The Surge is Failing

There goes McCain's last argument. You can bet the Republicans are livid this report leaked to the press.

A nearly completed high-level U.S. intelligence analysis warns that unresolved ethnic and sectarian tensions in Iraq could unleash a new wave of violence, potentially reversing the major security and political gains achieved over the last year.

These leakers should be considered patriots.

More than a half-dozen officials spoke to McClatchy Newspapers on condition of anonymity because NIEs, the most authoritative analyses produced by the U.S. intelligence community, are restricted to the president, his senior aides and members of Congress except in rare instances when just the key findings are made public.

McCain is toast.

The new NIE, which reflects the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, has significant implications for Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, whose differences over the Iraq war are a major issue in the presidential campaign.

The findings seem to cast doubts on McCain's frequent assertions that the United States is "on a path to victory" in Iraq by underscoring the deep uncertainties of the situation despite the 30,000-strong U.S. troop surge for which he was the leading congressional advocate.

Even Petraeus admits victory is elusive.

The findings of the intelligence estimate appear to be reflected in recent statements by Army Gen. David Petraeus, the former top U.S. commander in Iraq, who has called the situation "fragile" and "reversible" and said he will never declare victory there.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice echoed that tone on Monday during a State Department awards ceremony for Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.

"Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is certain in this life. And success in Iraq is not a sure thing," Rice said in an uncharacteristically downbeat comment.

The NIE findings parallel a Defense Department assessment last month that warned that despite "promising developments, security gains in Iraq remain fragile. A number of issues have the potential to upset progress."

That's on top of the critical situation in Afghanistan. Because of the quagmire in Iraq the U.S. government is forced to go hat in hand to our allies begging for help.

NATO allies face calls on Thursday to send more troops to fight Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and boost military spending, despite the prospect of budget cuts due to the global financial crisis.

That same report paints a grim picture in Afghanistan.

A draft report by U.S. intelligence agencies concludes that Afghanistan is in a downward spiral and casts serious doubt on the ability of the Afghan government to stem the rise in the Taliban's influence there, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Vermont Candidate Would Prosecute Bush for Murder, War Crimes

There are some out in government who have the integrity and guts to call for Bush's punishment for his war crimes. This President attacked a country without provocation (it's called the Bush Doctrine) and caused the deaths of 10s of thousands, including 4 thousand American troops. He is a criminal who should be prosecuted by the World Court just like other war criminals. It won't happen but it is the right thing to do.

Lots of political candidates make campaign promises. But not like Charlotte Dennett's.

Dennett, 61, the Progressive Party's candidate for Vermont Attorney General, said Thursday she will prosecute President Bush for murder if she's elected Nov. 4.

Dennett, an attorney and investigative journalist, says Bush must be held accountable for the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq — U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. She believes the Vermont attorney general would have jurisdiction to do so.

She also said she would appoint a special prosecutor and already knows who that should be: former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the author of "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," a new book.

"Someone has to step forward," said Dennett, flanked by Bugliosi at a news conference announcing her plan. "Someone has to say we cannot put up with this lack of accountability any more."

Dennett and two others are challenging incumbent Attorney General William Sorrell, a Democrat, in the Nov. 4 election.

Even some prominent conservatives like Andrew Sullivan agree (he is quoting a writer):

Conservative commentators have already warned against any future US prosecution, arguing that—reprehensible as the treatment of some detainees was—those responsible did not have criminal intent. The argument is unpersuasive on the facts, because Secretary Rumsfeld and others were warned by senior Pentagon civilian and military lawyers, including the navy general counsel, Alberto Mora, that their policies would violate the law.

Of course there are plenty on the left who agree that Bush should be held responsible.

Any attempt to hold high U.S. officials responsible for war crimes likely “will require time and effort but is nevertheless of urgent importance,” an authority on international law said today.

Amy Bartholomew, an associate professor of law at Carleton University , Ottawa , Canada , told a conference seeking prosecutions of President George W. Bush and his aides for war crimes that aggression by "the world's most powerful state" must be punished just as less powerful countries are punished.

Pentagon: The War on Terror will Last for Decades

The administration is doing it's usual scaremongering in time for the elections. But they are right about terror staying with us indefinitely - thanks to Bush.

"Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is crucial to winning this conflict, but it alone will not bring victory."

You can't win the war on terror if you can't even win wars unrelated to terrorism and only make it worse.

"The use of force plays a role, yet military efforts to capture or kill terrorists are likely to be subordinate to measures to promote local participation in government and economic programs to spur development, as well as efforts to understand and address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies," the document said. "For these reasons, arguably the most important military component of the struggle against violent extremists is not the fighting we do ourselves, but how well we help prepare our partners to defend and govern themselves."

Like what isn't being done in Afghanistan.

Defense sources said Gates's strategy met resistance among the Joint Chiefs of Staff because of its focus on irregular warfare. Gates met with the Joint Chiefs to present the rationale behind his strategy, and they expressed concerns over the long-term risks of shifting the focus too far from conventional threats. The service chiefs have worried publicly about shunning preparation for conventional warfare because it could give adversaries a competitive advantage in key arenas, such as in the skies or in space.

Sounds to me like Gates is not much different from Rumsfeld. They still miss the point.

James Jay Carafano, a military expert at the Heritage Foundation, said he finds it refreshing that the Defense Department acknowledges that China and Russia are potential adversaries, but he said he believes the strategy is too heavy on battling extremism.

I got news for you - China and Russia are adversaries. Once again, Bush has made it worse.

Former Cabinet Member: Bush Looked to Invade Iraq before 9-11

"This is the full CBS 60 Minutes 2004 interview of Former Secretary Of Treasury Paul O'Neil and reporter Ron Suskind that discusses Bush asking his National Security Council to "find a way" to invade Iraq during their first meeting in January 2001. Almost 9 months before the September 11th attacks. This seems to have been forgotten by the mainstream media, and the Congress."

January 2001, Bush Sought to "Find A Way" to Invade Iraq
Uploaded by BadKitty

Bush Supported Iraq Oil Deal Benefiting his Texas Friend

More proof that Iraq war was about oil:

U.S. officials condoned Hunt Oil Co. efforts to obtain an exploration deal with Iraq’s Kurdish regional government, contrary to public statements discouraging it, according to documents cited by a congressional committee.

When the agreement was announced in September, it was criticized as undermining efforts to strengthen Iraq central government, which still had no national oil revenue-sharing law.

Bush administration officials expressed public concern and denied any knowledge of the contract.

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman released e-mails and letters obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that appeared to show the opposite.

“Contrary to the denials of administration officials, advisors to the president and officials in the State and Commerce Departments knew about Hunt Oil’s interest in the Kurdish region months before the contract was executed,” Waxman, a California Democrat, wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

[...]“You and other administration officials have denied playing any role in these contracts. In the case of Hunt Oil, however, similar denials appear to have been misleading,” Waxman wrote.

This follows recent news that Western oil companies would get access to Iraq's large reserves.

Iraq is close to signing oil service deals with several major Western oil companies in an effort to boost its output capacity, the country's oil ministry said Thursday — the first major Iraqi contracts with big Western companies since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

[...]The deals, once signed, are something of a stopgap measure to help Iraq begin to increase production until the country is able to approve a new national oil law — now held up by political squabbles among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

But they also could mark the beginning of an important long-term toehold by big Western companies into Iraq's potentially lucrative oil industry, by giving the companies a bidding advantage over other companies in the future.

You can tell the fix is in when the Iraqi government is trying to cover-up the deal:

Iraq's oil ministry spokesman would not name the companies set to get the deals.

But last December, four major companies — Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. — submitted technical and financial proposals for the five oil fields and received counterproposals from the Iraqi side.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Shell, BP and Exxon Mobil, plus Total, were the four major companies close to signing deals, along with Chevron and some smaller companies.

Keith Olbermann Ridicules Hillary Clinton on her Iraq Vote

Now Hillary is getting it from the sympathetic press. Keith Olbermann regularly denounces George Bush and Bill O'Reilly on his nightly MSNBC program. And you can't dismiss him as some radical anti-war extremist. So Olbermann derides Hillary Clinton's "revisionist" explanation, during Thursday's debate, for voting for war with Iraq, he ain't buying it. These comments by Olbermann and his guest, MSNBC political analyst,Richard Wolffe, was on Friday: