Sy Hersh Discusses Iran Plans on 'Democracy Now'

Appearing on "Democracy Now" this morning, Seymour Hersh discussed details of his recent article the New Yorker magazine, in which he reports that the Bush administration has drawn up contingency plans to attack Iran. In addition, the article alleges that the administration, without Congressional approval, has been indirectly funneling money to Sunni groups that have ties to al Qaeda, in an effort to counter Hezbollah and undermine the influence of the Shiite Iranian government.

As Hersh explains in the interview,

In Lebanon, once Hariri fell and there was a crisis there, we immediately moved to support any group that was against Nasrallah and Hezbollah. And so, we’ve poured a lot of money, illicit money. It was not authorized by Congress. Money went pouring in there. Former retired CIA guys were put in there. Retired people went in there, other agencies. The funds came, nobody is quite sure where. There’s a lot of pools of black money around, a lot of money. Undoubtedly, some was, I’m told, came from Iraq. That is, as you know, there were hearings the other week that showed $9 billion in Iraqi oil money mysteriously disappeared and was unaccounted for. Some of that money was washed around. There was also a lot of money found after Saddam fell. We found several caches of huge amounts, you know, hundreds of millions, and billions of dollars in some cases, of cash. We also found money in various ministries. There’s no, really, accountability, and a lot of it could have ended up in black pools. It’s just not clear where the money came from, and it’s not supposed to be clear. What you do is you wash the money in. You get it to certain people. The government of Lebanon underwrites its internal security people.

And what we do know is, in the last few years, or less than that, the last year or so, three jihadist groups, three Sunni Salafi or Wahhabi -- these are the religious sects out of Saudi Arabia, and don’t forget, fifteen of the nineteen guys who went into the building in New York, the two towers, were Saudis and from the extreme religious -- they were jihadists from -- either Salafis or Wahhabis. And we know that the groups now -- there are three groups, similar in character -- according to reports I’ve read, some of the people in these groups were trained in Afghanistan, closely associated with al-Qaeda, not everybody. It’s a loose network. What you have around the world is these terror groups operating independently of Osama bin Laden, although it’s not clear they don’t have some ways of communicating. Through the web or what, we’re not sure. But these three groups, two years ago, we would have done everything we could in the United States to arrest them and sent them to Gitmo, Guantanamo, or some other place. Instead, we’re throwing money into the country, into the government, into the internal security apparatus, and the internal security facilities or mechanisms inside Lebanon are underwriting these groups. They, as soon as one group came across the border from Syria, were immediately giving material, a place to live, arms, and resupplied. There are three such groups that are operating.

Click here to watch or listen to the whole segment on "Democracy Now."

The Lost Mystery of 'Iraq-gate'

By Peter Dyer
February 28, 2007

Now that Saddam Hussein has been executed for the 1982 massacre at Dujail, the trial for a larger-scale slaughter involving poison gas in 1988 has all but disappeared from public view.

With Saddam’s death the opportunity for a full account of the tens of thousands of deaths in the so-called Anfal case appears to be lost, along with the opportunity for a frank public discussion of its historical context.

Read on.

Losing the War in Afghanistan

By Ivan Eland
February 28, 2007

While media attention has been focused on the U.S. quagmire in Iraq, an equally failed war in Afghanistan has received little coverage. As in countless militaristic U.S. nation–building fiascos, “mission creep” in Afghanistan is leading to another foreign policy disaster.

Although the escalation in Afghanistan has not been announced publicly, a reliable source with connections at the Pentagon tells me that the Joint Staff has been ordered to plan for a surge in that country, and the Department of Defense Comptroller has been asked to budget the money for it.

Read on.

Bush Faces Opposition on Iran War

By Robert Parry
February 27, 2007

A number of U.S. military leaders, reportedly including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have waged an extraordinary behind-the-scenes resistance to what they fear is a secret plan by George W. Bush to wage war against Iran.

One intelligence source told me that Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, has explored the possibility of resigning if Bush presses forward with air attacks against Iran, a war strategy that might be done in coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Read on.

Gore's Other Global Warning: Iraq War

By Robert Parry
February 25, 2007

As Al Gore steps into the national spotlight because of the Academy Awards and his global-warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” it’s worth remembering that in fall 2002 Gore sought to warn the American people about another “inconvenient truth,” the folly of invading Iraq.

The former Vice President did so at a time when it was considered madness or almost treason to object to George W. Bush’s war plans. But Gore was one of a small number of national political figures who took that risk and paid a price, subjected to widespread ridicule and disdain from the Washington news media.

Read on.

Thanking Al Gore for His Service

By Brent Budowsky
February 25, 2007

Thank You, Al Gore.

Al Gore is the most qualified person in America to bring peace between the Hollywood moguls attending the fundraisers of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Al Gore is the most qualified person in America to bring peace to the Middle East.

Imagine a world where an American President is again the leader of the Free World. Where our Commander in Chief has the experience to wage war, but the judgment to know that the best wars, are the wars wise leaders can avoid.

Read on.

Why US Shields Japan's WWII Denials

By Jerry Meldon
February 24, 2007

On Feb. 19, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso took exception to a U.S. congressional resolution introduced by Rep. Mike Honda, D-California, calling on Japan to “formally acknowledge, apologize and accept historical responsibility” for coercing 200,000 Asian women into slavery as “Comfort Women” (wartime prostitutes) for 3.5 million Japanese soldiers. Mr. Aso said he considers the accusation groundless and extremely regrettable.

Six decades after World War II, can it really be that Japanese officials are still distorting history and insulting the Chinese, Koreans, Philippinos and others across Asia whom Hirohito’ s forces savagely brutalized and robbed?

Read on.

'Amazing Grace': Roots of Freedom

By Jonathan J. Bean
February 24, 2007

William Wilberforce is one of the great forgotten men of history. But, all that is about to change as America marks Black History Month with "Amazing Grace," the remarkable new film that opened nationwide on Feb. 23.

"Amazing Grace" commemorates the bicentennial of the British ban on the slave trade (1807), an antislavery movement led by Wilberforce. Without him, there would have been no end to the slave trade, certainly not in his time.

Read on.

The Clintons' Real Trouble with Truth

By Robert Parry
February 24, 2007

Hollywood mogul David Geffen touched a raw nerve with Hillary Clinton when he told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that “everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

The Clintons’ trouble with truth, however, is not just the petty political lying nor is it their quibbling over what “is is” or what “mistake” means. It’s that they have never shown any real reverence for the truth. Too often, they see it as something to be traded away for a transitory tactical advantage.

Read on.

Blaming the Iraqis for the Iraq Disaster

By Ivan Eland
February 22, 2007

As President Bush continues his Nixonesque policy of “exiting” Iraq by escalation and intimidation, both Republican and Democratic politicians are also imitating the Vietnam-era rhetoric of blaming the citizens of the chaotic country and their neighbors for the mess.

In fact, the politicians are blaming everyone but themselves for this monumental policy failure.

Read on.

GOP, Global Warming & Dinosaur Farts

By Richard Monastersky and Jeffrey Brainard
February 22, 2007

When Congress starts discussing the climatic effects of dinosaur farts, it treads on dangerous territory, given members' own reputations for producing hot air. But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California bravely ventured into that sensitive subject on Feb. 8, during a heated hearing on global warming in the House Committee on Science and Technology.

In the three-hour session, members quizzed four scientists who had helped oversee a report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, better known as the IPCC.

Read on.

Bush Is Losing the 'War on Terror'

By Robert Parry
February 20, 2007

Despite the sacrifices in lives, treasure and liberties, the painful reality is that the United States is losing the “war on terror” – in large part because too many people in the Middle East and across the globe view George W. Bush as a bully and a hypocrite.

Bush has become the ugly face of America, mouthing pretty words about freedom and democracy while threatening other nations and bludgeoning those who get in his way. Perhaps even worse, Bush has shown himself to be an incompetent commander, especially for a conflict as complicated and nuanced as this one.

Read on.

Rhetoric and Reality in the Global War on Terror

If Iraq, as Bush says, is the “central front” of the “global war on terror,” at the moment it appears that Baghdad is the central front of the central front of the global war on terror. And according to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki – despite an alarming increase in successful attacks on U.S. helicopters around Baghdad – the early signs of Bush’s “surge” in Baghdad indicate a “dazzling success,” which by extension could imply that the larger war on terror is also a dazzling success.

Unfortunately, two days after al-Maliki’s statement, his appraisal of the situation was called into question when two car bombs tore through a crowded Baghdad market, killing at least 60 people. The brazenness of the attack and the apparent futility of Bush’s surge policy was underscored by the fact that “the attack occurred only minutes after American soldiers passed through the area on patrol,” as reported by the New York Times.

