Israel-Palestine-Jordan | |
IDF chief warns Israelis must brace for ‘prolonged campaign’ against Iran | |
2025-06-21 | |
[IsraelTimes] Eyal Zamir says Iran had 2,500 missiles at start of campaign, was set to reach 8,000 in two years; military sources indicate Israel not running low on interceptors IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said Friday that Israelis must prepare for a “prolonged campaign” against Iran to “eliminate a threat of this magnitude,” indicating that a quick end to the campaign was unlikely. In a video statement, Zamir said Iran had been “building for years a clear plan to destroy the State of Israel” and that in recent months, “the plan reached the point of no return, where the capabilities reached operational capability.” Zamir said Israel launched its opening attack on Iran knowing that “Iran possessed around 2,500 surface-to-surface missiles, with a high production rate, such that within approximately two years, they were expected to possess around 8,000 missiles.” Iran’s ballistic missile efforts, nuclear advances and regional terror proxies “compelled us to strike and deliver a preemptive blow,” said the general. “The IDF will not stand by and watch as threats develop,” he said. ” As part of an emerging doctrine, we will act proactively and in advance to prevent an existential threat and to face any challenge.” Israel launched the operation against Iran following some 20 months in which the Jewish state has significantly degraded the Islamic Republic’s proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen, in a series of conflicts that began with the Hamas onslaught of October 7, 2023. According to Zamir, the IDF “prepared for this operation for years” and launched it “thanks to the convergence of operational and strategic conditions.” “Had we delayed, there was a risk of losing these conditions and entering the campaign in the future from a position of clear disadvantage,” he said. “We understood that history would not forgive us if we failed to act now to defend the existence of the Jewish people in the State of Israel.” The IDF’s opening “surprise” strikes on Iran “achieved extraordinary results,” said Zamir. “We eliminated the enemy’s senior command, inflicted deep damage to components of the nuclear program, opened an aerial corridor to Tehran, identified and destroyed about half of the missile launchers, some just minutes before launch, and surprised the enemy despite its heightened state of alert,” he said. “Dear citizens of Israel, he continued. “Alongside the offensive operations, the defense of the home front continues. This is a different challenge from what we have known until now. The enemy, in its weakness, deliberately targets civilians, as we have experienced once again in the recent barrage. Our enemies do not understand that the Israeli home front is the source of the IDF’s strength, not its weakness.” “We are preparing for a range of possible developments. We have embarked on the most complex campaign in our history. We launched this campaign in order to eliminate a threat of this magnitude, against such an enemy, which requires readiness for a prolonged campaign,” said Zamir. “The IDF is prepared for this. With each passing day, our freedom of action is expanding, and the enemy’s is shrinking,” he said. “The campaign is not over. While we have achieved significant results, challenging days still lie ahead, and we must remain alert and united until the mission is complete.” “I am confident that together, we will finish this campaign with Israel’s hand on top,” added Zamir. His caution to gird for a long campaign came as Channel 12 reported that Israel’s security establishment has realized that the military campaign against Iran, which began last Friday, will take longer than thought just days ago. IDF officials told reporters on Tuesday that the campaign’s goals would be reached within a week or two. The shift is likely connected to US President Donald Trump saying that he would take up to two weeks to decide whether the US would join the campaign. Israel says its sweeping assault on Iran’s top military leaders, nuclear scientists, uranium enrichment sites, and ballistic missile program is necessary to prevent the Islamic Republic from realizing its avowed plan to destroy the Jewish state. Iran has retaliated by launching over 470 ballistic missiles and around 1,000 drones at Israel. So far, Iran’s missile attacks have killed 24 people and wounded thousands in Israel, according to health officials and hospitals. Some of the missiles have caused heavy damage to apartments and other civilian infrastructure, including a university, a hospital and an oil refinery. IDF INDICATES IT’S NOT RUNNING LOW ON INTERCEPTOR MISSILES
