition against terrorists,” he said.
America’s new ambassador to Kabul Zalmay Khalilzad said earlier this week that the U.S. military would “redouble” its efforts to find bin Laden and other al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.
While appearing to contradict this, Pace, added: “That is not to say that we would not be glad to capture Osama bin Laden today or tomorrow.”

Continue reading →

Bill Moyers On The Insider Business Deals Between Shrub Administration Officials And Iraqi Reconstruction Companies

Leave a reply

Specifically, between Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense and several companies (many related to his “former” business associate Marc Zell), including: Zell, Goldberg and Company, Diligence, New Bridge Strategies, Barber, Griffith and Rogers, SAIC (courtesy of current Shrub Administration Official and former SAIC Senior Vice President Ryan Henry), and The Iraqi International Law Group.




This story aired on NOW With Bill Moyers on November 14, 2003.
This story, “Cash and Carry,” was Produced by Katie Pitra, features correspondent Roberta Baskin, and was Edited by Alison Amron.
This incredible segment documents the direct connections between the Shrub Administration and the main two or three companies that are profiting directly from the Iraqi reconstruction.
Join them as they connect the dots and talk to several of these people first hand. (Many would not return their phone calls, but others were very up front and matter-of-fact about it.)
I’ve taken screen grabs of many of the diagrams and things and transcribed information straight from the program for your convenience.
Here’s some technical information about getting quicktime going to watch these movies.
Bill Moyers – Cash and Carry – Complete (Small – 36 MB)
Bill Moyers – Cash and Carry – Part 1 of 3 (Small – 12 MB)
Bill Moyers – Cash and Carry – Part 2 of 3 (Small – 14 MB)
Bill Moyers – Cash and Carry – Part 3 of 3 (Small – 11 MB)
Below: Roberta Baskin


Here’s Bill Moyers’ Introduction:

“Welcome to NOW. The news from Iraq just keeps coming. A secret CIA report this week warns that ‘more and more Iraqis believe the U.S. could actually lose the war.’ American troops have started using Vietnam-like tactics, hitting back at suspected enclaves without proof that they’re harboring insurgents. And American authorities are now limiting press access to both troops and independent contractors in Iraq…
As you know, there’s a big debate over those billion dollar contracts being handed out to rebuild Iraq. Some Democratic Presidential candidates say the government is playing favorites. Defenders of the process, however, say “nonsense.”…
..it’s not easy to sort out the facts because the whole process in shrouded in buracracy and secrecy. One thing is certain, a lot of people in Washington and Baghdad look upon what’s happening as a modern equivalent of a gold rush. They’re not shy about promoting their political connections to get to the front of the line.”

Here’s Roberta Baskin’s opening:

“Here beneath Iraq’s landscape lies a vast ocean of oil. The second largest oil reserve in the world with over 100 billion barrels of crude ready to be tapped. When America invaded Iraq last March, troops raced first to secure the rich fields of Kier Cook (sp). So with vast reserves just waiting, why is the U.S. Government paying the Halliburton Corporation $2.65 per gallon to ship gasoline into Iraq from Kuwait, when one investigation discovered it could be done for less than a dollar a gallon.
The price difference alone is costing tax payers as much as a 100 million dollars. When we asked Halliburton about this discrepancy, they wouldn’t tell us. And even a United States Congressman (Henry Waxman D-CA) can’t find out why.
‘Why are we paying $1.65 a gallon more? Is it because Halliburton is gouging the public? Is it because the Kuwaitis are overcharging Halliburton? Is it because there’s a culture where they don’t care what they pay because the tax payers are going to pay the bill so there’s no reason for them to want to hold down the costs?’ (Waxman) …
‘If the evidence of what Halliburton has been charging for gasoline to be brought into Iraq is emblematic of anything, it’s emblematic of no oversight, no transparency, and fleecing of the tax payers.’ (Waxman)…
Just as the war started, Halliburton was awarded a no bid 7 billion dollar contract to repair Iraq’s oil industry…Halliburton proved itself after the first Gulf war, putting out the fires in the oil fields. The Pentagon has said it didn’t want to waste time finding someone new if Saddam burned the oil fields again, but Waxman says it’s a prime example of what’s wrong with the secrecy surrounding the government’s contracts, because in the initial 87 billion dollar Iraq aid package there was another 2 billion dollars for Halliburton. And when Waxman started asking, he says neither the goverment nor the company seemed to know whay the 2 billion dollars was there or what it was for.
‘We’ve got billions here, billions there. As one senator once said “A billion here, a billion there, it starts adding up into real money.” ‘ (Waxman)…



