rumsfeld resigns

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tendered his resignation today in the wake of the Democrats taking control of the House and possibly the Senate in yesterday's midterm elections.

President Bush and Rumsfeld apparently agreed to allow a "fresh perspective" on Iraq after many Republicans were unseated, presumably because of their support of the botched war. CNN pundit Lou Dobbs says that Rumsfeld does not have any regrets about Iraq and has not conceded any policy failures.

Prominent Democrats and varied critics within the military and from elsewhere have called for Rumsfeld's resignation for weeks. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the next Speaker of the House, confirmed today that she was happy to hear of the resignation and considered it "a signal of hope" for change in Iraq.

Bush has nominated former CIA Director Robert Gates, currently the president of Texas A&M University, to the position. Rumsfeld will continue serving in his capacity until the Senate can confirm his successor in January. "If confirmed by the Senate, I will serve with all my heart, and with gratitude to the president for giving me the opportunity to do so," Gates said.

1998 letter sent to President Clinton by the Neo-Cons at PNAC to invade Iraq.

Thanks to one of our Flower Mound Democrats members for sending me this information. This is more information that proves Bush and the neo-cons pretended that 9/11 was the reason to invade Iraq. The information below gives information regarding a 1998 letter sent to President Clinton by the neo-cons at PNAC (PNAC was co-founded by William Kristol and Dick Cheney) to invade Iraq. Who signed this letter? Do these names sound familiar?

Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad (current ambassador to Iraq), William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, and Robert B. Zoellick.

"The Project for a New American Century" (PNAC) is the elusive "cabal" that is hardly mentioned in the news, and never called by name. PNAC was co-founded by William Kristol and Dick Cheney & other familiar people. This cabal is the group that is presently in power. Needless to say, our American press has not been reporting all the facts regarding the current Bush Administration , so PNAC is rarely mentioned by them, if ever. If you google PNAC you will find it all over the internet , and many websites attempt to expose and "out" the PNAC. The UK press reports on PNAC all the time now, starting with an article by Neil Mackay in 2002 in the Scottish Sunday Herald.

PNAC is a small group who claim to act on behalf of you and not the elites. They hold many of the key positions of power in the federal government. But really, these are the people who brought us: * the war in Iraq* plans for simultaneous, multiple wars* legal 'justification' for torture* the 'Patriot' Act, expanded presidential powers and reduced citizens' rights* warmongering and war profiteering and on and on. In the past 5 years , only two well-known Americans have been videotaped publicly exposing the PNAC just this year: Helen Thomas "the first lady of the press" and Stephen Colbert, the comedic anchor of The Colbert Report on Comedy Central!

Here is PNAC's actual website , founding members & Statement of Principles. They wrote a letter trying to urge Clinton in 1998 to attack Iraq. Practically everyone in this organization is also in the Bush Administration, however W himself is not a member of the PNAC. Many bloggers surmise this is because he is the cabal's puppet to be kept "untouchable" in case of a need for pardons for the rest of the group. Even Jeb Bush is a member , but not W! The Iraq and potential Iran wars were already planned on their PNAC website in this document "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, & Resources for a New Century" (remember , this is a non-profit organization , NOT a government entity, yet they came into power two months after this was written in September 2000.

There are hundreds of websites and blogs about the PNAC. Here are a few well-known favorites:

Project for the Old American Century.


PNAC.info, an investigative site.


Officials Say PNAC site.


Wikipedia PNAC article.

Information Clearing House site.

TV News Lies PNAC site.

"What Barry Says" video.

A Rose by Any Other Name

I recall a marketing consultant for a telecommunications company making the following statement during the wireless build-out in the nineties: "Customers don't like roaming charges - so we don't call it that." This quote came to mind as I was reading Michael Hirsh's article in the May 1st Newsweek, "Stuck In the Hot Zone," about the construction of the Balad Air Base.

...this 15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots is one of four"superbases" where the Pentagon plans to consolidate U.S. forces, taking them gradually from the front lines of the Iraq war. (Two other bases are slated for the British and Iraqi military.) The shift is part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan to draw down U.S. ground forces in Iraq significantly by the end of 2006....

U.S. officials routinely deny that America intends to put down permanent bases. "A key planning factor in our basing strategy is that there will be no bases in Iraq following Operation Iraqi Freedom," says Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for CENTCOM in Baghdad. "What we have in Iraq are 'contingency bases,' intended to support our operations in Iraq on a temporary basis until OIF is complete." But according to the Congressional Research Service, the Bush administration has asked for more than $1.1 billion for new military construction in Iraq, roughly double what it plans to spend in Kuwait, Qatar and United Arab Emirates combined. Of that, the single biggest share is intended for Balad ($231 million).

We're not planning to stay in Iraq past the completion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We'll stand down as Iraqis stand up. There are no plans for permanent bases in Iraq. Yes, framing is really nothing more than the marketing of political ideas. In truth, we are mired in a military operation without clear objectives and no definable endpoint. Yes, we're going to hear a lot of noise about "troop drawdowns" this year, but they are merely window dressing designed to get the GOP through the 2006 elections without having to actually address the issue of withdrawal. By President Bush's own admission, finishing this business will fall to his predecessor.

Which brings us to a quote President Bush made Wednesday on the emergency supplemental spending bill:

"This bill is for emergency spending and it should be limited to emergency measures."

The President is out to prove his fiscal chops by threatening his first veto if the supplemental bill that includes funding for the Iraq war exceeds a $92 billion cap. The concept of funding the war through supplemental bills is just one of the financial shenanigans this administration has perpetrated to avoid criticism for the true costs of the war. From the beginning, Rumsfeld refused to project a budget, citing the "known unknowns" and the "unknown unknowns." But how is it that after more than three years, we are still treating the war budget as an unexpected cost? As the Newsweek article points out,

But the vast base being built up at Balad is also hard evidence that, despite all the political debate in Washington about a quick U.S. pullout, the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq for a long time -- at least a decade or so, according to military strategists.....

Officials in both the executive branch and Congress say they are unaware of any serious planning, or even talk inside the national-security bureaucracy, about a full withdrawal.

If we are planning to be in Iraq for the next decade, why can't we prepare a budget that reflects these goals? By limiting our access to information, this administration seeks to limit the public debate regarding our military policy, hoping that most Americans will be too busy to notice that contingency bases are permanent, or that troop drawdowns mask plans for a long-term occupation.

If the vast majority of Americans think this war is a mistake, what are we going to do about it? The President insists we can win this war. Do we agree? Are the costs of empire justified, when continuing this campaign shortchanges programs that invest in our future -- education, health care, energy independence, for starters? Do we seriously want to repeat this policy debacle in Iran? If not, then it's time to stand up and make a little noise.