The military has officially declined to comment on specific munitions matters. Military officials have told The Times of Israel that the operation in Iran was months in the planning, and that preparations took into account Iran’s stock of ballistic missiles and drones that it could fire at Israel. Huh. One wonders where certain news media got the idea that Israel was about to be defenseless, or if once again certain media were making stuff up to advance their preferred narrative. This means the IDF had prepared ahead of time for the roughly 2,500 surface-to-surface missiles that Zamir said Iran possessed at the start of hostilities.Additionally, the IDF is actually running through fewer interceptors than it anticipated at this point in the operation. The IDF estimated that Iran would fire several hundred ballistic missiles at Israel in its initial response. In reality, it launched just 100. The 470 ballistic missiles that Iran has fired at Israel in the past week were also below the IDF’s “reference scenario” for the operation, military officials said. According to the military, most of the Iranian missiles fired at Israel in recent days have been intercepted, at similar rates to Iran’s two first-ever attacks on Israel, in April and October of last year. Military officials said 5-10 percent of the missiles “leak” through and impact Israel. This includes missiles that the IDF says it does not try to shoot down “according to protocol,” allowing them to strike open areas without causing damage to any critical infrastructure, as well as missiles it failed to intercept which hit urban areas and caused casualties and damage. The military has routinely emphasized that, as good as Israel’s multilayered air defenses may be, they are not hermetic. NETANYAHU SAYS IRAN OP WILL SAVE ISRAELIS AND IRANIANS ALIKE Standing in front of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Netanyahu said in an English-language statement Friday that the world-renowned institution was “smashed by a rocket from this evil regime.” On Sunday morning, an Iranian ballistic missile destroyed two buildings at the Weizmann Institute — a life science building and an empty building that was still under construction. Dozens more were damaged. The premier said Iran was working “to destroy human progress. That’s what this regime is about.” “They subjugate their own people,” said Netanyahu. “They’ve trampled on them for almost 50 years — the long-suffering Iranian people whom we embrace. We understand what they’ve been going through, and we understand what the region has been going through and what the world has been going through.” Netanyahu argued that Israel is operating against Iran to save itself from annihilation, “but by doing so, we’re saving many, many others.” The premier said he had warned then-US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ahead of the 2003 Iraq invasion, “you will finish this very quickly. But your primary goal is the Iranian regime. And the Iranian regime is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, even then.” The comment came as some US media have ridiculed Netanyahu this week by airing his 2002 congressional testimony, when the premier, then a private citizen, urged the US to invade Iraq, insisting that it would stabilize the region. | |
Link |
Government | |||||||||
Coronavirus Propaganda Mimics War Propaganda | |||||||||
2020-05-28 | |||||||||
[Mises.org] In the period leading up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration and its media accomplices waged a relentless propaganda campaign to win political support for what turned out to be one of the most disastrous foreign policy mistakes in American history.
Bull. Shit. They should be ashamed to even think such things.
Related: Salman Pak: 2011-12-18 Federal judge: Iran shares responsibility for 9/11 terror attacks Salman Pak: 2009-03-24 Will Sunni's rejoin AQI for the bucks? Salman Pak: 2008-12-11 One terr killed, 18 suspects in custody — MNF Related: Yellowcake: 2019-10-27 Deep State Hates America First Policy Yellowcake: 2019-09-28 Joe Wilson, ambassador who opposed Iraq War, dead at 69 Yellowcake: 2019-08-21 North Korean uranium plant 'is leaking radioactive waste into a nearby river putting hundreds of thousands of people at risk of cancer and brain defects' | |||||||||
Link |
Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
Donald Rumsfeld: Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital was a 'no brainer' |
2017-12-09 |
"I guess the reason it's an issue is because there are countries around the world that would prefer that it had not been done," Rumsfeld told Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Wednesday night. "It's a no brainer. It's the right thing to do. President Trump made the right decision ‐ he stepped up and did it. It's inevitable that there will be some criticism about it. But I just can't imagine any country in the world that doesn't believe that they have the right to have their capital where they want it." The status of Jerusalem is highly controversial, as both Israelis and Palestinians have claimed it as their capital. Ingraham asked Rumsfeld if Trump would be blamed should the decision provoke terrorism or attacks on U.S. embassies. "I don't see it that way at all," Rumsfeld responded. "It seems to me that the president made the right decision. He stepped up and did it. It's inevitable that there will be people that don't like it and will make noise about it, but the idea that it could lead to a stream of terrorism, I just don't see that at all." The State Department issued warnings to American embassies around the world to increase security, ahead of the expected announcement, and Hamas, a Palestinian militant Islamic group, said they would call for a new Palestinian uprising if the U.S. named Jerusalem the capital of Israel. |