Pointing out that the attack followed a well-established pattern in Iraq, the Times also noted,

The attackers were probably Sunni Arab militants, American and Iraqi officials said, seeking to fuel the sectarian tensions that have torn Baghdad apart. They have responded to past security pushes in similar ways: with bursts of bombings and other attacks seemingly calculated to undermine efforts by the Americans and the Iraqi government to provide a sense of security and confidence for families here.

In other words, American attempts to establish security in Iraq are generally counterproductive in that the actual effects are the opposite of the U.S.’s stated objectives. Yet, the Bush administration pushes ahead with the same policies and tactics, seemingly expecting different results.

Beyond Iraq, there are further signs of the war on terror’s failures in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not only have attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan been on the rise, but so too has al-Qaeda been reestablishing itself as a major force in Pakistan. As the New York Times reported today,

Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda.

The United States has also identified several new Qaeda compounds in North Waziristan, including one that officials said might be training operatives for strikes against targets beyond Afghanistan.

This calls into question Bush’s insistence that since 9/11, al-Qaeda has been on the run and on the defensive. Instead, it looks like they’ve been regrouping, recruiting and reestablishing their influence. This assessment would fit in well with the official analysis of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that the Iraq invasion has worsened the global terrorist threat.

As the Times reported last September,

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

Of course, this spike in the terrorist threat was precisely what many predicted would be the result of invading Iraq when Bush started floating the idea in 2002. Many now make similar arguments regarding the prospect of war with Iran, but it seems that idea is moving forward as well. Apparently, the Bush administration is still expecting different results from the same policies of bluster and preemption.

Shame on the Washington Post, Again

By Robert Parry
February 19, 2007


Just days before the perjury/obstruction trial of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby goes to the jury, the Washington Post’s Outlook section published a bizarre front-page article by right-wing legal expert Victoria Toensing suggesting that the prosecutor and one of the chief victims in the case should be put on trial.

Beyond the absurdity – and dishonesty – of Toensing’s arguments, the Post illustrated the article with fabricated “mug shots” of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an Iraq War critic whose undercover CIA wife, Valerie Plame, was outed by the Bush administration.

Read on.

Moon/Bush 'Ongoing Crime Enterprise'

By Robert Parry
February 17, 2007

From petty local scams to international money-laundering, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s political/media/business/religious empire has all the looks of a global “ongoing criminal enterprise,” albeit one with enough powerful friends in Washington to protect it from serious consequences.

Benefiting from relationships with the Bush family and other prominent Republicans, Moon’s Unification Church slips away from one illegal scheme after another – despite overwhelming evidence and first-person admissions about the systematic pattern of the criminality. Somehow U.S. authorities never put two and two together.

Read on.

Inhofe and the Old/New Republicans

By Richard L. Fricker
February 14, 2007

After the Democrats won control of Congress last November, the conventional wisdom was that George W. Bush and other Republicans would look for ways to moderate far-right positions on key issues like the Iraq War and global warming, tacking closer to positions held by most American voters.

But that isn’t what happened. Instead, the Republican leadership has dug in its heels on Iraq, lambasted scientists who warn about climate change and – despite a few rhetorical concessions here and there – continued to support the same ol’ stuff.

Read on.

America's 'Tarzan' Foreign Policy

By Ivan Eland
February 14, 2007

President Vladimir Putin of Russia recently bluntly lashed out at U.S. foreign policy.

At an international security conference with U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in attendance, referring to U.S. actions in the international arena, Putin said, “Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations—military force.”

Read on.

WPost Disses the Dixie Chicks

By Robert Parry
February 12, 2007

The smug Washington Post smirked its way through an article about the Dixie Chicks winning five Grammy Awards for the group’s heroic album “Taking the Long Way” and the defiant song “Not Ready to Make Nice.”

The Post, which has editorially supported George W. Bush’s Iraq War and joined in smear campaigns against war critics like Joseph Wilson, treated the Dixie Chicks with the usual disdain.

Read on.

A Greater Israel

By Robert Parry
February 12, 2007

A big part of the crisis confronting the United States in the Middle East can be traced back to what is now more than a quarter-century-old competition among American politicians over who can best pander to Israeli hardliners.

Rather than furthering Israel’s long-term interests – or those of the American people – these politicians seek short-term electoral gains by appealing to blocs of right-wing Christian and Jewish voters who reject any criticism of Israeli policies.

Read on.

Bush/Cheney Risk Israel's Survival

By Ray McGovern
February 12, 2007

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are unwittingly playing Dr. Jack Kevorkian in helping the state of Israel commit suicide.

For this is the inevitable consequence of the planned air and missile attack on Iran. The pockmarked, littered landscape in Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan and the endless applicant queues at al-Qaeda and other terrorist recruiting stations testify eloquently to the unintended consequences of myopic policymakers in Washington and Tel Aviv.

Read on.

Bending to George W. Bush's Will

By Brent Budowsky
February 9, 2007

Dear Senator Hagel and Senator Warner:

For four years of failure and bloodshed in the Iraq War, you have issued warnings, concerns, sage advice and major suggestions for change.

Read on.

Smirkingly Shirking an Iraq War Bet

By Jeff Cohen
February 9, 2007

There are many shades of right-wing punditry in our country. Among the shadiest is Jonah Goldberg.

With arrogance seemingly matched only by his ignorance, Goldberg was just being Goldberg when he offered this wager two years ago:

Read on.

Will the Dems Finally Play Hardball?

By Robert Parry
February 7, 2007

The Republicans scored a political victory of sorts by thwarting a non-binding Senate resolution that would have expressed mild disapproval of George W. Bush’s military escalation in Iraq. When the resolution was blocked, White House officials reportedly gave each other high-fives.

The GOP’s use of parliamentary procedures to prevent a floor debate was another sharp elbow in the ribs of the new Democratic congressional majority, which has been trying since November to behave in a bipartisan way on foreign policy, graciously approving Bush’s new war council with nary a tough question.

Read on.

Billions Wasted on Defense Spending

By Ivan Eland
February 7, 2007

Each year, one of the most important events in the nation’s capital is the release of the federal budget. Yet the media provides insufficient coverage because the budget is technical, unglamorous, and requires hard work sifting through mounds of data to uncover the key truths.

It is much sexier to cover whether Condi Rice’s star has fallen as a result of the Iraq War. Very little happens in public affairs, however, without the money to effectuate it. And much has happened.

Read on.

Fourth Anniversary of Powell's Lies

By Robert Parry
February 5, 2007

To make his case for war before the U.N., George W. Bush dispatched the most credible official in his administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Yet, when Powell was assigned to make the case for war, he already counted himself among the growing list of U.S. officials nervous about the quality of the WMD intelligence. Indeed, Powell may have been one of the best positioned officials to know that the threat from Iraq was being exaggerated.

Read on.

The Plight of Damaged Iraq War Vets

By Andrew Weaver and Ray McGovern
February 5, 2007

The California Nurses Association reported that in the first quarter of 2006, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs "treated 20,638 Iraq veterans for post-traumatic stress disorder, and they have a backlog of 400,000 cases." A returning soldier has to wait an average of 165 days for a VA decision on initial disability benefits, and an appeal can take up to three years.

This is unacceptable and reprehensible.

Read on.

Bush's War: Escalation and Expansion

Below are a few good articles on the U.S. "strategy" of escalation in Iraq, and the prospects for expansion of the war to neighboring Iran.

From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq
The same neocon ideologues behind the Iraq war have been using the same tactics—alliances with shady exiles, dubious intelligence on W.M.D.—to push for the bombing of Iran. As President Bush ups the pressure on Tehran, is he planning to double his Middle East bet?
by Craig Unger March 2007

In the weeks leading up to George W. Bush's January 10 speech on the war in Iraq, there was a brief but heady moment when it seemed that the president might finally accept the failure of his Middle East policy and try something new. Rising anti-war sentiment had swept congressional Republicans out of power. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had been tossed overboard. And the Iraq Study Group (I.S.G.), chaired by former secretary of state James Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton, had put together a bipartisan report that offered a face-saving strategy to exit Iraq. Who better than Baker, the Bush family's longtime friend and consigliere, to talk some sense into the president?

By the time the president finished his speech from the White House library, however, all those hopes had vanished. It wasn't just that Bush was doubling down on an extravagantly costly bet by sending 21,500 more American troops to Iraq; there were also indications that he was upping the ante by an order of magnitude. The most conspicuous clue was a four-letter word that Bush uttered six times in the course of his speech: Iran.

Read on.

