UK, US funded Iraqi units who are now running amok

From The Guardian

British and American aid intended for Iraq's hard-pressed police service is being diverted to paramilitary commando units accused of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and extra-judicial killings, The Observer can reveal.
Iraqi Police Service officers said that ammunition, weapons and vehicles earmarked for the IPS are being taken by shock troops at the forefront of Iraq's new dirty counter-insurgency war.

The allegations follow a wide-ranging investigation by this paper into serious human rights abuses being conducted by anti-insurgency forces in Iraq. The Observer has seen photographic evidence of post-mortem and hospital examinations of alleged terror suspects from Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle which demonstrate serious abuse of suspects including burnings, strangulation, the breaking of limbs and - in one case - the apparent use of an electric drill to perform a knee-capping.

The investigation revealed:

· A 'ghost' network of secret detention centres across the country, inaccessible to human rights organisations, where torture is taking place.

· Compelling evidence of widespread use of violent interrogation methods including hanging by the arms, burnings, beatings, the use of electric shocks and sexual abuse.

· Claims that serious abuse has taken place within the walls of the Iraqi government's own Ministry of the Interior.

· Apparent co-operation between unofficial and official detention facilities, and evidence of extra-judicial executions by the police.

And, these are the 'Good Guys' who we put into power.

US Army confirms Iraqi forces up to Saddams old tricks

It appears they may be reverting to form.

(Mosul, Iraq-AP, July 1, 2005 11:05 AM) _ A senior American military official -- apparently for the first time -- is publicly confirming the abuse of detainees and prisoners at the hands of Iraqi security forces.

Major General David Rodriguez, the commander of U.S. and coalition forces in the area around Mosul, says that in the "last six to eight weeks" there have been approximately "40 or so" cases of abuse.

Rodriguez says U.S. troops have been instructed to intervene immediately when they see physical mistreatment occur.

In addition there have been an increasing number of reports about Iraqis being arrested, and their bodies showing up at morgues a few days later.

One Time Dr. to the President Denounces US use of torture.

Having served as a doctor in the Army Medical Corps early in my career and as presidential physician to George H.W. Bush for four years, I might be expected to bring a skeptical and partisan perspective to allegations of torture and abuse by U.S. forces. I might even be expected to join those who, on the one hand, deny that U.S. personnel have engaged in systematic use of torture while, on the other, claiming that such abuse is justified. But I cannot do so.

It's precisely because of my devotion to country, respect for our military and commitment to the ethics of the medical profession that I speak out against systematic, government-sanctioned torture and excessive abuse of prisoners during our war on terrorism. I am also deeply disturbed by the reported complicity in these abuses of military medical personnel. This extraordinary shift in policy and values is alien to my concept of modern-day America and of my government and profession.

The military prides itself, as do physicians, on being professional in every sense of the word. It fosters leadership and discipline. When I served as White House physician, my entire professional staff was drawn from the military, and they were among the best and most competent people I have met, without qualification.

The military ethics that I know absolutely prohibit anything resembling torture. There are several good reasons for this. Prisoners should be treated as we would expect our prisoners to be treated. Discipline and order in the military ranks depend to a large extent on compliance with the prohibition of torture -- indeed, weak or damaged psyches inclined toward torture or abuse have generally been weeded out of the military, or at the very least given less responsibility. In addition, military leaders have long been aware that torture inflicts lasting damage on both the victim and the torturer. The systematic infliction of torture engenders deep hatred and hostility that transcends generations. And it perverts the role of medical personnel from healers to instruments of abuse.

Today, however, it seems as though our government and the military have slipped into Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." The widespread reports of torture and ill-treatment -- frequently based on military and government documents -- defy the claim that this abusive behavior is limited to a few noncommissioned officers at Abu Ghraib or isolated incidents at Guantanamo Bay. When it comes to torture, the military's traditional leadership and discipline have been severely compromised up and down the chain of command. Why? I fear it is because the military has bowed to errant civilian leadership.