Who is Mark Zell?
Mark Zell is the principal of “Zell, Goldberg and Company,” which assists American companies in connection with Iraqi reconstruction projects.
From Roberta Baskin:

“And just who at the firm can connect you to the American Government? None other than Marc Zell. A former law partner of Douglas Feith. Who’s Douglas Feith? Undersecretary of Defense. One of the handful of advisors who, long before September 11, championed the campaign to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Now Douglas Feith is the man in charge of the Pentagon’s reconstruction of Iraq.
To sum up, Marc Zell is one well connected middleman standing right between the people to give the contracts and the people who want them. We asked to interview him about all this, but our calls were not returned.”







More from Roberta Baskin:

“But even at the war’s front lines, middlemen are busy making their deals. Marc Zell also works with a different firm called “The Iraqi International Law Group,” which very much wants to be “your professional gateway to the new Iraq.” Who’s in charge of that gateway? A man named Salem Chalabi.
He has a famous uncle, Ahmed Chalabi. You see him there in Iraq, but before the war, this exile was hand picked by the planners in the Pentagon to shape the new government. When the war started, they air lifted Chalabi into the country with his own 700 man militia. At the center of all that planning, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Whose old law partner, Marc Zell, now works with Ahmed Chalabi’s nephew, providing that gateway to the new Iraq.”







More from Roberta Baskin:

“And Chalabi isn’t the only member of the Iraqi leadership with close relatives lining up for those rebuilding contracts. The son of one Chalabi aid runs a phone company that is part of the group that won the contract to provide cell service to southern Iraq. Chalabi’s aid told the Los Angeles Times that he doesn’t understand what all the fuss over his son’s inside connections. Comparing his son to the Americans, he said “It didn’t stop Cheney from becoming the Vice President.”



More from Roberta Baskin:

“But these aren’t the only friends of government promoting their inside influence in what’s being called The Iraq Gold Rush. One firm was established just for that purpose: New Bridge Strategies…If you can’t find your way around Baghdad, Mike Baker will lend you a hand. He’s a former CIA officer and part of the management team [its CEO] for New Bridge Strategies Strategies and its sister company Diligence, a security firm. Both are staffed by old Washington hands and both are headquartered in the offices of Barber, Griffith and Rogers. The “Barber” in that title is Haley Barber, a former chairman of the Republican party and one of the highest paid lobbyists in Washington. He’s now the Governer-elect of Missippi.”
‘Newbridge Strategies is staffed by people that have a great deal of experience in Washington. Everyone from Joe Albot to Ed Rogers. They understand how the administration thinks.’ (Mark Baker)
“They should understand how the administration thinks. They used to be in it. Joe Albot ran George W. Bush’s campaign for President, and was then put in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Mike Baker’s other collegue is this man, Ed Rogers. He served as a deputy assistant to the first President Bush. Here he is in Iraq with Mike Baker, posing in front of a tank outfitted in flak jackets and sporting a semi-automatic rifle.”







The Center For The Public Integrity has been trying to find out information about the nature of the work specified in some of these contracts, and is getting a lot of resistance.
More from Roberta Baskin:

“No one has tried harder to get at those details [of the deals] than the watchdog group the Center For The Public Integrity. In a six month investigation, the Center found that cozy insider relationships have become an accepted way of doing business in the fight against terrorism.”…
But skeptics might be more easily persuaded if the government didn’t shroud all this in so much secrecy. That secrecy makes it practically impossible to find out if those close to the administration are profiting off their inside information. And it makes it equally hard to find out if tax payers are getting their money’s worth…
For example, in the name of secrecy, the Pentagon redacted almost every page of this contract. They have made it impossible to answer questions about fees being charged, or the work being done, or even the total cost of the job. Just look at the blacked out sections of this deal with the defense contractor SAIC…
All we know for certain about the contractor SAIC is that the top people of this privately held Fortune 500 company are wired into the Pentagon. On the board are a retired general and a former Assistant Secretary of Defense. And then there’s Ryan Henry, he was SAIC’s Senior Vice President. Until, that is, he went through that revolving door into the Pentagon. Into the very office that now supervises his former company’s contract.”









Below: The blacked out numbers of the SAIC contract.