Israel's Bomb, Iran's Pursuit of the Bomb and U.S. War Preparations (Part One)

PART ONE

Four years ago today, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell played a major role in persuading a gullible, stupefied and craven American news media and public - but not a cynical world - to support the Bush administration's illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq. He did so by presenting a panoply of lies, false statements and exaggerations about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda terrorists.

Four years later, as both United States and Israel prepare their populations for an illegal, immoral preventive war against Iran -- allegedly to disrupt, if not destroy, the secret nuclear weapons program that both insist (without evidence) is well under way there -- Americans might do well to avoid being duped again. Thus, they might contemplate not only the allegations against Iran, but also the sins of the United States and Israel when it comes to developing, using and brandishing their own nuclear weapons.

Read on.

Meanwhile, even as the administration prepares to escalate and expand its war, some Democrats are urging Bush to re-focus on the "forgotten war," the one being fought in Afghanistan. A Senate resolution introduced by John Kerry calls on the president to beef up "…the efforts of the United States to defeat the Taliban and terrorist networks in Afghanistan."

Cosponsored by Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Joe Biden (D-DE) and Chris Dodd (D-CT), the resolution warns that Taliban activity is returning full-force to the region and that continuing to place that conflict in the back seat to Iraq will cause Afghanistan to "become what it was before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a haven for those who seek to harm the United States and a source of instability that threatens the security of the United States."

“While the Administration moves forward with its escalation plans for Iraq, it has failed to address deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan.” Feingold said. “We should not be reducing our forces in Afghanistan. Instead, we should be strengthening our efforts to defeat a resurgent Taliban – the same movement that harbored and supported the terrorist elements that attacked our country on 9/11.”

Read on.

With deterioriating situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is difficult to understand exactly what Bush hopes to accomplish by expanding the war to Iran. A.K. Gupta, writing in Z Magazine, offers some useful insights however. Focusing on the plans to escalate the war in Iraq, Gupta describes the tough choice the neocons are faced with: either double down, or withdraw. Because the Bush administration still refuses to acknowledge that its dreams of reshaping the Middle East militarily are simply not feasibile, the only option they see is to escalate the conflict.

This will be bad news for the Iraqi people though, with Gupta describing the possibilities they face as either a "second civil war" or "genocide."

Bush's Iraq Strategy for 2007
A second civil war or genocide
By A.K. Gupta

After all the study groups and reports, an electoral repudiation of a failed war, months of deliberation, and hundreds of thousands dead, the Bush administration policy debate boils down to this: choosing between genocide against Sunni Arabs—a strategy known as the “80 percent solution”—or fomenting a second civil war, this one a Shia-on-Shia death match. Or perhaps both.

The new White House strategy begins with the “surge” option. To try to fend off defeat, the Bush administration has decided to send up to 30,000 more troops. The criticism of this, from the media to the military to politicians, is that Bush has not tied any military escalation to a broader political strategy (see the New York Times December 21 editorial, “Rudderless in Iraq”).

Read on.

Declassified, But Still Unavailable

Two hundred and seventy million pages of FBI files were recently declassified. Why can’t the public access them?

By Nat Parry

At the stroke of midnight on December 31, hundreds of millions of pages of secret government documents—including 270 million pages of FBI files—were instantly declassified, promising to shed light on everything from the Cuban Missile Crisis to government surveillance of antiwar and civil rights activists in the ’60s and ’70s.

It was to be a “Cinderella moment,” said the New York Times, for researchers of the government’s secret history. But upon contacting the National Archives, researchers learned that declassification is not the same thing as release—none of the documents were publicly available for review.

Read on.

Libby's Trial Becomes Cheney's Trial

By Brent Budowsky
February 4, 2007

For the judge and jury, it is the Libby trial. For America and American politics, it is the Dick Cheney trial and the stakes are far higher than reported in the media.

What has emerged in evidence so far, is not surprising, but it is astonishing. Vice-President Cheney was so deeply involved and obsessed with discrediting Joe Wilson that the impact and implications are enormous and underestimated.

Read on.

New Gulf of Tonkin in Persian Gulf

By Daniel Patrick Welch
February 4, 2007

I'm putting my mother into bed and the high-pitched urgency of MSNBC's 'this just in' crisis reporting cuts through evening calm. Same on CNN, and I don't even bother to check the other channels.

Iran, we are being told, is to blame for the Kerbala attack. We have always been at war with Eastasia. I can't believe it is happening so neatly, so on cue and so cutely bundled in such a familiar package.

Read on.

Still No Habeas Rights for You

By Robert Parry
February 3, 2007

Despite assurances from the major U.S. news media that American citizens retain their habeas corpus rights to a fair trial – even if non-citizens don’t – Justice Department lawyers have reasserted their claim that George W. Bush has the power to lock up anyone he chooses as an “enemy combatant” and effectively throw away the key.

“A citizen, no less than an alien, can be an enemy combatant,” administration lawyer David B. Salmons told a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, on Feb. 1, adding that on such issues, the courts cannot interfere with the President’s wartime judgments.

Read on.

Bush Is Hiding the Ball on Iran

By Robert Parry
February 2, 2007

George W. Bush is again guiding the nation toward a preemptive war – this time with Iran – without allowing anything like a full debate of the underlying facts, probable consequences of the conflict or peaceful alternatives.

Bush is following the same course he chose in the run-up to war in Iraq: he insists that war is “a last resort” yet puts in motion the engines of war; he times the release of alarming intelligence reports for maximum political effect; he brushes aside doubts and warnings; he then presents war as unavoidable or a fait accompli.

Read on.

Blaming Liberals for 9/11, Again

By Ivan Eland
February 1, 2007

Dinesh D’Souza, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, has raised a ruckus in his new book The Enemy at Home. In the book, he contends that the 9/11 attackers were motivated by neither U.S. foreign policy abroad nor by a hatred of U.S. freedom, as President Bush has repeatedly argued.

Instead, D’Souza declares that Osama bin Laden hates the liberal U.S. culture that promotes contraception, abortion, and homosexuality.

Read on.

Dems Give Bush Bipartisan Cover

By Brent Budowsky
February 1, 2007

Today, George W. Bush is one of the most dangerous men in the world. With an Iraq policy in collapse, escalating the mistakes that led to failure and catastrophic loss of public support, he is considering another preemptive war, against Iran.

For Democratic leaders to agree to a sham bipartisan group at this time sends a radically dangerous signal to Bush and Cheney. They will conclude rightly or wrongly, that Congress lacks the will to resist whatever moves Bush makes.

Read on.

Iran Clock Is Ticking

By Robert Parry
January 31, 2007

While congressional Democrats test how far they should go in challenging George W. Bush’s war powers, the time may be running out to stop Bush from ordering a major escalation of the Middle East conflict by attacking Iran.

Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-late February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the lead in launching air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Read on.

The Democrats' Iraq War Dilemma

By Nat Parry
January 30, 2007

As the Senate prepares to debate a resolution against the proposed “surge” in Iraq, the Democratic Party faces something of a conundrum: will it heed the calls of its base and take concrete action to end the war, or will it simply use the opportunity to position itself in opposition to Bush’s policy in the hopes of retaking the White House in 2008?

So far, it appears that congressional Democrats are leaning toward the latter strategy.

Read on.

Reagan & the Salvadoran Baby Skulls

By Robert Parry
January 30, 2007

Ronald Reagan’s many admirers may find this idea offensive, but – given a new report by the Washington Post – it might be fitting to have a display at Reagan National Airport to show how Salvadoran baby skulls were used as candle holders and good luck charms. Perhaps the presentation could contain skeletal remains of Guatemalans and Nicaraguans, too.

It might be modeled after skeletons on display in Cambodia from the slaughters by the Khmer Rouge. After all, it was President Reagan – more than any other person – who justified and facilitated the barbarity that raged through Central America in the 1980s, claiming the lives of tens of thousands of peasants, clergy and students, men, women and children.

Read on.

Bush Bamboozles Democrats Again

By Robert Parry
January 27, 2007

As Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates joins in baiting Iraq War critics for supposedly aiding the enemy, the Democrats have been taught once more the value of handing a bipartisan olive branch to George W. Bush.

In December 2006, ignoring warnings from former CIA officers who had worked with Gates, Senate Democrats embraced his nomination to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They fawned over Gates at a one-day hearing, spared the former CIA director any tough questions, and then unanimously endorsed him.

Read on.

The Other Iraq War: Son vs. Father

By Ivan Eland
January 27, 2007

There have been pop psychology explanations that attribute President Bush 43’s aggressive foreign policy decisions to a rivalry with President Bush 41—for example, ascribing junior’s invasion of Iraq as a reaction to his father’s writings about the pitfalls of doing so.