Our medical code of ethics requires us to oppose torture wherever it is inflicted, for any reason. Guided by this ethic, I served as a volunteer with the international group MEDICO in 1963, taking care of people who had been tortured by the French during Algeria's civil war. I remain deeply affected by that experience today -- by the people I tried to help and could not, and by their families, which suffered the most terrible grief. I heard the victims' stories, examined their permanently broken bodies and looked into faces that could not see me because of the irreparable damage done not only to their senses but also to their brains. As I have studied reports of torture throughout our troubled world since then, I have always found comfort in knowing that at least it did not occur here, not among Americans.

Now that comfort is shattered.

The rest is here

Visit Skippy

He wants a 1,000,000,000 hits for his blogiversary.

Plus any blog that is mentioned by John Stewart deserves a visit.

O'Connor retires

She was a swing voter, and since we still expect another announcement soon, the real fun of getting a new justice(s) in place begins.

Fridays places to visit

News from Underground has an update on Nathan Sproul. We now have new numbers on how much Bush and Company paid him, $8.3 million.

The Zogby Poll and Impeachment are noticed at Think Progress.

The power of cartoons is again displayed at Bob's Links and Rants. (Scroll down a little)

Over at the Whiskey Bar, a look at the motives behind and the incompetence of the occupation of Iraq.

A single, but important question is being asked at The Pink Chimpanzee.

Some times it is amazing how bad the US media

has gotten.

Over 30 Hours ago the BBC was reporting that the accident in Afghanistan involved more than just the crew. In early reports the BBC made it clear that the rescue team was looking for 20 or more people, including some who had already been on the ground.

Only this morning has CNN or MSNBC noticed and reportd this detail.

A new site linked up

A new SC blogger has been added to the links.

Devinely Southern, drop by and wish Frank well.

Recruiting numbers raise a big red flag.

The Army announced that they had reversed a trend (after 4 months of huge shortfalls) , and in June will exceed their goal. According to reports, they will bring in over 6,150 new members, almost 10% over the goal of 5,650.

Here is where it gets interesting.

Last month they announced a short-fall of about 25% of a new lowered goal. This revision of numbers shifted those May recruits to new higher goals for the last months of the year (September is the last month of the year in the recruiting cycle).

In May the goal was 6,700, lowered from 8,000. In June the goal was another 1,000 persons lower that the downward revised May goal. You have to wonder where did those slots, moved from May, go. After the May report, the Army had 4 months left in the recruiting year. They needed to average over 9,500 men or women each month to hit the annual goal. The recruiting numbers leaked out indicate, not a 9% surplus, but a 36% shortfall, right in line with the recruiting in April and May.

If the Army is serious about hitting it's goal for the year, they will now have to bring in 10,700+ new recruits in each of the next three months.

This doesn't appear to be a victory in recruiting, but a fine example of Author Anderson accounting.

Poverty, Starvation, Sanitation, Indifference

Mark Scott notes Why you will never see a front page like this, compassion overload.

When does 160,000 actually mean 10,400

When it is President Bush talking about how many trained troops there are in Iraq.

From AMERICAblog.

For example, the training of Iraqis to take over their own security -- the single most important task in that country -- is proceeding at a punishingly slow rate. Bush threw out the number of 160,000 troops and then casually mentioned they fall into three categories: trained and ready to fight on their own, trained and capable of fighting with our help and not ready to fight at all.

How many of those Iraqis are trained and ready to fight on their own? Half? A third? A tenth? After the speech, we're told the truth. According to Sen. Joe Biden, only 2,500 are fully trained -- less than two percent. How many can fight with our help? About 8,900. In total, only about 8 percent can fight in any way. Of that 160,000 number he threw out, almost 150,000 are not trained in any meaningful way. Bush refuses to say what's going wrong, how he'll speed up the training or explain why he is refusing the offers of Germany and Italy and others to train soldiers in their own countries. But let's say he doubles the rate of training to 2,500 a year. Heck, let's say he quadruples the rate of training to 5,000 a year. How long will it take for Bush to actually reach the level of 160,000 troops he implies we have today? More than three decades.

emphasis added.

