Author: Duke1676

These are heady times for those of us who have been crying out against this Administration, and its war of convenience from the start. The prospect of the senior officials who lied and manipulated our nation to war, finally being frog-marched out of the White House to face their rightful punishment is a sweet turn of the karmic wheel. The temptation to issue some sort of universal “We told you so” to all the apologists, naysayers, and misinformed is almost overwhelming. We’ve earned the right.
We earned it when Bush stood on that flight deck on the USS Abraham Lincoln, and with approval ratings in the stratosphere declared “mission accomplished”. We knew it wasn’t, but no one would listen.

We earned it when 75% of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks of September 11. We knew he wasn’t, but no one would listen.

We earned it when Colin Powell sat at the UN and “demonstrated” that Iraq definitely had weapons of mass destruction with the aid of cartoon drawings so unconvincing that an intern wouldn’t use them in a PowerPoint presentation.  We knew they didn’t, but no one would listen.

We earned it when Rumsfeld told us about Iraqis with flowers greeting our troops. We knew there would be no flowers except on the graves of the fallen, but no one would listen.

So now our vindication approaches, now they are listening. Bush’s approval ratings are in the toilet and his minions are falling like flies. So everything is good……..right?

Only if we stay on point, and don’t get bogged down in the personal politics circus that the Fitgerald indictments are bound to become.

This all started because of Iraq and the lies that needed to be told to convince the American people that a neocon empire building experiment in Iraq was in their best interest. It’s all about Iraq and has always been about Iraq. Yellowcake was about Iraq, Plame was about Iraq, and Wilson was about Iraq.

It’s not about Rove, Libby or Cheney. They are merely repulsive distractions, and when they fall…Iraq will still be there like a giant pile of steaming excrement left behind by elephants gone mad.

So while we dance around the bonfire as the witches burn, we must remember that what see roasting on the embers are mere phantoms. The true evil still exists, and will continue until we extricate ourselves from the nightmare in Iraq.

For ten terrible days now a shocked nation has looked on as one of our greatest cities has been destroyed along with thousands of square miles of the Gulf Coast. The final number of dead is yet unknown and the financial toll still to be calculated. At this point it has become clear that Katrina will be the greatest disaster to affect this nation in our lifetimes.

Yet, as the country cries and mourns for those who have died, the administration has seemed most concerned with damage control of a different kind. Instead of marshalling the full force of the US government to relieve the anguish of those effected, they have spent endless hours spinning the facts, trying to control perceptions, blaming others and most importantly lying to the American people.  As has been the case so many times before, this administration’s chief goal seems to be to sweep the truth under the bed trying to hide it from the Americans people. This has been a hallmark of the Bush cabal since its inception.

Today DowningStreetMemo.com launches a new reference tool we hope will shine the light of truth on one aspect of the administrations greatest  lies: “Misled to War” a complete timeline.

Started earlier this summer, the timeline/database is now complete and ready to go. “Misled to War” is a searchable database containing almost 1000 entries about the events that led us on a path to war. It presents a wide range of events, public statements, government documents and other references that relate to the Bush administration’s case for and waging of the war in Iraq.  We’ve attempted to make this the definitive resource of its kind.

As recent poll numbers show, the American public is finally waking up to the fact that they have been thrust into a seemingly endless quagmire in Iraq, and many are beginning to question how we have come to this awful position. Hopefully “Mislead to War” can be helpful in answering those questions.

As we approach one of the most important election cycles in our lifetimes, perhaps you will find the database useful in countering the endless stream of lies and misdirection that come out of this White House and its minions.

We invite the internet community to make use of this reference tool, and to help us make it better with constructive feedback.