Advocates of such explanations must be trumpeting the President’s recent repudiation of the chief recommendations of the Iraq Study Group—a panel stocked with his father’s former associates—to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq and to engage in direct negotiations with Iran.

Read on.

Who's Helping the Terrorists?

By Robert Parry
January 26, 2007

Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Liz was given prime space on the Washington Post’s Op-Ed page to question the wisdom and the patriotism of Americans who disagree with George W. Bush’s long war against Muslim militants.

To Liz Cheney, who surely qualified on merit for her former job as principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, there’s only one option – to stay the course in Iraq and to remain firmly in line behind President Bush.

Read on.

No Longer Leader of the Free World

By Brent Budowsky
January 25, 2007

Had George Walker Bush begun his State of the Union speech with the words, "Ladies and Gentleman, I am taking my leave and retiring from the Presidency," there would have been tidal waves of standing ovations from the Congress across the United States to the far corners of the free world.

Instead, after a modest courtly bow to the first woman Speaker and the party that triumphed in the last election, the President continued his contempt for what Jefferson called the decent opinion of mankind.

Read on.

Taking Peace Mandate to Washington

By Nat Parry
January 25, 2007

On Jan. 27, thousands will descend on Washington, D.C., in a massive collective effort to ensure that the voters’ mandate for peace – as expressed in the historic Nov. 7 election – is heard loud and clear by the new Congress, the Pentagon, the national media, and the White House.

The timing of the demonstration couldn’t be more fortuitous, coming on the heels of the President’s State of the Union Address, and immediately preceding the expected request for an additional $100 billion in war funding.

Read on.

Bush's War on the Republic

By Robert Parry
January 24, 2007

From the beginning of the “war on terror,” George W. Bush has lied to the American people about the goals, motivation and even the identity of the enemy – a propaganda exercise that continued through his 2007 State of the Union Address and that is sounding the death knell for the Republic.

Since 2001, rather than focusing on the al-Qaeda Sunni fundamentalist terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks, Bush has expanded the conflict exponentially – tossing in unrelated enemies such as Iraq’s secular dictator Saddam Hussein, Shiite-led Iran, Syria and Islamic militants opposed to Israel, like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Read on.

Bush's Bait and Switch on Climate Change

President Bush is making headlines today thanks to his surprising mention of global climate change in his State of the Union address and his corresponding proposal to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years. As the Washington Post put it,

The energy proposals President Bush outlined last night break new ground for his administration. He combined a call to lower gasoline consumption with new mandates for oil companies and new standards for automakers. And he couched these in the context of enhancing U.S. energy security and addressing climate change.

In a way, though, his conflation of reducing gas consumption and addressing global warming was reminiscent of past speeches in which he mentioned 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath, without actually saying that one was directly related to the other. Of course, burning gas is one of the primary causes of global warming, but by proposing to cut gas consumption by 20%, it seems the president is hoping to gain political points on the global warming issue, without actually doing anything to seriously address its causes.

When it comes to climate change, the real issue is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and greenhouse gases. These gases are produced by a variety of activities, by burning coal for instance. And as the Post points out, when it comes to Bush's proposal, “Administration officials said that the goal is 20 percent below projected annual gasoline usage, not off today’s levels,” meaning “that carbon dioxide emissions from transportation fuels will drop only slightly from today’s levels; other parts of the economy produce the other two-thirds of greenhouse gases.”

Essentially, Bush's proposal will do next to nothing to address the causes of climate change, and will certainly do nothing to reverse its effects.

Also, as the LA Times points out, "some aspects of the overall plan seemed to contradict each other."

For one, Bush's proposal to save gasoline by increasing vehicle fuel economy standards could be undermined by his call for greater use of alternative fuels. Ethanol, for example, gets less mileage than gasoline and, without a major technological breakthrough, requiring more of it could make it harder to increase fuel efficiency.

Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said that the president's request for new legislation "letting him set standards basically model-by-model is something Detroit has pushed for years — as a way to poke more loopholes in the current weak standards."

One irony of Bush's proposal is that it seems to be utterly arbitrary, and one of the main arguments the administration has made against the Kyoto Protocol on global warming has been that its CO2 reduction targets are arbitrary and could adversely affect the U.S. economy. Considering the improbability of the 20% reduction in achieving any results on climate change, the question must be asked what the point of it is in the first place.

For its part, the Sierra Club is urging Americans to use the opportunity provided by Bush's speech to seriously press the administration to take real action on climate change. In an open letter to the president, the organization says,

We want action -- we want to break our nation's oil habit, invest in renewable wind and solar power, and adopt plans that use clean energy technologies to create jobs. We want action taken on global warming.

President Bush, you have a choice -- you can spend the last two years of your Presidency footdragging, continuing to block real action on global warming or you can work with the new Congress to do what the American people want and that's to take steps to solve global warming.

To add your name to the letter, click here.

The Plame-gate Plot Thickens

In the opening statements at the trial of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, new evidence emerged pointing toward a criminal conspiracy at the highest levels of George W. Bush’s White House.

Libby’s defense attorney Theodore Wells described a conversation from 2003 between Vice President Dick Cheney and Libby, his chief of staff, at which a worried Libby complained that “they’re trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb.”

Read on.

Rev. Moon's Anti-Obama Agit-Prop

By Robert Parry
January 23, 2007

If you’ve ever wondered how agit-propaganda works, you might take a look at the latest case study from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s media empire – a bogus story about Barack Obama attending a Muslim “madrassah” when he was six years old, a smear that was then attributed to operatives of Hillary Clinton.

The shrewdness of Moon’s Insight magazine story is that it hit two enemies with one anonymously sourced stone, a strategy of slime and divide straight from the textbooks of a spy agency like the CIA.

Read on.

Show Me the Intelligence!

By Ray McGovern
January 21, 2007

Have you noticed? Neither President George W. Bush nor Vice President Dick Cheney have cited any U.S. intelligence assessments to support their fateful decision to send 21,500 more troops to referee the civil war in Iraq.

This is a far cry from October 2002, when a formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was rushed through in order to trick Congress into giving its nihil obstat for the attack on Iraq.

Read on.

Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.

Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

Read on.

Bush's Canadian 'Clone' in Jeopardy

By Richard L. Fricker
January 18, 2007

The political decision by American voters on Nov. 7 – flushing away Republican control of the U.S. Congress – is reverberating north of the border where Canada’s hard-line Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper may become the next ally of George W. Bush to be washed away.

Harper, who modeled his aggressive brand of conservatism on what the Republicans had done in the United States, is struggling in the polls and confronting a reenergized Liberal opposition that was encouraged by the Democratic victory.

Read on.

Scooter Libby's Time-Travel Trial

By Robert Parry
January 17, 2007

The trial of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby is being billed by the Big Media as a case study of a favorite Washington cliché – “it’s not the crime but the coverup” – a smugly delivered line suggesting that Libby committed no real offense beyond trimming a few facts when questioned by overzealous investigators.

But the major U.S. news media is again missing the point. The real significance of the Libby trial is that it could demonstrate how far George W. Bush went in 2003 to shut down legitimate criticism of his Iraq War policies as well as questions about his personal honesty.

In that sense, the trial could be a kind of time machine for transporting America back to that earlier era of not so long ago when Bush and his team felt they controlled reality itself and were justified in tricking the American people into bloody adventures overseas.

It was a time when President Bush swaggered across the political landscape, a modern-day king fawned over by courtiers in the government and the press – and protected by legions of followers who bullied citizens who dared to dissent.

Read on.

Bush's Iraq Plan Founders with Shiites

By Ivan Eland
January 17, 2007

Although President Bush’s escalation of the Iraq War has been opposed by a substantial majority of the American people, many generals, the Iraq Study Group, and most Democrats and some Republicans in Congress, the most important opposition may come from Iraqis.

Although Bush had trouble correctly reading the results of the November 2006 congressional elections, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki got the message loud and clear.

When Maliki met Bush in Amman, Jordan, later in November, he hoped the newly chastened American president would be sensible enough to lower the U.S. profile in Baghdad. Maliki demanded that the United States turn most of the security responsibilities in Baghdad over to the Iraqi government and withdraw U.S. forces to the outskirts of the capital.

Rather than training Iraqi security forces and moving toward the exits, however, the President has decided to do the opposite. His escalation of the war will now result in U.S. forces bearing the brunt of the fighting and dying in the Iraqi capital.

Read on.

35,000 Iraqis Killed Last Year, and Bush Says They Owe Us 'Gratitude'

In the latest grim news from Iraq, the UN said today that almost 35,000 civilians were killed in the country last year, a much larger number than that previously reported by the Iraqi government.