No wonder he refuses to discuss a time table. A thirty year plan would outrage almost everyone.

Interesting cliam from the White House

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everybody. I want to begin with one thing the President mentioned last night in his remarks, and then I'll introduce our special guest for the day.

Last night the President let our troops know that during this time of testing, the American people stand firmly behind them. This July 4th is a time for all Americans to express their support and gratitude by thanking our men and women in uniform. The President last night talked about the Department of Defense website, Americasupportsyou.mil, and this is a website where people can find out about ways they can support our troops in their local communities across the country.

After the President's speech last night, the website was experiencing more than 10,000 hits per second. Prior to the speech, it was about 103 hits per second. The President greatly appreciates the response from the American people, and encourage everybody to do what they can to continue to support our troops, particularly those who are in harm's way.

Amazing.

That would be 600,000 hits a minute.

or

36 Million an hour

or

864 Million a day.

I wonder if they still think this is true?

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush



"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"[The] President is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)


"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

I think it is time to note that the conflict that these people were denouncing was a success. We did have an exit plan, we did work with allies and the UN to get the area under control, and our action there is now greatly reduced. All this occurred in far less time the we have been in Afghanistan or Iraq.

So, I wonder why they so loudly denounce those who point out that Iraq is a much bigger mess that the Balkins ever were, and are promoting the same concerns that these folks spoke out so strongly about less than a decade ago.

Thanks to the Poorman

How much damage is Iraq doing to the Army?

This is not damage done by bombings, but damage done by overtaxing the force on what many see as a failed mission. We know about the difficultly in recruiting, but another major issue will be retention of the professional trooper.

A third generation West Point Grad, Lucian K. Truscott IV, has an Op-Ed in the times that is very telling.

My class, that of 1969, set a record with more than 50 percent resigning within a few years of completing the service commitment. (My father's class, 1945, the one that "missed" World War II, was considered to be the previous record-holder, with about 25 percent resigning before they reached the 20 years of service entitling them to full retirement benefits.)

And now, from what I've heard from friends still in the military and during the two years I spent reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems we may be on the verge of a similar exodus of officers. The annual resignation rate of Army lieutenants and captains rose to 9 percent last year, the highest since before the Sept. 11 attacks. And in May, The Los Angeles Times reported on "an undercurrent of discontent within the Army's young officer corps that the Pentagon's statistics do not yet capture."

The damage done to this nation by Bush's war may not be known for years. It is anyone's guess what state the Army will be left in, but all the signs we can currently see are not good.

57% of Americans now think they were tricked

into supporting the war in Iraq.

so Stageleft asks a good question.

The primary question that arises from this is, what will they do now? When Clinton intentionally misled the country about some oral sex in the Oval Office the Republicans wanted him impeached, specifically he was alleged to have 'willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony' - given the current state of affairs that sounds like a good place for them to start with George W. Bush.

So do the same standards the Repubican Congress applied to the sex life of the last president, apply to the actions of our current president. Actions that don't involve anyones sex life, but actual lifes (over 1,700 of them)

A Three way tie, still confused.

You scored as Roman Catholic. You are Roman Catholic. Church tradition and ecclesial authority are hugely important, and the most important part of worship for you is mass. As the Mother of God, Mary is important in your theology, and as the communion of saints includes the living and the dead, you can also ask the saints to intercede for you. Modern Liberal 71% Roman Catholic 71% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 71% Classical Liberal 68% Emergent/Postmodern 57% Neo orthodox 57% Reformed Evangelical 29% Charismatic/Pentecostal 14% Fundamentalist 0% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

H/T to the Green Knight and many others

Place your bets

How many times will Bush mention or allude to 9-11 go over to Fr. Jake's and jump in.