Misled Into War: A Timeline/DowningStreetMemo.com

We all know the drill by now. In a few months, Bush will appoint a “bi-partisan” commission to investigate the pathetic response to Katrina. After a few months of testimony this blue-ribbon panel will determine some low level bureaucrats screwed up royally and a new set of recommendations will be looked at to reform the offending agencies. We saw it after 9-11 and we saw it with the investigation into the “intelligence failures” that led to the war in Iraq.  “Pony-boy” Brown will be toast, maybe Chertoff also. Bush will be more then willing to throw a few minor players to the wolves. But I say forget about Bush..who cares..he’s a dead man walking and just hasn’t figured it out yet. We need to focus on directing the blame for all Bush’s failure on to those who have allowed this idiot to rule unchecked: a Republican Congress that has for six years has RUBBERSTAMPED every one of Bush’s hair brained ideas  The response to Katrina is the best argument in the world against one party rule in Washington.
 For six years every Republican in Washington has attached himself to Bush like a Siamese twin. All we have to do is make sure they don’t have a chance to distance themselves from his decisions. The message is simple:

“We need a congress that will ask the tough questions, and do the hard work necessary to solve this nation’s problems and not just RUBBERSTAMP every decision coming out of the White House. We don’t need a congress that’s so politically one sided that no one dares question the wisdom of making appointments based on ideology and politics rather than qualifications. We don’t need a congress that’s willing to make decisions based solely upon political partisanship, unwilling to question the wisdom of any policy or program that comes out of the White House. We don’t need a congress that’s just a bunch of yes-men, towing the party line. We face some of the most challenging times in our nations history and it will take real innovative thinking to solve these problems and meet these challenges. We need a congress that is willing to look for real solutions, not just how to score political points with the boss.”

Holding Bush accountable for his actions is good…..Making every Republican Congressmen or Senator accountable is better…. Who failed in Katrina?  Who failed in Iraq? Who failed on 9-11?  Who failed on the economy?  Who failed on gas prices?  Who failed to find bin Laden?  Who failed on education?  Every Republican that rubberstamped Bush’s policies and appointments without question or inspection, hell, sometimes without even reading them, that’s who failed.  Brown, Chertoff, Tenet, the CIA, the FBI, no WMD’s, they’re all the Republican Congress’s fault for not asking the tough question, for not doing their jobs.

If we can organize this frame and stick to it like glue, everything that Bush does (or doesn’t do) between now and 2006 becomes another weight around the necks of the Republican Congress

Back in May, when the Downing Street Memos first went public, I like many others thought; ” finally this is the watershed moment that will awaken the American people to the duplicitous actions that took this country into a war that has cost so much in blood and treasure.”  In the weeks that followed the release, the netroots/ blog communities worked feverishly to force an apathetic press to take notice. Web sites like DSM sprung up, letter-writing campaigns were organized and daily updates posted on the progress to Awaken the Media.

Slowly but surely the media began to take notice, but the public seemed to turn a deaf ear. Having become accustomed to being lied to, even many hardened Bush opponents saw nothing new in the revelations, and “we few, we happy few, we band of brothers” could do nothing to persuade them any differently.

Out of frustration, I began discussing the situation with fellow Kossaks. We tied to figure out what it would take to finally force the public to come to its senses. Out of those discussions, I eventually met the people behind DSM.com and the “Misled into War: a Timeline” project was born.

(“Misled to War; a timeline” is a complete, searchable  database of all the events, statements, news reports, military activity, and press releases dealing with the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. With well over 500 individual entries thus far, it is poised to become a one-stop resource for all information on the subject, and a valuable research tool for those interested in finding out just how the American people were bamboozled. And if I may say so ,it’s a very compelling read. But- this story has as much to do with what I learned from the experience of working on the project, as it does with the project itself.)

So it’s late May-Early June, and the blogosphere is all abuzz about the Downing Street Memo, Kossacks are writing diaries like mad, Conyers is starting his campaign to collect signatures, DowningStreetMemo.com is well on it’s way and Smintheus is in full swing with the “Awaken the Media” campaign. All of this activity is starting to have an effect and the media is taking notice. First in the op-eds, then the main pages and finally on TV. “This is great,” I think, “finally the truth will come out and the American people will wake up.”  But as time went on, the fickle public and ever changing news cycles moved on to juicier, sexier stories, and the Memos seemed to slip from most people’s consciousness.  