"Gianni Magazzeni, the chief of the UN assistance mission for Iraq, said 34,452 civilians were killed and 36,685 wounded last year," reported the Guardian.

The news comes on the heels of President Bush's interview with "60 Minutes," in which he brushed off the suggestion that the U.S. may owe Iraqis an apology for unleashing such chaos in their country, and insisted that instead, they owe us a huge debt of gratitude. "Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology," Bush was asked, "for not doing a better job?"

"Not at all," he replied.

I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

The only problem is, most Iraqis are opposed to the presence of American troops in their country, and have been for some time. As far as back as 2004, surveys of the Iraqi people were showing that a majority rejected the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Just before the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion, a poll showed that "A majority of Iraqis are opposed to the continued presence of occupation forces in Iraq," according to al-Jazeera.

A total of 2500 Iraqis were quizzed for a group of international broadcasting organisations including the BBC in a poll to mark the first anniversary of the US-led occupation.

Fifty-one percent said they took issue with the foreign forces occupying Iraq, against 39% who supported it.

Almost a fifth of those questioned said attacks on foreign forces were acceptable, while 14% said the same about attacks on the civilian administrators of the Coalition Provisional Authority and 10% on foreigners working with the CPA.

Furthermore, more than 40% believed the invasion humiliated Iraq -- and this was before the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal broke. After that scandal became public, Iraqi opposition stiffened even further.

By 2005, the Iraqis were so hostile to the presence of foreign troops in their country that a secret poll taken by the British Ministry of Defence found that a majority of Iraqis supported suicide attacks on British troops, reported the Telegraph.

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

Of course, since then, the situation in Iraq has only deterioratied, largely because of the total inability of the occupation forces to provide security, which under the Geneva Conventions is an occupier's primary responsibility.

Considering that steady deterioration it wouldn't be surprising if Iraqis would take issue with Bush's assessment that they owe us a debt of gratitude, especially with all the "mistakes" that Bush now concedes the U.S. has made. When asked specifically what mistakes had been made, he rattled off a couple that popped into his head.

Abu Ghraib was a mistake. Using bad language like, you know, "bring them on" was a mistake. I think history is gonna look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better.

There is no doubt about that, but what is left unsaid by Bush, other politicians and most of the mainstream media, is that the biggest mistake of all may have been the initial invasion, which could be seen under international law as a war of aggression. And of course, according to the Nuremberg Principles, "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression" is considered a "crime against peace," and is the most the serious of all war crimes.

The open-ended nature of the occupation could be considered the second biggest mistake, as it seems to have only exacerbated the situation as time has gone on. In one of his more honest and candid moments, Bush conceded that the occupation itself was a source of anger and instability in Iraq. "They're not happy they're occupied," he said in April 2004. "I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."

Yet, now he insists that they owe us a debt of gratitude. Especially considering the staggering death toll of last year, it seems safe to say that Iraqis on the whole would disagree.

The Logic of a Wider Mideast War

By Robert Parry
January 14, 2007

White House press secretary Tony Snow dismisses expectations of war with Iran as an “urban legend” and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace says that “from a military standpoint” there’s “no need to cross the Iranian border.” But there are still strong reasons to suspect the Iraq War may soon spill over to Iran and possibly Syria.

Indeed, absent some blinking of eyes in Tehran over its nuclear program or a chilling of feet in Tel Aviv and Washington over military options, the logic of a wider war seems compelling – and would fit with both recent evidence and motives of key protagonists.

Read on.

Washington's Epic Battle, War or Peace

By Brent Budowsky
January 12, 2007

With the Democratic Congress only days old, an epic battle is unfolding in Washington with great dangers, enormous consequences and a historic opportunity.

Let's review the playing field, which is often mischaracterized on the television news.

First, there is an unfolding Democratic strategy to halt the escalation of the war in Iraq as proposed by President Bush's speech in open defiance of the voters' will as expressed in the 2006 election.

Second, there is a raging battle behid the scenes pitting advocates of a preemptive attack against Iran, led by the same civilian neoconservatives who advocated the Iraq War, against critics who view such an attack as catastrophically dangerous. These opponents of a new preemptive war include many in the military and intelligence worlds in the United States and Israel.

Third, there is a grand constitutional battle that will soon be front-page news, pitting those who claim that the President possesses unilateral power to initiate preemptive war against those who argue that it is illegal and unconstitutional for the President to wage new wars without prior congressional approval.

While these battles superficially resemble the Washington kabuki play that preceded the Iraq War in 2002-03, there are two big differences that work to George Bush's great disadvantage and may result in a different outcome.

Read on.

The U.S.-Iran-Iraq-Israeli-Syrian War

By Robert Parry
January 12, 2007

At a not-for-quotation pre-speech briefing on Jan. 10, George W. Bush and his top national security aides unnerved network anchors and other senior news executives with suggestions that a major confrontation with Iran is looming.

Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush’s nationwide address, NBC’s Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said “there’s a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue – in the country and the world – in a very acute way.”

Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing as Bush stepped into the meeting to speak passionately about why he is determined to prevail in the Middle East.

“The President’s inference was this: that an entire region would blow up from the inside, the core being Iraq, from the inside out,” Williams said, paraphrasing Bush.

Read on.

Media Still Turning to Discredited 'Experts' for Analysis on Iraq

Despite the distastrous consequences that neoconservatives have unleashed with their foreign policy prescriptions for Iraq and the greater Middle East, the American media still gives an extraordinary platform to "experts" and academics from organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, one of the primary architects of the Iraq War, and the most vocal advocate for George Bush's new plan to escalate the war with a "surge" of 21,500 troops.

One of the media's current favorites is AEI scholar Frederick Kagan, the author of a report which apparently served as the basis for Bush's new strategy of escalation in Iraq. Kagan has been a regular on cable news and radio, and a Google News search with his name turns up over 700 hits in newspapers and other publications. What's extraordinary though is that representatives of AEI are turned to at all, considering their horrendous track record when it comes to foreign policy analysis. In baseball parlance, these intellectuals are batting at best .100.

The scholars at AEI and like-minded organizations provided the intellectual and scholarly rationale for the initial invasion of Iraq and the grander strategy of "reshaping" the Middle East, but as is obvious today, none of their predictions have played out the way they had hoped. Yet, they are still turned to as credible experts on Middle East policy and given a platform for their new policy prescriptions that are just as sure to fail as their past prescriptions.

Paradoxically, leaders of the grassroots antiwar movement -- who have been vindicated every step of the way -- are largely shut out of the media and still treated as if they are somehow less than credible. Leslie Cagan, coordinator of United For Peace and Justice, was interviewed on Democracy Now this morning, but a Google News search for her name only turned up 7 hits, compared to Frederick Kagan's 700. Representatives of the ANSWER Coalition, which organized many of the biggest antiwar demonstrations before the invasion of Iraq, are even more thoroughly excluded from the media debate.

In the interest of bringing to attention their analysis of the situation in Iraq, I'm posting in its entirety ANSWER's reaction to Bush's plan for a surge, which ANSWER suggests is a prescription for a bloodbath. We'll see whether ANSWER or AEI is proven correct.

U.S. Peace Movement Plans to “Escalate” Street Protests

The ANSWER Coalition Responds to
Bush’s War Speech of January 10, 2007

ANSWER Coalition Statement:

Unwilling to accept the failure of his war of aggression in Iraq, his “war of choice,” Bush announced tonight a plan that will succeed only in sending thousands of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers to their graves in the next year.

What Bush is really proposing is using thousands of additional U.S. soldiers in a planned reign of terror in the streets and neighborhoods of Baghdad against those who want the U.S. to leave. Bush chose to use a euphemism about the planned reign of terror when he stated that one of the past “mistakes” of the U.S. military operation in Baghdad was that, “there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.” The blood will flow just as Bush promises but this plan will fail just as badly as every announced initiative since Bush arrogantly taunted the Iraqi resistance with his infamous “Bring em on” speech back in 2003.

Bush gave the people of the United States a warning that they should expect the coming year will be "bloody and violent," with "television screens filled with images of death and suffering." He tried to innoculate himself from responsibility for this carnage although his plan makes it inevitable.

Bush’s aspiration to salvage his “legacy” and his place in history isn’t worth one more life. Every mother and father of a U.S. soldier, every person who has a loved one in the U.S. armed forces should make it clear that the lives of their family members are too precious to be sacrificed for such an ignoble cause.

For the last six years, Bush has provided huge tax breaks for the billionaires and multimillionaires of this country. But it will not be their children who will be sent to fight and die in Iraq. The privileged ultra-rich, Bush's real "base," are shielded from the horrors of the war.

The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis since March 2003 (see Lancet medical journal 10/06), proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush’s claim that his invasion was for the liberation of the Iraqi people is a complete and utter lie.