Below: Some Members Of Congress Are Trying To Get To The Bottom Of This




Below: Some Iraqi Native Businessmen Are Complaining They Can’t Compete With American Companies

Bill Moyers NOW On The Mistreatment Of Shrub War Veterans: Case Study – The Stiffler Family

Leave a reply

This story aired on NOW With Bill Moyers on November 7, 2003.
This clip is exerpted from the complete feature, “Coming Home,” which was Produced by Dan Klein, features correspondent David Brancaccio, and was Edited by Amanda Zindman.


Jason Stiffler was manning a watch tower in Afghanistan when it fell out from under him. It’s still unclear whether it was an engineering failure, an attack, or friendly fire. Whatever the cause, he fell 25 feet and suffered seizures at the scene and eventually went into a coma. He suffered serious spinal cord injuries and other injuries. He was quadraplegic for some time after the accident, eventually regained limited use of his legs after months of physical therapy, although it still causes him great pain to move.
A year ago October, he was released from the hospital and placed on the Army’s temporary duty list, which meant he was now eligible for medical care and payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Stifflers say they waited for promised phone call from the VA that never came. With his physical and mental condition deteriorating, Jason visited the regional VA hospital in Ft. Wayne, which had no record of him and was only able to offer limited assistance and care.
As David Brancaccio puts it: “Jason Stiffler, badly wounded veteran of America’s War On Terror, was on his own.”
Background on the complete video of the segment:
This story focuses on several families whose fathers put their lives on the line to go fight in Iraq, and were injured in combat. Upon returning home, they were given little or no medical or financial support whatsoever, and were told to seek handouts to get by.
Excerpt from David Brancaccio’s introduction:

..another young vet from the 101st airborne came home to a different kind of reception, one that was to leave him and his family nearly destitute.
Jason Stiffler followed a boyhood dream into the army at the age of 18. He was eager to defend his country. In return, he assumed it would take care of him.
“It was part of the agreement that we made on March 23, 01, when I signed up. I specifically remember that day because it was the first thing I asked. ‘If anything happens to me, will I be taken care of?’ Oh yeah, yeah, just sign right here.”…
“There was a timeframe when I wasn’t getting paid nothing.” (Stiffler)
“How did you make ends meet during that time?” (Brancaccio)
“You know what they told us? ‘Churches,’ ‘family,’ ‘friends,’ ‘welfare.'” (Stiffler)

Here’s some technical information about getting quicktime going to watch these movies.
The Story Of The Stiffler Family (Small – 10 MB)



Bill Moyers NOW On The Mistreatment Of Shrub War Veterans

Leave a reply

This story aired on NOW With Bill Moyers on November 7, 2003.
This story, “Coming Home,” was Produced by Dan Klein and features correspondent David Brancaccio. It was Edited by Amanda Zindman.
This story focuses on several families whose fathers put their lives on the line to go fight in Iraq, and were injured in combat. Upon returning home, they were given little or no medical or financial support whatsoever, and were told to seek handouts to get by.
This is available in one big 38 MB clip and in three smaller clips for easier downloading off small connections. I’ve also transcribed portions and am including some info with the pictures.
I’ve also put up some clips of one of the families, the Stifflers, that was featured in this segment.
Here’s some technical information about getting quicktime going to watch these movies.
Bill Moyers On Mistreated Vets – Complete (Small – 38 MB)
Bill Moyers On Mistreated Vets – Part 1 of 3 (Small – 12 MB)
Bill Moyers On Mistreated Vets – Part 2 of 3 (Small – 16 MB)
Bill Moyers On Mistreated Vets – Part 3 of 3 (Small – 11 MB)
Excerpt from Bill Moyers’ introduction:

“In Iraq, for every soldier killed, 7 are wounded. 1,300 since May 1st. That’s twice as many as were wounded during the war itself. The New Republic reports that nearly every night, under the cover of darkness, ambulences meet C-17 and C-141 transport planes flying into Andrews airforce base to ferry the wounded to military facilities. The government hasn’t wanted us to see them, but that’s beginning to change as the numbers mount and as journalists keep insisting on knowing who are these wounded and what’s happening to them.”















Rumsfeld On Meet The Press: No Way To Know How Many Troops It Will Take (“It Is Unknowable”)

Leave a reply

This is from the November 2, 2003 program of Meet the Press.