Link |
Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
Obamaâs âSecret Iran Strategyâ Began in 2006 with Robert Gates |
2015-02-09 |
Over at Mosaic Magazine, former Bush aide Michael Doran claims that the Obama administration has had a secret strategy to engage Iran from the time it took office. Heâs right, but he neglected to mention that George W. Bush and his national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, adopted the same strategy from the same source in November 2006, after the Republicans got crushed in the 2006 congressional elections. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld got a pink slip, Vice President Dick Cheney got benched, and ârealistâ Robert Gatesâthe co-chairman of the 2004 Council on Foreign Relations task force that advocated a deal with Iranâtook over at Defense. Michael Doran reports all of this, all, that is, except Gatesâ central role in the plan. That would place a good deal of the blame at Bushâs doorstep. ...the 2006 congressional report was a carbon copy of the Council on Foreign Relations report of 2004, written under the supervision of Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carterâs national security advisor. |
Link |
Southeast Asia | |
Malaysian tribunal finds Bush guilty of war crimes | |
2012-05-13 | |
[Iran Press TV] A symbolic War Crimes Tribunal in Malaysia has found former US President George W. Bush and several other members of his administration guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity , Press TV reports.
The court also heard evidence from former detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, of torture methods used by US soldiers during their captivity in prisons run by American forces. A former inmate, Abbas Abid appeared in a scarf fearing reprisals. He enacted how US troops subjected him to electric shocks, beatings and sexual abuse over a number of months. High ranking former UN officials present in the courtroom expressed frustration over the evidence. "The UN is a weak body ... and it's corrupted by member states, who use the Security Council for their own interests. They don't respect the charter. They don't respect the international law. They don't respect the Geneva Conventions," former UN Assistant Secretary General, Denis Halliday told Press TV. "As long as they continue to use the UN it's going to be somehow redundant possibly a dangerous and certainly corrupted organization," Halliday went on to say. Meanwhile, ...back at the shouting match, a new, even louder, voice was to be heard... Mahatir remains determined to bring Bush and his cohorts to justice. In response to a question on the sidelines of the court regarding the Malaysian police's authority to arrest the criminals of war, Mahathir expressed hope that the charged officials won't be invited to Malaysia. "I hope people in the world will take notice and they should actually ... these are basically murderers and they kill on large scale," the former Malaysian premier maintained. The symbolic court was first held in November 2011 during which Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair were found guilty for committing "crimes against peace" during the Iraq war. | |
Link |
Home Front: WoT |
McChrystal's Very Human Wired War |
2011-01-27 |
McChrystal praised the "aggressive use of technology" that the rest of the conference celebrates. But "by far the hardest part" of networked warfare, he said, was "to create a culture" that gets different military and civilian units linked up by technology fighting as a team. In other words, the technical network won't work without the social one. "You don't give a senior leader a Blackberry or an iPhone and make them a digital leader," McChrystal said. Today's commanders might spend endless hours on video conferences talking to their subordinates around the world. But without a "shared consciousness and purpose" across team members who come from very different backgrounds, they might as well close their Skype windows. Reaching the height of its influence under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, net-centric war proponents like the late Vice Adm. Arthur Cebrowski argued that linking troops with better communications and information-tech tools would create a faster, lighter and more efficient military. But those thinkers warned that the gear wouldn't work without an internal cultural shift; some proponents even proposed junking the armed forces' hierarchy to accommodate a new, information-age military. The problem was, the networks were closed loops, and inward-facing. They neglected the need for a military to understand the distinct cultures of populations they interacted with. Without that, the best-connected troops were still hobbled by ignorance. That oversight contributed mightily to the United States' troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it allowed a new generation of military theorists to rise to prominence: the counterinsurgents, who argue that local knowledge and cultural understanding is the best asset a military can cultivate. That, and fighters and ROEs that let the locals know who the strong horse is in no uncertain terms. |
