RoguePlanet

"I'm guilty as well. I was so intent on winning this war and so keen to see the administration succeed against our enemy that I gave them too many benefits of the doubt."

The only reasonable response to the Bush administration's non-existent war planning is outrage, mixed with incomprehension. Here's the latest evidence of their negligence. Money quote:

"The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious," warned an Army War College report that was completed in February 2003, a month before the invasion. Without an "overwhelming" effort to prepare for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the report warned: "The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making."

A half-dozen intelligence reports also warned that American troops could face significant postwar resistance. This foot-high stack of material was distributed at White House meetings of Bush's top foreign policy advisers, but there's no evidence that anyone ever acted on it.

"It was disseminated. And ignored," said a former senior intelligence official.

What I simply don't understand is the silence of so many who supported this war about the appalling amateurism with which it has been conducted. I guess they think Kerry would be worse and are therefore hiding their criticism in public. But everything I hear in private is damning - even among the neocons. The question we have to ask is: if the Bush people screwed up Iraq this badly, how do we trust them in any future military operation? But that's a question the neocons refuse to ask. - Sullivan

"Bush has managed to divide this country in wartime (with help, or course, from the Michael-Moore-Terry-McAuliffe left)."

WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.


Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.


The slide said: "To Be Provided."


A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions.

In fact, some senior Pentagon officials had thought they could bring most American soldiers home from Iraq by September 2003. Instead, more than a year later, 138,000 U.S. troops are still fighting terrorists who slip easily across Iraq's long borders, diehards from the old regime and Iraqis angered by their country's widespread crime and unemployment and America's sometimes heavy boots.

"We didn't go in with a plan. We went in with a theory," said a veteran State Department officer who was directly involved in Iraq policy.

******

The U.S. intelligence community had been divided about the state of Saddam's weapons programs, but there was little disagreement among experts throughout the government that winning the peace in Iraq could be much harder than winning a war.


"The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious," warned an Army War College report that was completed in February 2003, a month before the invasion. Without an "overwhelming" effort to prepare for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the report warned: "The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making."

A half-dozen intelligence reports also warned that American troops could face significant postwar resistance. This foot-high stack of material was distributed at White House meetings of Bush's top foreign policy advisers, but there's no evidence that anyone ever acted on it.

"It was disseminated. And ignored," said a former senior intelligence official.

Again and again he repeated what has become a favorite refrain: Kerry "can run but he cannot hide" from his record.

Bush was introduced at a campaign rally by his daughter Jenna, who read from a prepared statement that delighted the president's audience in Colorado Springs.

"He has brought to our family the same values he's brought to this country: strength, compassion and integrity," she said, as her father stood blinking at her side with a slight smile, his hands clasped before him.

Bigley's death reminds the British that, where Iraq is concerned, they have made their bed with the Americans -- something Blair has tried hard to make them forget. Until the kidnapping, the British government had tried to create the impression that Iraq had become an exclusively American problem. The government rejected all suggestions from the Bush administration that it might increase troop strength in Iraq or expand its operational area. All the reported violence was in the U.S. zone of occupation. U.S. troops were blamed for heavy-handed tactics. When the Conservative Party's defense spokesman noted, in a radio interview, that British troops around Basra were back in hard helmets and armored transports and were being subjected to attacks, this was news to many people.

Downing Street had also done a consummate job of minimizing Blair's public contact with Bush and senior administration officials. Bilateral visits were kept formal and, if possible, under wraps. Photographs à deux at international gatherings, such as the G8 summit, were avoided. Britain's foreign secretary, not Blair, represented Britain at the recent U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York. If you ask his office when Blair plans to collect the U.S. Congressional Medal of Honor he was awarded more than a year ago, you are told no date has been set.

LEHRER: Mr. President, after tonight's painfully atrocious performance on your part, do you see yourself going the way of the last unsuccessful Republican presidential candidate and becoming the new Viagra spokesman in the near future?

BUSH: No, Jim, because I'm looking at my -- at the whole package -- and listen, it's hard. There's no doubt about that. Every angle I see it from, it's very hard. I know because I've grappled with it throughout my presidency. It's just extremely hard.

Whoever, having devised any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. " U.S. Criminal Code, Chapter 63, Section 1343.

WASHINGTON — At the root of what is today treated as an embarrassing blunder by the duped Fox network may turn out to be a felony by its faithless Kerry campaign correspondent.

Some person or persons conceived a scheme to create a series of false Kerry quotes and embed them in a news story as actual Kerry quotes. The perpetrator then helped cause the fraudulent file to be transmitted by means of Internet communication to millions of voters for the purpose of influencing a federal election.

That was no mere "dirty trick"; it could be a violation of the U.S. criminal code. If the artifice had not been revealed by sharp-eyed bloggers, a national election could have been swung by a blatant falsehood.

We know who the faker was. Did others conspire with him or her to present phony Kerry quotes - with knowledge of their falsity and with intent to defraud, which is a felony in Florida? Who was to benefit and how?

Fox News apologized and offered the excuse that its reporter was "fatigued." That's a start, albeit a lame one.

What benefit did the Kerry-hating Cameron gain from the Bush campaign in return for his fake Kerry quotes, drawn straight from the Bush campaign's talking points? One plausible answer: he will receive coveted access to someone high up in the Bush campaign. Or perhaps the rewards would have accrued to his wife, who has actively campaigned for Bush.

What should Fox do now? First, release all of Cameron's notes in their entirety; viewers are entitled to know how extensive Cameron's bias is. Second, let the supervisor who permitted Cameron's phony story to be posted as an actual story on Fox's website speak to reporters. Third, expend some Fox resources to track down the potential collaborators in the fraud.

We have hard evidence of crimes by low-level operatives here, including wire fraud, as well as the potential of high-level political involvement. Is no prosecutor prepared to enforce the law?

Liberals should stop slavering over Carl Cameron's scalp, and conservatives should stop pretending that noble ends justify fake-quote means. Both should focus on the lesson of the early 70's: from third-rate burglaries to fourth-rate fake quotes, nobody gets away with trying to corrupt American elections.

The president was often seen pursing his lips or clenching his jaw while Kerry was criticizing him, prompting focus group members to react with words like "arrogant," "nervous" and "not well prepared."

One reason could be that Bush is not used to having his record challenged face to face. Since taking office, he has been largely protected from rhetorical confrontations and tough questioning.

Bush, for example, has held just 15 formal press conferences in three and a half years, the fewest of any president in half a century. That does not count shorter question-and-answer sessions with a few reporters, but those are rarely televised.

And his town-hall meetings on the campaign are actually stage-managed events where only Bush supporters are allowed in and the questions are usually easy for him to address.

At one recent "Ask President Bush" event in Pennsylvania, one questioner asked, "After you are elected in 2004, what will your memoirs say about you, what will the title be and what will the main theme say?"

Another asked, "When you defeat your opponent this fall, Jane Fonda's poster boy, are you going to be able to keep Colin Powell on your team?"

At a recent session in Ohio, the first questioner asked, "I was wondering if you would permit me the honor of giving our commander-in-chief a real Navy salute, and not a flip-flop."

The second opened by saying, "I just want to say that I'm proud that I'm going to be voting for you."