Complete Video and Photos
Rumsfeld: No Way To Know How Many Troops It Will Take (“It Is Unknowable”) (Small – 5 MB)
Tim Russert:
“Time magazine reports this today, that this question was asked in the closed briefing with senators, “‘What troop levels do we expect to have in Iraq a year from now?,’ asked Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader. And with that, the Pentagon chief began to tap dance.” Do you believe that you have an obligation to tell our leaders in Congress what your best estimate is for troop levels in Iraq a year from now?”
Donald Rumsfeld:
“You know, since — any war, when it starts, the questions are obvious. The questions are: How long is it going to last? How many casualties will there be? And, How many troops will it take?
Now, those questions can’t be answered. Every time someone has answered those questions, they’ve been wrong. They have been embarrassingly wrong. I’ll use another word: They have “misinformed.” By believing they knew the answers to those questions, they’ve misinformed and misled the American people.
I made a conscious decision at the outset of these conflicts to not pretend I knew something I didn’t know. And what I have said is just that. I have said it is not knowable.
Now, if you think about Bosnia, we were told by the administration back then that the American forces would be out by Christmas. That was six and a half years ago. They’re not out yet. That was — that — the effect of that was not consciously misleading — I’m sure they believed it. They were that wrong — six and a half years wrong. I don’t intend to be wrong six and a half years. I intend to have people understand the truth, and the truth is no one knows. But why is that question not answerable?
And Bill Frist knows this. He asked it because others were interested in that question. He’s been very supportive and very complimentary of what we’re doing, and it was not a critical question at all. It was a question that should have been raised. And I said was this: The security situation on the ground is going to determine the total number of security forces that are needed in Iraq.”

Rumsfeld On Meet The Press: On The Shrub Administration’s Refusal To Cooperate With Congress

1 Reply

This clip includes some harsh criticism from prominent Repubs such as Frank Wolf and Chuck Hagel.
This is from the November 2, 2003 program of Meet the Press.

Complete Video and Photos

Rumsfeld: On The Shrub Administration’s Refusal To Cooperate With Congress (Small – 5 MB)
Tim Russert:
“Let me turn to some of the concerns expressed by Republicans in the Congress. This was Frank Wolf: Republican allies complain of administration arrogance towards Congress: ‘Pride goeth before the fall.’
And this, a prominent Republican Hill staffer: Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz, your top deputy, ‘just give off the sense that they know better than thou, and they don’t have to answer our questions.’
And this from Chuck Hagel on the Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees, Republican: ‘The Bush administration did miscalculate the difficulty of the war in Iraq. I think they did a miserable job of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq. They treated many in the Congress, most of the Congress, like a nuisance. When we asked questions, we wanted to be helpful, we wanted to participate. And now they are finding out that reality is dominating.’
‘Arrogance?’ ‘Nuisance?’ Not a full appreciation of your fellow Republicans in the Congress?”
Donald Rumsfeld:
“Well, you know, there’s 535 members of the House and Senate, and you are going to find every viewpoint across the spectrum. It’s always been so. You’ve served there — I served in Congress. And there’s always going to be someone who has a different view, and we accept that. We have spent enormous numbers of hours up there — I do. Secretary Powell does. Others in the administration, briefing Senators, briefing House members, briefing staff members. And overwhelmingly they’ve been appreciative of those briefings and felt that they were helpful. We’ve sent up intelligence briefing people on a regularly weekly basis. I think probably there’s been more information back and forth in this conflict during Iraq and Afghanistan than in any conflict in the history of the country.
Now, when people are having their constituents killed, and they see things happening that worry them, understandably they’re going to be worried and concerned about it, and I accept that. And these are tough issues. These are not easy issues. And the fact that there are a variety of views in Congress simply reflects the country. There are a variety of views in the country. And that’s understandable.”







Rumsfeld On Meet The Press: Did He Underestimate The Intensity Of The Resistance?

1 Reply

This is from the November 2, 2003 program of Meet the Press.

Complete Video and Photos
Rumsfeld: Did He Underestimate The Intensity Of The Resistance? (Small – 2 MB)
Tim Russert:
“Did you underestimate the intensity of the resistance?”
Donald Rumsfeld:
“I don’t know. You know, I don’t know that we — you don’t sit down and make a calibration that the resistance will lead to X numbers of Iraqis being killed per week, or that so many coalition people being wounded per week. That isn’t the kind of calibration you make. What you do is you say, here’s what you have to do to prevail. You have got to get the sovereignty transferred over to the Iraqi people, you have got to get the essential services going, and the economy on a path upward. And you’ve got to get the security responsibility transferred to the Iraqi people. That’s — because it’s their country. We’re not going to provide security in their country over a sustained period of time.
So we’ve gone from zero to 100,000 Iraqis providing security in that country, and our plan calls for us to go over 200,000 by next year.”