Link |
Home Front: WoT |
US Judge upholds case implicating Rumsfeld |
2010-03-08 |
![]() The former contractors Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel were given the go ahead on Friday by District Judge Wayne R. Andersen to follow the civil case on torture, the Associated Press reported on Saturday. Vance and Ertel who were employed in Iraq by Shield Group Security (SGS), alleged in 2006, one year after their arrival in Iraq, that their employer bribed Iraqi Sheiks and trafficked in weapons, activities they worried were illegal. Upon reporting to authorities in the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and officials at the US embassy in Baghdad, they were denied their identification cards and hence from entering to the Green Zone by SGS, and were finally arrested by the "United States forces" and ended up in US "Getmo-ized" detention facility near Baghdad. The two men claim that while in solitary confinement, they were subjected to sleep deprivation, long hours of interrogation, blasting music, threats, hunger and a practice known as "walling," in which subjects are blindfolded and walked into walls, all "tantamount to torture" according to the suit. Ertel was released after a month and Vance after two months, the suit said. "This is the first time where a court has recognized that the facts were sufficient to potentially hold a secretary of defense personally liable for authorizing torture," said Mike Kanovitz, a Chicago attorney who represents the plaintiffs. District Judge Andersen said his decision "represents a recognition that federal officials may not strip citizens of well settled constitutional protections against mistreatment simply because they are located in a tumultuous foreign setting." "The allegations, if true, would substantiate plaintiffs' claim that Rumsfeld was aware of the direct impact that his newly-approved treatment methods were having on detainees in Iraq," Andersen wrote . He went on to add that "a court might plausibly determine that the conditions of confinement were torturous." The two men are seeking unspecified damages. The next hearing is set for March 25. |
Link |
Home Front: WoT |
Rumsfeld Cries Foul on Obama Claim Troop Requests for Afghanistan Were Denied |
2009-12-03 |
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday lashed out at President Obama for claiming the Bush administration rebuffed commanders' repeated requests for more troops in Afghanistan. In a rare break in his public silence since leaving the Pentagon, Rumsfeld rejected the claim as a "bald misstatement" and "disservice" that cannot go unanswered. "Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as secretary of defense, deserves a response," Rumsfeld said in a written statement. "I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006." The president leveled the charge in his speech Tuesday night outlining his plan to send 30,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan. In his speech, Obama gave a detailed history of the Afghanistan war starting with the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. He argued that the Iraq war drew needed resources away from Afghanistan, allowing the situation to deteriorate since 2003. "Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq," Obama said. "Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive." White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained Wednesday that Obama was referring to requests that came in during 2008, and suggested Rumsfeld was on thin ice with his criticism. "I will let Secretary Rumsfeld explain ... whether he thinks that the effort in Afghanistan was sufficiently resourced during his tenure as secretary of defense," he said. But if Obama were referring to the 2008 period, he would seem to have been pointing the finger at his own secretary of defense, Robert Gates, who served in the same position in the previous administration. Rumsfeld said in his statement the White House should make public any such requests if they exist to back up the allegation. "The president's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan," Rumsfeld said. He urged Congress to review the claim in the upcoming debate to "determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied." Unlike former Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld has kept largely out of the public eye since leaving the administration after the 2006 mid-term elections in which Republicans suffered huge losses, largely the result of setbacks in the Iraq war. |
Link |
Home Front: WoT | |||||
Watchdog group: Dozens of alleged active-duty troops found on neo-Nazi site | |||||
2009-07-10 | |||||
The Southern Poverty Law Center, the Montgomery, Ala.-based watchdog group that tracks extremist hate groups, has compiled a book containing the online user profiles of at least 40 newsaxon.org users who say they are serving in the military, in apparent violation of Pentagon regulations prohibiting racist extremism in the ranks. On Friday, the SPLC will present its findings to key members of Congress who chair the House and Senate committees overseeing the armed forces and urge them to pressure the Pentagon to crack down. "In the wake of several high-profile murders by extremists of the radical right, we urge your committees to investigate the threat posed by racial extremists who may be serving in the military to ensure that our armed forces are not inadvertently training future domestic terrorists," Morris Dees, SPLC co-founder and chief trial counsel, wrote to the legislators. "Evidence continues to mount that current Pentagon policies are inadequate to prevent racial extremists from joining and serving in the armed forces." Added Mark Potok, editor of the Intelligence Report, a magazine produced at the law center: "The Pentagon really has shrugged this off and refused to look at this in any serious way." On the newsaxon.org website, which Potok termed "a racist version of Facebook run by the National Socialist Movement," many participants list their branch of service, base location and hometown on colorful pages festooned with Nazi art and Confederate battle flags. Some say they have served or will soon be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Several include pictures of themselves in camouflage combat uniforms. One participant under the username "WhitePride85," who said he is a 24-year-old staff sergeant from Madison, Wis., wrote: "I have been in the Army for over 5 years now ... I am a SSGT ... I have been in Iraq and Kuwait ... I love and will do anything to keep our master race marching. I have been a skinhead forever." The SPLC, which has previously alerted the military to the presence of racist extremists in its ranks, said none of the profiles its researchers discovered on the white supremacist website revealed the real names of participants, and the organization made no attempt to discover their identities. "We can't verify these things," Potok said, because his group does not have access to military personnel records. "We feel that clearly military investigators could."
A Defense Department directive issued in 1996 lays out the guidelines for "dissident" activities by service members, from publishing underground newspapers to organizing demonstrations. "Military personnel must reject participation in organizations that espouse supremacist causes," the rule states. "Active participation, such as publicly demonstrating or rallying, fund raising, recruiting and training members, organizing or leading such organizations, or otherwise engaging in activities in relation to such organizations ... that are viewed by command to be detrimental to the good order, discipline, or mission accomplishment of the unit, is incompatible with Military Service, and is, therefore, prohibited." But military officials gave conflicting answers this week when asked how policies governing racist behavior are being enforced. A spokesman for the Department of the Army said the service takes seriously any allegations of membership in racist, extremist or hate groups. But he said such allegations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis at the unit disciplinary level or in the military justice system, and are not being addressed as an Army-wide problem. The Army spokesman then referred Stripes to the Army's Criminal Investigation Command for more information. But that office refused to comment on Army policy on hate groups, saying that the issue of extremists infiltrating the ranks was "an Army-wide issue" that should be addressed at the service command level. "If a sergeant is assigned to Fort Bragg," said Army spokesman Wayne Hall, "the Fort Bragg office of Criminal Investigation Command is going to investigate that individual, not the Department of the Army at this level." If, for example, a soldier is found to have participated in a neo-Nazi rally, "Then it comes down to the unit commander," Hall said. "It's a violation of good order and discipline." Hall added that extremist tattoos such as a swastika should disqualify an applicant for enlistment, but he could not say what disciplinary actions might be faced by an active-duty soldier found with such markings. Potok said the SPLC has often encountered confusion within the U.S. military about how to interpret "active participation." "That is the phrase that is often misunderstood," he said. "We know for a fact that military officials, in many cases, read 'active participation' as only recruiting people into another group, or only participating in some kind of hate group event off base." In 2006, several members of Congress called for clearer language on such policies but got little reaction from the Pentagon, which has long said it has enough regulations to handle racists and extremists. But last month, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., attached an amendment to the 2010 defense authorization bill that would expressly ban the "recruitment, enlistment or retention" of anyone tied to an extremist group.