Bush to spread his fertilizer at Fort Bragg.

George Bush will visit Ft. Bragg tonight, and try to rally the American public back behind his 'war on terror'. Once again, our President will misuse the military, making them a visual back-drop and a shelter for political gain. No doubt Bush will try to explain away the disaster that Iraq has become, and profess the whole story isn't being told.

All of this in his crusade against terror.

When we invaded Afghanistan the action was greeted with broad support. Al Qaeda had attacked us, and were sheltered there. The attack was logical, proper and necessary.

Next we invaded Iraq. This is a war of another type. For the first time in our history, we initiated combat. To get the nation to do this, the Bush administration talked of Mushroom clouds, Bio weapons and 9-11. Bush's administration claimed that Saddam was building nuclear weapons, He claimed that Saddam possessed vast stockpiles of Biological and Chemical weapons, He claimed that Saddam was working with Bin Laden. With work, Bush sold us his war. He convinced the majority of the congress and the people that a preemptive war was acceptable.

The trouble is, all of Bush's excuses for this war have proven to be un-true.

The support for his war is evaporating. His other policies and initiatives are dying on the vine. So out he will come, with the proper visual props in place, to remind us of the reason for his war.

Will he mention Weapons of Mass Destruction? Will Bush focus on the ties between Saddam and Bin Laden?

No.

Bush will focus on 9-11, the spread of freedom, and the his 'war on terror'. he will dwell on fear, trying to scare the people of the US with terrorist boogie men. He will spout high ideals, that have no relationship to the reality he has created, and he will try wrap himself up in the flag, so that any attack on his failings could be seen as attack on this country.

Bush gets his time on the stage, and gets to spread his fertilizer on the American public in the effort to grow his poll numbers. When will someone finally compel Bush to explain how 9-11 is related to Iraq? Will anyone ask when it became to responsibility of the US to try create freedom at the point of a M-16?

And, the most important question, can Bush please explain to us how we will know when we have won his 'war on terror'.

Truth that Bush won't mention while at Ft. Bragg.

At the end of his story in the Independent, titled fittingly, Iraq; a bloody mess, Patrick Cockburn lays out some facts.

Then and now

Average daily attacks by insurgents

Pre-war March 2003: 0

Handover June 2004: 45

Now: 70

Analysis:

Figures should be viewed with caution because US military often does not record attacks if there are no American casualties.

Total number of coalition troops killed

Pre-war March 2003: 0

Handover June 2004: 982

Now: 1,930

Analysis:

Number of US troops killed increased sharply during Fallujah fighting in April and November 2004.

Iraqi civilians killed

Pre-war March 2003: n/a

Handover June 2004: 10,000

Now: 60,800 (includes 23,000 crime-related deaths)

Analysis:

Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths have varied widely because the US military does not count them.

Electricity supply (megawatts generated)

Pre-war March 2003: 3,958

Handover June 2004: 4,293

Now: 4,035

Analysis:

Coalition is way behind its goal of providing 6,000 megawatts by July 2004. Most Iraqis do not have a reliable electricity supply.

Unemployed

Pre-war March 2003: n/a

Handover June 2004: 40%

Now: 40%

Analysis:

More than a third of young people are unemployed, a cause for social unrest. Many security men stay home, except on payday.

Telephones

Pre-war March 2003: 833,000 (landlines only)

Handover June 2004: 1.2m (includes mobiles)

Now: 3.1m

Analysis:

Landlines are extremely unreliable and mobile phone system could be improved.

Primary school access

Pre-war March 2003: 3.6m

Handover June 2004: 4.3m

Now: n/a

Analysis:

83 per cent of boys and 79 per cent of girls in primary schools. But figures mask declining literacy and failure rate.

Oil production (barrels a day)

Pre-war March 2003: 2.5m

Handover June 2004: 2.29m

Now: 2.20m

Analysis:

Sustainability of Iraqi oilfields has been jeopardised to boost output. Oil facilities regularly targeted by insurgents.