“Clearing and holding neighborhoods in Iraq” is not the duty or right of members of the U.S. military. The people who live in those neighborhoods lived in peace before the arrival of the occupation forces. The occupation is illegal and the order to stiffen the occupation is illegal too. U.S. soldiers have the right and duty to disobey illegal orders.

Neither one more Iraqi nor one more soldier should die so that the politicians, who inaugurated a criminal “pre-emptive” invasion of a country that posed zero threat to the people of the United States, can postpone the verdict of history.

For their part, the Democrats in Congress are involved in a slightly more complicated dance. They want to posture as opponents of Bush’s escalation and so-called surge without taking responsibility for bringing the war to a close. They could cut funding for the war which is their exclusive Constitutional prerogative. But they will absolutely refuse to take this responsibility. They are merely posturing for the 2008 elections hoping to take advantage of the well deserved public disgust for Bush and the Iraq war.

The issue right now for the anti-war movement can not simply be opposition to a surge or an escalation: the issue is the war itself. The troops must be brought home now. As in Vietnam, that is the only solution. Those who initiated the war and who funded the war should be held accountable for one of the great crimes of the modern era.

Everything that Bush has said about the Iraq war has proved to be a lie. This was always a war for Empire in a strategic area that possesses two thirds of the world's oil supply. He proclaimed tonight that, "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States." If Bush fails in Iraq the people of the United States lose nothing. It is not our Empire.

On March 17, 2007, the anniversary of the start of the criminal invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of people from around the country will descend on the Pentagon in a mass demonstration to demand: U.S. Out of Iraq Now! 2007 is the 40th anniversary of the historic 1967 anti-war march to the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. The message of the 1967 march was "From Protest to Resistance," and marked a turning point in the development of a countrywide mass movement.

Thousands of organizations and individuals are mobilizing for the upcoming March on the Pentagon. Organizing committees and transportation centers are being established to bring people to the March on the Pentagon.

Tomorrow, January 11, there will be emergency demonstrations in scores of cities around the country protesting Bush's planned escalation of the war in Iraq. A schedule of the demonstrations can be found by clicking here.

The March 17 demonstration will assemble at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (Constitution Gardens) at 12 noon in Washington, D.C. and march to the Pentagon. Go to http://www.answercoalition.org/ for more information. There are more than 1,000 endorsers for the March on the Pentagon, including:

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
Alice Walker, Pulitzer prize winning author
Cynthia McKinney, Congresswoman
Cindy Sheehan, co-founder Gold Star Families for Peace, author
Ron Kovic, Vietnam Veteran, author, Born on the 4th of July
Malik Rahim, Founder, Common Ground Collective, New Orleans
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit
Paul Haggis, Director of Crash, 2005 Academy Award for Best Picture
Elias Rashmawi, National Coordinator, National Council of Arab Americans (NCA)
Howard Zinn, Author, A People's History of the United States
Rev. Luis Barrios, Iglesia de San Romero - UCC
Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild
Chaplain James Yee, former Army chaplain, Guantánamo Detention Center
Mahdi Bray, Executive Director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
Father Roy Bourgeois, Founder, School of the Americas Watch
Leonard Weinglass, Attorney for the Cuban Five
Eric LeCompte, National Office, School of the Americas Watch
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Co-founder, Partnership for Civil Justice
Brian Becker, National Coordinator, ANSWER Coalition
Mounzer Sleiman, TV commentator and Vice Chair, National Council of Arab Americans
Ben Dupuy, Co-Director, Haiti Progres
Juan Jose Gutierrez, Executive Director, Latino Movement USA
Calvin Gipson, Former President, San Francisco LGBT Pride Committee
Rev. Graylan Hagler, Senior Pastor, Plymouth Congregational Church, Washington D.C
Kay Lucas, Director, Crawford Peace House, Crawford, TX
Chuck Kaufman, Co-coordinator of the Nicaragua Network
Al Garcia, Alliance for a Just & Lasting Peace in the Philippines
Macrina Cardenas, Mexico Solidarity Network
Eugene Puryear, Howard University, student leader
Gloria La Riva, Coordinator, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five
CAAAV: Organizing Asian Communities
Nodutdol for Korean Community Development
KAWAN: Korean Americans Against War and Neoliberalism
Justice Committee
Ed Asner, Actor
Shirley Knight, Actor
Debra Sweet, National Coordinator, World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime
Jennifer Harbury, Human Rights Lawyer, author
United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA)
Jim Lafferty, Director, National Lawyers Guild - Los Angeles
Iglesia de San Romero - United Church of Christ
Mimi Kennedy, Actor (Dharma & Greg)

-- ANSWER Coalition

Demonstrations are planned around the country today in opposition to Bush's plan for escalating the Iraq War. Click here for more information.

How Ollie North Helped Ortega Win

By Robert Parry
January 11, 2007

As Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega takes over as Nicaragua’s new president, some U.S. diplomats are privately blaming Iran-Contra figure Oliver North for unwittingly helping his longtime enemy split the anti-Sandinista vote and win last November’s election.

The bitter irony for some Bush administration officials is that North is a hero to many on the Right because, as a National Security Council aide in the 1980s, he spearheaded Ronald Reagan’s contra war seeking to oust Ortega and the leftist Sandinistas.

But now North is coming under criticism for making a last-minute trip to Nicaragua and throwing his weight behind a right-wing candidate who undercut another conservative favored by the U.S. Embassy.

Ortega prevailed in Nicaragua’s Nov. 5 election by winning a plurality of the vote (38 percent) while two conservative candidates – Eduardo Montealegre (28 percent) and Jose Rizo (27 percent) – divided up the anti-Sandinista vote.

The U.S. Embassy was behind Montealegre, a Harvard-educated economist and banker from the reformist Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance or ALN. But North was persuaded by former contra leader Adolfo Calero that Rizo, the candidate of the Liberal Constitutional Party or PLC, had the better shot to beat Ortega, according to sources familiar with the inside workings of Nicaragua’s politics.

Read on.

Pundits No, Everyday Citizens Yes

By Mary MacElveen
January 10, 2007

Turn on any news program in which political pundits are interviewed and what you will hear from a great majority of them is that Americans changed the direction of this country this past Election Day.

At the end of 2006, even Time Magazine chose ‘You’ as the person of the year in which a mirror was put on the front cover, so that the reader could see themselves as being the very one that did in fact change our course.

One columnist I know who writes for several major newspapers stated in an e-mail to me that Time Magazine was “pandering to its readers” because of “sluggish sales”. While at first I was disturbed at hearing that opinion, one only has to look within their magazine and others to see that the same old pundits and writers are speaking out and not everyday Americans.

Maybe the great majority of Americans do not know how to write, but hey, that is what editors and proof readers are for. Come on, Time Magazine; let ordinary Americans have their own columns. I for one would like to hear of their interesting stories.

Read on.

Saddam's Well-Timed Execution

By Robert Parry
January 10, 2007

Saddam Hussein’s rushed execution looks even more suspicious now that the trial of his co-defendants has resumed with prosecutors playing an incriminating tape recording of the dead Iraqi dictator discussing chemical weapons – but now without any possibility of him fingering U.S. officials and others who may have helped him get the poisons.

President George W. Bush and his supporters are sure to cite the tape recording as further evidence of Hussein’s guilt and thus vindication of Bush’s decision to press ahead with Hussein’s controversial hanging on Dec. 30.

But the troubling reality – virtually ignored in the major U.S. news media – is that Bush also silenced a particularly dangerous witness who could have implicated prominent U.S. officials from both his father’s and his own administrations.

The hasty execution prevented the Iraqi judges from turning to Hussein after the tape was played on Jan. 8 to question him about its authenticity and its context. Another obvious follow-up would have been how had Hussein obtained the dangerous chemicals that he allegedly deployed to kill tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds.

In that sense, Hussein’s silence was golden for the international arms dealers who supplied his regime and for government officials who facilitated the shipments.

Read on.

Bush's Rush to Armageddon

By Robert Parry
January 8, 2007

George W. Bush has purged senior military and intelligence officials who were obstacles to a wider war in the Middle East, broadening his options for both escalating the conflict inside Iraq and expanding the fighting to Iran and Syria with Israel’s help.

On Jan. 4, Bush ousted the top two commanders in the Middle East, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, who had opposed a military escalation in Iraq, and removed Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who had stood by intelligence estimates downplaying the near-term threat from Iran’s nuclear program.

Most Washington observers have treated Bush’s shake-up as either routine or part of his desire for a new team to handle his planned “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq. But intelligence sources say the personnel changes also fit with a scenario for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and seeking violent regime change in Syria.

Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon as the new chief of Central Command for the Middle East despite the fact that Fallon, a former Navy fighter pilot and currently head of the Pacific Command, will oversee two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The choice of Fallon makes more sense if Bush foresees a bigger role for two aircraft carrier groups now poised off Iran’s coastline, such as support for possible Israeli air strikes against Iran’s nuclear targets or as a deterrent against any overt Iranian retaliation.

Read on.

Holding Intelligence Liars Accountable

By Ray McGovern and W. Patrick Lang
January 6, 2007

Lies have consequences.

All those who helped President George W. Bush launch a war of aggression—termed by Nuremberg “the supreme international crime”—have blood on their hands and must be held accountable. This includes corrupt intelligence officials. Otherwise, look for them to perform the same service in facilitating war on Iran.

“They should have been shot,” said former State Department intelligence director, Carl Ford, referring to ex-CIA director George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin, for their “fundamentally dishonest” cooking of intelligence to please the White House. Ford was alluding to “intelligence” on the menacing but non-existent mobile biological weapons laboratories in Iraq.

Ford was angry that Tenet and McLaughlin persisted in portraying the labs as real several months after they had been duly warned that they existed only in the imagination of intelligence analysts who, in their own eagerness to please, had glommed onto second-hand tales told by a con-man appropriately dubbed “Curveball.”

In fact, Tenet and McLaughlin had been warned about Curveball long before they let then-Secretary of State Colin Powell shame himself, and the rest of us, by peddling Curveball’s wares at the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003.

Read on.

Defiant Neocons & a Realist Response

By Peter W. Dickson
January 6, 2007

During his State of the Union speech last year, President Bush puzzled many pundits with his frequent references to the lure of isolationism and its dangers.

No one at the time wondered or asked if this warning meant that Bush had some personal premonition of defeat in the Middle East. Surely it was strange for a man so confident then (and even until very recently) to raise the specter of isolationism – an impulse which has deep historical roots in American psyche since the nation was founded more than two centuries ago.

To discourage a pendulum swing in favor of greater withdrawal from the world, prominent neoconservatives and their allies within the Republican Party have sneered at the Baker-Hamilton report as providing political cover for defeatists who wish to sell out Iraq or otherwise capitulate to terrorist groups and nation-states that lend support to them such as Iran. Realists whether liberal or more conservative, such as Brent Scowcroft, are compared to Neville Chamberlain in a grossly misleading historical analogy.

Beyond this, the prominent neoconservative Robert Kagan in a Washington Post op-ed item entitled “Our Messianic Impulse” insisted that expansionism has always been the “dominant strain” in the nation’s character and should remain so no matter what happens in Iraq.

Read on.

Bush's Signing Statement and the First 100 Hours

The wrongheadedness of the Democrats' refusal to even entertain the notion of impeachment was underscored yesterday when it emerged that in signing a piece of postal legislation last month, George Bush issued a "signing statement" that effectively granted himself the right to open any American's mail without a warrant. The statement was attached to H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act," and the relevant passage reads,

The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Translation: Bush has the authority to open Americans' mail without a court warrant.

Much of the rest of the signing statement reaffirms the "authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch" and asserts the "constitutional limitation of Federal courts."

Despite Bush's views on the "unitary executive" with its "plenary powers," the signing statement he issued actually contradicts existing law and the bill he just signed, say experts who have reviewed it. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known," said a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who co-sponsored the bill, emphasized that the signing statement does not change the intent of the legislation, which prohibits the government from violating people's privacy. "Despite the President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection," he said, "the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant."

Indeed, the section of the legislation (section 1010) that Bush is "construing" to grant him the power to open mail without warrants is actually quite clear in its prohibition of warrantless surveillance of America's mail:

The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions. One such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service. No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.

With such explicit language on the matter, it's rather astounding that the Bush White House could "construe" the legislation as granting the Executive Branch authority to open mail without a warrant. But what is perhaps more astounding is that after the repudiation of the Bush agenda in November, and even with the possibility for greater oversight from Congress, that the president would make such a bold statement on his views of executive power.

What is perhaps even more astounding than that is the continuing refusal of the new Democratic leadership to make more of an issue out of civil liberties, executive power, and individual privacy. As the Washington Post pointed out on Wednesday,

Nowhere in the Democrats' consensus-driven agenda is legislation revisiting last year's establishment of military tribunals and suspending legal rights for suspected terrorists. Nor is there a revision of the civil liberties provisions of the USA Patriot Act, a measure curbing warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency or an aggressive confrontation of the president on his Iraq war policies.

It could also be pointed out that there is no mention of addressing the use of presidential signing statements, which under Bush has skyrocketed. He's issued more than 1,200 as president, and has taken them to a level that no previous president ever has, essentially using them as a line-item veto, or even as a way to legislate from the Oval Office.

Many legal scholars argue that his use of signing statements is flatly unconstitutional, and may even be grounds for impeachment. It's obvious that at the very least, they undermine the intent of duly passed legislation, and could pose a major obstacle to the new Democratic majority's legislative agenda. But rather than confront the president on this and other issues, it seems the Democrats' emphasis is on cooperation.

110th Congress Greeted With Calls for Impeachment

As the 110th Congress was sworn in this afternoon, about a hundred demonstrators gathered outside in a rally calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush and an end to the war in Iraq. With the Capitol Dome in the background, speakers denounced U.S. policies in Iraq and Guantanamo, and also highlighted domestic issues such as warrantless electronic surveillance and the abandonment of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Flanking the stage were a dozen demonstrators dressed up in orange jumpsuits and black hoods to represent the thousands of detainees being held in secret CIA prisons around the world, and at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern was among the speakers as was "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan, who yesterday disrupted a press conference by House Democratic leaders touting their proposed ethics reforms.

At one point, 12 protesters broke away from the rally and dropped a banner inside the Hart Senate Office Building denouncing war and torture. Inside the building, protesters chanted "De-escalate, investigate, troops home now," and "We will not be silent.”

Restoring the rule of law, ending the war in Iraq, and reining in the Executive Branch were the overriding themes of today's demonstration, but implicit in all of these goals was the necessity for George Bush's impeachment. One speaker, Sunsara Taylor of World Can't Wait, addressed the common refrain from anti-impeachment Democrats that impeaching Bush would distract Congress from enacting progressive policy, pointing out that progress will only be possible once Bush is removed from office.

In particular, when it comes to Iraq, she argued that because the president is unwilling to entertain proposals for a "graceful exit," and instead wants to escalate the war by sending a "surge" of 20,000 or more troops, only by removing Bush would peace be possible.

The crowd then erupted in a chant of "Impeach for peace! Impeach for peace!"

While the numbers at today's demonstration were not huge, what the rally made clear was that there will be no honeymoon for the new Democratic majority, and that although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has asserted that "impeachment is off the table," there are many Americans who will continue to insist that it is placed back on the table.

More demonstrations in the nation's capital are planned for the coming weeks, including one tomorrow at the American Enterprise Institute, where Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) will publicly call for the U.S. to send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq. Next week, on the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners arriving at Guantanamo Bay, a demonstration is planned against arbitrary detention and torture, during which more than a hundred activists will risk arrest by committing civil disobedience.

And on January 27, a mass march on Washington will call on Congress to heed the voters' demands and end the war in Iraq.

Dems, We're Citizens, Not Consumers

By Robert Parry
January 4, 2007

As the Democrats regain control of Congress for the first time in 12 years, the party leaders still don’t seem to understand the forces that sent them into the wilderness in 1994 or the reasons they were summoned back in 2006.

Typical of their cluelessness was a “100 Hours Survey” distributed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in mid-December. The survey asked Democratic contributors to rank nine priority issues in order of importance for the new Congress.

The issues included raising the minimum wage, financing stem-cell research, revising the Medicare prescription drug program and stiffening ethics rules. The only national security issue on the list was the implementation of all the remaining – but unspecified – recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

No reference was made to ending the Iraq War, launching investigative hearings on President George W. Bush’s actions, reasserting checks and balances on the Executive, or restoring constitutional safeguards that have been overridden during the “war on terror,” such as the habeas corpus right to a fair trial.

Though many issues on the DCCC’s priority list surely have merit, what’s missing is any commitment to the larger purpose of the American Republic.

Read on.

Democrats Facing Pressure from Activists on the Left

The Washington Post ran an article today discussing the "mounting pressure from liberal activists" for Democrats in Congress "to chart a more confrontational course on Iraq and the issues of human rights and civil liberties, with some even calling for the impeachment of President Bush."