This week, Stripes e-mailed interview requests to more than a dozen newsaxon.org participants claiming military affiliations. Only one responded. The user, "clarkpatrick88," said he would not reveal his real identity for fear of reprisals, but he said he was a 19-year old sailor. His profile includes a picture in which he is holding a Confederate insignia while wearing his blue Navy working uniform with a name patch reading "Clark." The number 88 is commonly used among neo-Nazis as shorthand to the greeting, "Heil Hitler." "As for my political views, I have never once put them before my duty I signed up for," the sailor said in one of his e-mails. "I didn't outwardly show my beliefs or cause trouble." The sailor said he grew so frustrated at military life and at being closely quartered with service members of other races that he sought psychiatric counseling for suicidal thoughts. He spent three days in the "psych ward," he said, and is now being separated from the service on its recommendation.
Last November, the SPLC, feeling its warnings to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been ignored,
By this spring, a Department of Homeland Security report said law enforcement groups should beware of extremists coming out of military duty or groups trying to recruit susceptible veterans for their combat skills. The report was criticized by some veterans and conservative groups as inherently anti-military. | |||||
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Biden, Obama's "Foreign Policy Wingman" Grounded |
2009-06-18 |
![]() "Joe Biden is what so many others pretend to be -- a statesman with sound judgment who doesn't have to hide behind bluster to keep America strong," Obama said at the time. But five months into his vice presidency, Biden appears to have been pushed into the background, focusing on overseeing the implementation of Obama's $787 billion stimulus package, the creation of jobs and other domestic matters as the president and former rival Hillary Clinton -- and even former Sen. George Mitchell -- deal with the growing crises in Iran and North Korea, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and rewriting the way America deals with a hostile Muslim world. By comparison, Biden's predecessor, Dick Cheney, was after five months already being called the most influential vice president ever. Even though Cheney didn't face any immediate crises at the outset of the Bush administration, he arguably became a co-planner in the U.S. war on terror after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Five months into the job, as different as Obama is from Bush, there appears to be an even more dramatic difference between Biden and Cheney. "Joe Biden is Mr. Outside and Dick Cheney was Mr. Inside," said Lee Edwards, a presidential historian at the Heritage Foundation, who described Biden as very visual and vocal while Cheney worked behind the scenes. "I would say we don't really know how much influence Biden really has, whereas early on we knew Cheney wielded significant power," Edwards said. Even now -- in "retirement" -- Cheney appears to be grabbing more headlines than Biden as he has repeatedly criticized Obama's national security policies, arguing that they are making the United States less safe. Biden fired back in April, asserting that Cheney was "dead wrong" and that the exact opposite is true. He added that Cheney had been part of a dysfunctional decision-making system in the Bush administration. "Look, everybody talks about how powerful Cheney was," Biden said. "His power weakened America, in my view. Here's what I mean by that. What I mean by that was, there was a divided government." He added that Cheney had his own sort of national security council, in addition to the actual National Security Council, and that Cheney would side with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in disputes with Secretary of State Colin Powell. But since then, Biden has slipped back into the background, delivering a few commencement speeches, officiating at a groundbreaking ceremony for the start of his "Road to Recovery" tour, and apparently not being part of the inner circle on foreign policy -- the field of expertise that was the basis for his selection. Instead Biden has promoted his role in Obama's administration as that of a catalyst to better decision-making. "The strength of this administration is that the president and I work in concert," he said. "I am very straightforward in my views. I am as strong ... I hold them as strongly as I ever have." Biden declared early this year that he intended to "restore the balance" of power between the presidency and vice presidency, something he claims Cheney upended. Instead Biden has been attending economic meetings and taking light-fare overseas trips, including to Germany and Latin America. Biden also heads the Task Force on Middle Class Working Families. But he's drawn far more attention for his political blunders, including a hotly disputed claim that he privately rebuked Bush when he was president. In contrast, five months into Cheney's vice presidency, after running Bush's transition team, he was operating out of four offices -- two on Capitol Hill by virtue of his role as president of the Senate. Cheney also was the point man in two of Bush's biggest pre-9/11 priorities: energy and missile defense. He also was a potential tie-breaking vote in a closely divided Senate. Shirley Ann Warshaw, a