A secret bombing campaign started in Iraq

Months before congress approved of the invasion. These attacks occurred while Bush, and his minions, were professing that we didn't want war, and were working to find a peaceful solution.

This ties right into one of the claims to arise for the Downing Street Memo, and the other leaked memos in the collection. Part of these memos make it clear that, lacking a clear legal cause for war, the US and UK would try to wrongfoot, or goad Saddam in to war.

It is astounding that it took the US Government and military to forget the results of out last attempts at secret bombings. It is even more astounding that this isn't getting any notice in the wider media market.

Our nation, under orders from the Bush administration, attacked another nation. This was done without cause, and without authority to do so given by any governmental or international body.

The 9-11 excuse

It is starting to pick up speed again.

Scott McClellan is using it, there is no doubt Bush will roll it out at Ft. Bragg.

Administration officials are also bringing back talk of 9/11 in an apparent effort to renew the link in some people's minds between Iraq and the 2001 terrorist attacks on the US. On the eve of the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, part of the administration's argument was that Iraq was the central front in the war on terror.

So, exactly, what is the evidence that points to Iraq being 'the central front in the war on terror'? How , exactly, is Iraq or Saddam related to the 9-11 attacks? Why do they keep trotting out this false excuse?

It is a clear indicator that there is no justification for their acts, and that they have only the fear they can create to hide behind. It takes amazing courage (or profound stupidity) to go back and keep trying to replay the same lies over and over again. This is just another point that clearly indicates a total lack of justification for the war.

Another sad reality is clearly exposes by the administration's continued use of fear to cover up their failings, is it works.

More evidence of the lies of the Bush administration

General Moseley admits that we went to war against Saddam long prior to the official start.

THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.

Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 'carefully selected targets' before the war officially started.

and more

If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.

Moseley's remarks have emerged after reports in The Sunday Times that showed an increase in allied bombing in southern Iraq was described in leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet as 'spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime'.

Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17, 2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic minorities.

Well, just more evidence that this was a war of choice, and that our nations actions were aggressive and not defensive as the Bush administration keeps trying to claim.

The Republican chairman of the Ethics committee

May face his own ethics investigation, if the committee ever starts to function.

Rep. Doc Hastings, already under fire as chairman of the stalled House ethics committee, accepted a $7,800 trip to England in 2000 from a company he championed for a multibillion-dollar contract at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, records released by an advocacy group yesterday show.

In addition, other records released yesterday by a political Web site show that Hastings, a Republican from Pasco, did not file a required travel report for a 2004 trip to a resort on Stuart Island, B.C. That was paid for by another company also working at Hanford.

When the top 'ethics' man in the Republican party appears as guilty as DeLay or Cunningham, you no longer have ethics in the party.

Campaign for a Cleaner Congress, an advocacy group that says it is nonpartisan, released records yesterday from Hastings' personal disclosure statements that show he went to Edinburgh, Scotland, and Manchester, England, in 2000 as a guest of the firm BNFL.

He also received campaign contributions from BNFL and one of its employees.

BNFL won a $6.9 billion federal contract in 1998 to convert 54 million gallons of nuclear waste into glass for permanent storage. The contract was promoted by Hastings, who offered amendments to the Defense Authorization Act to pay for Hanford projects, including BNFL work.

But in October 1998, the General Accounting Office began questioning the contract as too lucrative for the company. Hastings continued to defend the contract.

The trip to the U.K. took place in January 2000. Four months later, the Department of Energy abruptly terminated the BNFL deal when it learned the cost could soar to $15.2 billion.

They all trade taxpayer money for their own enrichment. They trade our dollars for power and wealth, and we allow it. The people who vote to empower these men and women are voting to destroy our nation, and this fact has to be stressed to the American public.

More bad poll numbers for George

Maybe this is why Rove's panties are in a wad.

This one is focused on the economy, and what I found most interesting is this.

