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

Protesters Interrupt Bush Holiday Speech

In the spirit of American democracy. At least there are some out there willing to speak up against this un-American President:

ABC's Matthew Jaffe reports: Protesters today repeatedly interrupted President Bush's Fourth of July speech at Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's residence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

No sooner had Bush started speaking at the naturalization ceremony welcoming new American citizens than protesters began shouting at him, calling him a "war criminal."

The President paused in his remarks and then responded, "To my fellow citizens, we believe in free speech in the United States of America."

One woman moved towards the stage before being stopped by security, but other protesters still made their voices heard.

Only minutes later, another protester shouted expletives at the President, while still another called Bush "a fascist".

By the time Bush finished his 10-minute remarks, at least nine protesters had been escorted out of the event by law enforcement.

[...]Protesters also lined the President's motorcade route, chanting "Arrest Bush" as he drove to and from the Monticello ceremony.

See a video of the protests:

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.

UN Survey: Afghan Opium High in 2008

Just part of Bush's legacy. It won't be long before Americans are dying from Heroin grown in U.S. occupied Afghanistan. So not only can't King George find Bin Laden but he is also funding al Qaeda:

Opium growth in Afghanistan's unstable south and southwest continues at an alarming rate, and is a windfall for anti-government forces who tax farmers, a U.N. report said Wednesday.

The report also predicted a further rise in cannabis cultivation this year.

"Europe, Russia and the countries along the Afghan heroin routes should brace themselves again for major health and security consequences," said Antonio Maria Costa, chief of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime.

Overall cultivation of opium the main ingredient in heroin is likely in 2008 to be similar to or slightly lower than it was in 2007, according to UNODC's latest Afghanistan Opium Winter Rapid Assessment Survey.

"Opium cultivation in Afghanistan may have peaked, but the 2008 amount will be shockingly high," Costa said in a statement.

At least the Bushies admit failure:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the NATO-led military mission in Afghanistan is "bumpy," and the international aid effort needs firmer coordination among the many nations participating.

[...]The United States is also seeking to bridge a rift among NATO allies participating in unequal measure in Afghanistan.

"It's bumpy and it's a lot of maturing that the alliance is having to do to do this," Rice told reporters.

Some major European allies failed to send significant number of troops to the southern front lines, leaving troops from the United States, Britain, Canada and the Netherlands to bear the brunt of a resurgence of Taliban violence in the region. Canada has threatened to pull out unless other allies do more of the hard work.

"It's true and we've made no secret about it that there are certain allies that are in more dangerous parts of the country and we believe very strongly that there ought to be a sharing of that burden throughout the alliance," Rice told reporters. "That said, I think we ought not to also dismiss the contributions that are being made by all alliance members."

Defense Dept.'s Weapons Programs Wasteful

What have Hillary Clinton and John McCain done to change this corrupt system. Nothing, of course. And if either one is elected you can expect more of the same. The military-industrial complex is alive and well. And that won't change unless we force from power the two-party system:

The Defense Department's major weapons programs have suffered cost overruns in the billions of dollars, years-long delays and quality shortfalls because of poor acquisition practices by the department, according to a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office.

The GAO warned that the cost of designing and developing weapons systems could "continue to exceed estimates by billions of dollars" if the Defense Department doesn't improve its acquisition practices.

The report, which focused on 11 troubled weapons programs, said contractors had "poor practices" for systems engineering and relied on "immature designs, inadequate testing, defective parts and inadequate manufacturing controls."

The report said the Defense Department did not provide effective oversight as projects were being developed, and often entered into weapons-development contracts before engineering of the project had been analyzed, driving up costs.

In addition, the report said, the Pentagon often pays the cost of the contractors' mistakes, providing the companies with little incentive to perform higher-quality work. "Risk," the report said, "is not borne by the prime contractor, but by DOD.

Bush Proposes Budget With $400B Deficit

Bush's going away gift to the nation:

The spiraling growth of Medicare and the high cost of renewing President Bush's tax cuts are squeezing popular education, health, housing and anti-poverty programs in the budget blueprint that he hands lawmakers Monday.

Even with difficult-to-digest proposals to curb Medicare costs and kill programs to repair dilapidated public housing, fund community action agencies and provide food to the elderly poor, Mr. Bush's $3 trillion budget will project deficits around $400 billion this year and next.

Mr. Bush's submission is already absorbing brickbats from Democrats castigating him for inheriting a government in surplus and leaving Washington with a budget deficit that is likely to break the $413 billion record set four years ago, once war bills and the cost of giving the economy a fiscal jolt with tax rebate checks are factored in.

"The next president is going to inherit a colossal mess because of the fiscal irresponsibility of this president," Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Budget Committee said Saturday.

Mr. Bush's budget will demonstrate a way to produce balance in four years and still renew tax cuts on income, investments and people inheriting large estates - cuts now scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. The cost of renewing those tax cuts exceeds $300 billion by 2013, according to congressional scorekeepers.

House Fails to Override Health Bill Veto

This demonstrates once and for all Bush's lack of concern for the people of America:

For the second time in three months, the House failed Wednesday to override President Bush's veto of a bill that would greatly increase spending on a popular children's health insurance program.

Democratic leaders fell 15 votes shy of obtaining the two-thirds majority needed for an override. The final vote was 260-152, with 42 Republicans siding with Democrats.

The result was expected, even as override supporters pointed to the slowing economy as another reason to spend another $35 billion on the State Children's Health Insurance Program over the next five years.

[...]The legislation that Bush vetoed would have increased enrollment in the children's health program from 6 million to 10 million over the coming five years. The revenue needed for that enrollment increase would come from a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, as well as comparable tax increases on other tobacco products.

[...]The president's second veto occurred in December. He said the bill encouraged too many families to replace private insurance with government-subsidized health coverage. He vetoed a similar bill in October. Democratic leaders then fell 13 votes short in their attempt to override that particular veto, so they actually lost ground Wednesday.

The children's health program serves families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.