presidential historian at Gettysburg College and author of the new book, "The Co-Presidency of Bush and Cheney," said Biden has been used as vehicle to deliver the Obama administration's message, while Cheney crafted the Bush administration's. "Delivering the message and crafting the message are very different things," Warshaw told FOXNews.com, noting that Biden was largely excluded from Obama's transition while Cheney hired virtually everyone. "There will never be another vice president to match Dick Cheney," she said. Warshaw said Biden doesn't hold as much sway as Cheney did because Obama has a strong team of inside players, led by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and senior policy adviser David Axelrod. "President Bush did not have a political insider as a sounding board to the equivalent of Rahm Emanuel," she said. And when it comes to foreign policy, considered Biden's greatest strengths, Warshaw said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "is wary to give him too much leeway." Another factor, Edwards told FOXNews.com, is that "Biden was and is a creature of Congress, while Cheney is a more skilled practitioner in the executive branch." "I think Biden, by reason of being a senator, is a loner, even within in the party," he said. "I don't know if he represents a significant part of his party. Cheney still represents a significant part of his party." Edwards said history will view Biden "as a rather typical vice president, somebody who was chosen because it was felt he would bring some balance and some strength to the campaign and help the presidential candidate win. And that's the case with more vice presidents than not." But Edwards added that each man was perhaps the best fit for each president. "I think that Cheney was what Bush needed because he had the experience and the knowledge and could get things done," he said. "I think Obama came to the presidency with the agenda already set. He knew what he wanted to do. In that sense, he hasn't need a strong guy as Bush did." |
Link |
Home Front: WoT |
Ex-Bush Admin Official: Many at Gitmo are Innocent |
2009-03-19 |
Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday. "There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years." Wilkerson, who first made the assertions in an Internet posting on Tuesday, told the AP he learned from briefings and by communicating with military commanders that the U.S. soon realized many Guantanamo detainees were innocent but nevertheless held them in hopes they could provide information for a "mosaic" of intelligence. "It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance," Wilkerson wrote in the blog. He said intelligence analysts hoped to gather "sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified." Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel, said vetting on the battlefield during the early stages of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan was incompetent with no meaningful attempt to discriminate "who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation." Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on Wilkerson's specific allegations but noted that the military has consistently said that dealing with foreign fighters from a wide variety of countries in a wartime setting was a complex process. The military has insisted that those held at Guantanamo were enemy combatants and posed a threat to the United States. In his posting for The Washington Note blog, Wilkerson wrote that "U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released." Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney fought efforts to address the situation, Wilkerson said, because "to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership." Wilkerson told the AP in a telephone interview that many detainees "clearly had no connection to al-Qaida and the Taliban and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pakistanis turned many over for $5,000 a head." Some 800 men have been held at Guantanamo since the prison opened in January 2002, and 240 remain. Wilkerson said two dozen are terrorists, including confessed Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was transferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006. "We need to put those people in a high-security prison like the one in Colorado, forget them and throw away the key," Wilkerson said. "We can't try them because we tortured them and didn't keep an evidence trail." But the rest of the detainees need to be released, he said. Wilkerson, who flew combat missions as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and left the government in January 2005, said he did not speak out while in government because some of the information was classified. He said he feels compelled to do so now because Cheney has claimed in recent press interviews that President Barack Obama is making the U.S. less safe by reversing Bush administration policies toward terror suspects, including ordering Guantanamo closed. The administration is now evaluating what to do with the prisoners who remain at the U.S. military base in Cuba. "I'm very concerned about the kinds of things Cheney is saying to make it seem Obama is a danger to this republic," Wilkerson said. "To have a former vice president fearmongering like this is really, really dangerous." |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
The Shinseki Myth |
2008-12-15 |