Among Republicans (36% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 84% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 12% disapprove. Among Democrats (38% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 18% approve and 77% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (26% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 17% approve and 75% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.

The loss of the independents would mean the loss of political control for the Republican party.

I still can't spell or type

You are a MASTER of the English language!


Huzzah. While your English is not exactly
perfect, you are still more grammatically
correct than just about every American. Others
admire the way you speak and could learn a lot
from listening to you. Still, there is always
room for improvement...


How grammatically correct are you? (Revised with answer key)
brought to you by Quizilla


Thanks to Pulling the Plank

Us admits using torture to the UN

In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo.

It's a start.

Italy wants to arrest 13 CIA operatives

It seems in our lust to find more people to use our neat new tool of rendition on, we may have kidnapped Abu Omar, and shipped him to Egypt.

Italy isn't happy.

How to quantify a failure

Sometimes you just look at the numbers.

This fact has been noted elsewhere, but it is worth paying attention to. It is simply the length of this current war.

For 1382 days we have been fighting a war against those who attacked us on September 11th. The people who did this were collection of just a few thousand men, protected by a government with a ragtag army involved in fighting its own civil war.

1382 days have passed and this war is still going on. The leader of the terror group who attacked us is still free. Some of the leaders of the nation that supported this terrorist are free, and fighting us in their homeland. US troops are still fighting and dying in this very land. In truth, we can actually only claim to control the environs around capital of this nation, the rest is controlled by warlords, who's loyalty will last only as long as the cash keeps coming in.

What is more amazing than our inability to secure this one nation is that our leaders, with this first war still going on, made the choice to attack another nation. They used the false premise that this land was planning to attack us with weapons of mass destruction. The battle here is actually going worse than the first failed front.

Now lets get some perspective.

On December 7th 1941, the US was attacked. We had to fight a global war against the largest powers on the planet.

That battle lasted only 1347 days, from first attack to final surrender.


That is an excellent way to quantify failure.

Rove's attack on half of America was planed and orchestrated

AMERICAblog has all the foul details.

It's pretty clear now that this was a set up orchestrated by the White House in order to deflect attention away from the disaster that is the war in Iraq, and Bush's plumetting polls.

1. The White House released the TEXT of Rove's speech today. According to my sources who know about such things, that NEVER happens. This is prima facie evidence that the White House coordinated this thing from the beginning.

2. The RNC put out talking points today about how the Democrats "blamed America" for September 11. Those detailed talking points were clearly prepared well in advance of this noon today when this thing blew up. WE BLAMED AMERICA?

3. The RNC today reportedly released a new attack web ad going after Durbin for his comments about Guantanamo Bay. Isn't that convenient that something that took at least a few days to prepare was suddenly ready today at the same time that Karl Rove made his comments that anyone who recognizes that Bush has no idea what's going on Iraq is a traitor who loves Osama.

Rove should be removed at once. The fact that it won't happen is just another example of the total lack of character of this administration.

Karl Rove again proves he is a jackass

Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.

Well, lets look at what Bush's war had gotten us Karl.

Bin Laden is still free, and now our CIA director is indicating we are afraid or unable to go get him.

Al Quada had changed from a terror group, to a terror movement, with international support, excellent work there.

The CIA now confirms that Iraq has become a graduate level terrorist training ground, training the next generation of killers for international action.

Our nation has violated principals of the Geneva Convention, and our own laws, and some of our leaders (including all of your administration) appear proud of it.

International opinion of the US has sunk so low, we are now viewed less positively the China. Remember Tiananmen square, that action has been replaced with Gitmo and Abu Grabe in the worlds eye.

We have killed 1,700 of our own finest, and in the tens of thousands of Iraqis.

and, we have spent 200 to 300 BILLION dollars, with no sign of this cost ending any time soon.

Yes Karl, your plan was just peachy. You have again confirmed why so many view you as the scum of the earth, and maybe the most vile person in politics.