The carefully calibrated legislative blitz that Democrats have devised for the first 100 hours of power has left some activists worried the passion that swept the party to power in November is already dissipating. A cluster of protesters will greet the new congressional leaders at the Capitol tomorrow. They will not be disgruntled conservatives wary of Democratic control, but liberals demanding a ban on torture, an end to warrantless domestic spying and a restoration of curbed civil liberties.

Many progressives are concerned that despite the clear repudiation of the Bush Agenda in the last election, Democrats in Congress will fail to address the issues that matter most to the Democratic base and the millions Americans who expelled the Republican majority from Congress. This concern may have been exacerbated by a survey sent out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee a couple of weeks ago that asked respondents which issues Democratic leaders should focus most of their attention on. Conspicuously absent from the list was ending the war in Iraq, restoring habeas corpus and other civil liberties, banning torture, and holding accountable members of the administration for misleading the nation into war.

In an effort to hold the Democrats' feet to the fire, activists are planning a number of demonstrations, beginning tomorrow, the first day of the new Congress: World Can't Wait Demonstration for Impeachment

The protest will be held at Upper Senate Park (Delaware & Constitution, just north of the Capitol) starting at 12:00 noon Thursday, Jan. 4.

The day Congress opens, World Can’t Wait will lead a major challenge to the political direction in this country since the election. A regime as criminal as the Bush regime still allowed to even remain in office? No! An unjust war started on lies, allowed to continue for four years despite an election where people meant to express how strongly they want it stopped? No! The Democrats, now the majority, allowing debate only on how to run the war more effectively, and saying that impeachment can’t even be considered? No!

Evening program:
Voices for Impeachment
Jan. 4, 7pm, National Press Club
Speakers to Include:
Cindy Sheehan
John Nichols
Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights*
Debra Sweet

On January 27, United for Peace and Justice is urging people to Bring the Mandate for Peace to Washington, DC

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, NOW CONGRESS MUST ACT.

On Saturday, Jan. 27th, people from every corner of the country will march on Washington, DC. Our message will be clear, our voice will be strong: End the war in Iraq, Bring all the troops home now! We urge you to join us!

On Mon., Jan. 29th, we will take our message directly to the new Congress during our lobby day.

There will also be a demonstration in DC on January 11, in which various groups will be denouncing arbitrary detention and torture on the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners being sent to Guantanamo Bay.

With the mounting pressure from progressive activists over the war, civil liberties and human rights, it should be interesting to see how the Democrats respond. If Democratic leaders continue to ignore these issues, they could find themselves facing an increasingly angry base and a divided party heading into the 2008 presidential election.

Operation: Save Bush's Legacy

By Robert Parry
January 3, 2007

If press reports are correct – that George W. Bush will approve a troop “surge” in Iraq of 17,000 to 20,000 soldiers – the follow-up question must be whether the escalation will do anything but get more Americans and Iraqis killed while only forestalling the defeat of Bush’s war policy.

Even top advocates for the “surge,” such as retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and neoconservative activist Frederick W. Kagan, have argued that U.S. troop levels must be increased by at least 30,000 for 18 months or more to bring security to Baghdad, what they call a “precondition” for any successful outcome.

“Any other option is likely to fail,” Keane and Kagan wrote in an Op-Ed article in the Washington Post on Dec. 27, 2006.

So, the more modest escalation of up to 20,000 soldiers would appear to represent what might be called “Operation: Save Bush’s Legacy,” with the goal of postponing the inevitable until 2009 when American defeat can be palmed off on a new President.

Read more here.

Saddam's Killing Provokes the Predictable Response in Iraq and Beyond

As the Iraqi government comes under international criticism for the manner in which Saddam Hussein was executed, U.S. officials are doing their best to distance themselves from the chaotic hanging, with Major General William Caldwell emphasizing that the Americans "had absolutely nothing to do with the facility where the execution took place." The U.S. would have "done it differently" if it had been their responsibility, he said.

The leaked video of the execution -- apparently taken on a cell phone smuggled into the gallows room -- has sparked angry Sunni Arab protests throughout Iraq and has drawn international condemnation over the blatant sectarian nature of the hanging. The criticism has pushed Iraqi officials to promise investigations of the incident, and apparently, the individual who took the video has been arrested. But even without the evidence provided by the video, the execution might have been seen by Sunnis as a sectarian vendetta, and to the international community might have had the look of an unjust killing after an unfair trial. Before the execution, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights urged Iraqis not to be hasty in carrying out the sentence, especially since the appeals court ruling required careful study.

It was also almost certain that the hanging would trigger an upsurge in sectarian violence in Iraq, regardless of the manner in which the execution was carried out. Still though, the level of anger and violence is alarming even the most seasoned observers of Iraq, such as University of Michigan professor Juan Cole. In responding to the attack by Sunni protesters on the Shiite Askariyah Shrine in Samarra, Prof. Cole wrote at his blog, "Folks, this is very bad news." Explaining the significance of the shrine, he wrote,

The Askariyah Shrine (it isn't just a mosque) is associated with the Hidden Twelfth Imam, who is expected by Shiites to appear at the end of time to restore the world to justice. (For them, the Imam Mahdi is sort of like the second coming of Christ for Christians). The Muqtada al-Sadr movement is millenarian and believes he will reveal himself at any moment.

The centrality of the cult of the Twelfth Imam, a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad who is said to have vanished in 873 AD, helps explain why the bombing of the Golden Dome on February 21 of 2006 set off a frenzy of Shiite, Sadrist attacks on Sunni Arabs. Last February, stuck in a Phoenix hotel because of a missed flight and without an internet connection for my laptop, I blogged from my Treo that it was an apocalyptic day. Sadly, it was, kicking off a frenzy of sectarian violence that has grown each subsequent month.

For Sunni Arabs to parade a symbolic coffin of Saddam through the ruins of the Askariya shrine won't be exactly good for social peace in Iraq. Can't that site be properly guarded or something?

It's also possible that the sectarian strife and anti-U.S. anger could spill out well beyond Iraq. Already, protests have been taking place around the world against the execution, with many Muslims pointing out the timing of it contravened Islamic custom, since it fell on the beginning of the Eid-al Adha holiday. Zaman.com reported,

Libya and Yemen, which tried to prevent Saddam’s sentence, strongly reacted to the execution. Libya declared three days of mourning. Hamas also considered the decision a ‘political murder’. The Organization of Islamic Conference expressed its concerns about the increase of conflicts between the religious sects and appealed to Iraqis for peace.

A protest in Jordan was attended by Saddam Hussein's daughter, and Muslim youth have hit the streets of India, including the cities of Kerala and Srinagar. In a demonstration on Wednesday, protesters in Srinagar chanted anti-U.S. slogans.

Anti-American sentiments ran high as protesting Muslims accused US President George W. Bush of conspiring against the Muslim community.

"It is a conspiracy of America against the Muslim community. They want to destroy the whole of Muslim world. We as members of Muslim community demand that all the Muslim countries should come together, unite and fight against America," said Muzaffar Ahmed, a protestor.

While American officials try to distance themselves from the execution and criticize the blatantly sectarian way in which it was carried out, the perception that it was made in America will be difficult to extinguish. This is, after all, Bush's war, and the killing of Saddam after an unfair trial fits in well with all the general pattern of U.S. policy towards Iraq, especially the refusal to acknowledge that weapons of mass destruction did not exist in the country.

The overall ramifications of this execution remain to be seen, but it is safe to say that nothing positive can possibly come out of it. The only question is the degree to which it will contribute to further sectarian strife and revenge killings.

Where Gerald Ford Went Wrong

By Robert Parry (A Special Report)
January 1, 2007

After replacing Richard Nixon in 1974, Gerald Ford turned his back on the imperial presidency that had reached new heights under Nixon. But facing political pressure from the Republican Right, Ford gradually reversed course putting the nation on track for even worse excesses under George W. Bush.

This mixed legacy has been missed amid the effusive eulogies that have followed Ford’s death on Dec. 26 at the age of 93. Ford has been showered with near universal praise for helping to bring the nation together in the wake of Nixon’s Watergate scandal and the U.S. military defeat in Vietnam.

Ford is depicted as a common man who toasted his own English muffins, respected the constitutional role of Congress, supported reform of the CIA and advocated negotiations with the Soviet Union, a process known as “détente.”

But this praise focuses on the first months of his 2 ½-year presidency. By late 1975 and early 1976, Ford began shifting direction when he found himself threatened by Ronald Reagan’s insurgent campaign for the Republican nomination.

To stave off Reagan’s challenge from the Right, Ford made a series of critical concessions, such as backpedaling on CIA reforms, forsaking détente, and compromising the integrity of the CIA’s analytical division to pacify hard-line Cold Warriors.

Read on.