The announcement that retired Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki will be President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of veterans affairs has energized one of the most enduring myths of the Bush presidency. Among the media coverage in recent days: Gen. Shinseki "clashed with the Bush administration on its Iraq war strategy" (Associated Press). In "questioning the Pentagon's Iraq war strategy" (The Post), Shinseki "warn[ed] that far more troops would be needed than the Pentagon had committed" (New York Times). For his candor, he was "vilified" (Boston Globe) by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Shinseki has a chance during his confirmation hearings to set the record straight: None of those statements is correct. The source of the Shinseki narrative was testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war. Shinseki and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan had this exchange: Levin: "General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?" Shinseki: "In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --" Levin: "How about a range?" Shinseki: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." From this impromptu exchange, a legend has grown: Shinseki was a stalwart opponent of the "Rumsfeld" war plan. He voiced those concerns and, after being "snubbed" by Pentagon officials (Los Angeles Times), was forced from office (CBS radio affiliate WTOP-Washington). Here are some facts: First, Shinseki, as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, supported the war plan. The head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, and his planning staff presented their approach to the Joint Chiefs and their staffs during the development of the plan. There was ample opportunity for the chiefs to express concerns and propose alternatives. There is no record of Shinseki having objected. Shinseki also met with the commander in chief himself to discuss the plan. On at least one occasion at the White House, President Bush asked each member of the Joint Chiefs, including Shinseki, whether he believed the Iraq war plan was adequate to the objectives. Each said it was. Further, Shinseki was not forced from office. He retired on time in June 2003, with the full honors due a retiring chief of staff of the U.S. Army. Much has been made of the fact that the secretary of defense did not attend Shinseki's retirement. The retiree determines who is included in the ceremony. The secretary, when included, is there by invitation. For whatever reason, and with an explanation neither required nor sought, Shinseki did not ask the secretary to speak or to attend. But these elements are incidental to the central assertion -- that Shinseki was right about basic U.S. force levels needed in post-conflict Iraq. Even allowing that Shinseki was under pressure to respond to a U.S. senator after trying to avoid answering, his estimate turned out to be far from the number of forces actually employed. "Several hundred thousands of soldiers" suggests Shinseki believed 300,000 troops would be needed for post-conflict Iraq. As it happens, and Shinseki would have known this, as many as 400,000 troops were in the pipeline for use during major conflict operations. But nowhere near that number was used. After major conflict operations ended, the number that remained in country settled around 150,000 to 160,000 (about half of Shinseki's guesstimate). Ultimately, commanders brought troop levels down to about 135,000 on the belief that a relatively lighter U.S. footprint would minimize the perception of occupation. As the insurgency grew, and as Iraqi security forces grew in strength and capability, there was continual assessment and adjustment of the number of U.S. forces. In fact, at least twice before the January 2007 surge, force levels rose as high or nearly as high as the surge level of 165,000. At no time, even as a surge was being considered, did anyone recommend doubling U.S. forces to the "several hundred thousand" troops Shinseki said might be needed. That's fine; conflict is all about adjusting to conditions on the ground, and his comments were made without knowing those conditions. But the fact remains that the 2007 surge level of 165,000 was much closer to the range suggested by Franks, Gen. John Abizaid (then head of U.S. Central Command) and Gen. George Casey (the current Army chief of staff), 135,000 to 160,000, than to the 300,000 figure Shinseki provided Levin. Shinseki has remained silent about the clash that never was. Some interpret that as honorable; he does not want to comment on relations with his prior boss. To many others, though, his silence has been deafening. He has benefited immeasurably from it, even as Rumsfeld has been grossly maligned. Rumsfeld, too, has been quiet -- except for the times he defended Shinseki for having been put in a tough spot and forced to answer a question off the cuff during a congressional hearing. Eric Shinseki served his country with distinction and is on the cusp of having another opportunity to do so. He also has a chance to right an egregious wrong. During his confirmation hearings, he can acknowledge that he did indeed support the Iraq war plan; that he had many opportunities to express himself; and that he has no desire to play the role he has been assigned: hero in a legend that has little basis in fact. Lawrence Di Rita was special assistant to the secretary of defense from 2001 to 2006. |
Link |