Around this time I started talking about the situation with fellow Kossack, Nydem25. We both felt that the public had become so immune to revelations of lying by this administration that it would take something more concrete to catch their attention. We finally reached the conclusion that if we could separate Bush’s deeds from his words, people might start to see the light. We decided to start looking at the actions taken by the Administration; funding, troop deployments, military contracts, base construction, covert actions, increased bombing in the NFZ and such. Figuring that making war on this scale is not something you throw together on the fly, there would be a trail leading back to it’s inception. To that end, we started to do research and put together a timeline and some diaries, and formed a working group we named IraqFact.

To make a long story short, the folks over at DowningStreetMemo.com had also started to look at ways to further the story and were working on their own timeline of statements, memos, press releases and news stories. They became aware of our work, and contacted us to see if we’d like to come on board their project. So began my little journey into the Bush administration’s heart of darkness.

After a few days of e-mails and introductions, the work on the database began. Each with his or her own area of specialty, we started working and the entries began to be logged in. Date, Title, Published, Source, Link, Summary, one after another, individual pieces of data, minutia by themselves, began to be entered into the database. After time these seemingly random events and words started to form a complete picture of an administration that had lost all moral bearing on an insane quest to take a nation to war.

Fueled by caffeine and the passion of zealots, the entries flew in day and night. Check a link, Google up a better source, enter…. Date, Title, Published, Source, Link, Summary, enter…over and over this same ritual was repeated by people you only knew through e-mail addresses and blog names. People with KOS names you knew like Ukiyo1, Topdog08 and Highacidity. People whose work you read and admired like Smintheus and Terre, each working towards a common goal.  Every once in a while you’d pull up the master to see what the others were up to. Holy shit 100 entries, then 200, then 300…wow this is going to be cool.  But then, sometime in the wee hours when you became too tired to trust your spelling or typing, it was time to just sit back and read the titles that had been entered so far.  

“President vows to get Bin Laden Dead or Alive”, ” Special forces moved from Afghanistan to Iraq”, “Rumsfeld orders deployment of 35,00 more troops to gulf “, “Bush assures war only as last result”. One after the next the entries told a story. Not as individual facts, but more like the brushstrokes in an impressionist painting. When viewed at close range they’re nothing more than dots and squiggles, but step back, view the picture as a whole and the real subject appears. “Cheney’s Energy Task Force issues maps of Iraqi oil fields”, “Saddam tries to buy yellowcake from Niger.” This is what began to happen as the database took form. Events taking place thousand of miles apart, separated by time and space began to come together. “Bush signs increased funding for CIA” “Iraqi opposition groups begin weapons training in Texas”. “Tenet meets with Kurdish opposition”…. The picture became clearer with each new entry.

As of today I think we’re approaching the 550th entry. I don’t know how many more there will be, or how much longer it will take to finish this project, but I do know that when it’s completed, no rational thinking person could ever read this timeline and think that the Bush administration and it’s allies were nothing less than evil, manipulative liars who purposely squandered the lives of nearly 2000 young people on some personal quest for empire.

Cross- posted at: My Left Wing , Daily Kos

In his excellent diary, The Immigration Crisis Man Eegee raises the issue of the human cost of our failed immigration policies. He is absolutely right about the need to start to increase the amount of dialogue on this issue, and his compassionate and thought provoking diary is right on target. While the suffering and loss of life that goes on daily in the deserts of the Southwest should be enough to convince any rational person to reexamine this country’s immigration policy, there is also another more selfish and pragmatic reason.  

 As one who’s had more then my share of immigration debates over on the orange board and other blogs, I’ve come to the realization that no matter how much this topic is discussed, trying to change peoples minds on the subject is nearly impossible. Positions seem to be so entrenched, that rational discourse on the subject at times appears hopeless. It’s amazing that when discussing just about any other topic we as progressives will share a common philosophy, or at the least a respect for differing opinions, but mention the word “immigration” and sparks will fly.

Under normal circumstances I would be the first to “agree to disagree”, but on this issue our inability to come to even a semblance of consensus could cost us dearly in upcoming election cycles.

Personally I favor complete unrestricted immigration, amnesty, and economic development programs for those countries whose people feel the need to flee in order to survive. But, as a pragmatist, my personal views are not important to this debate. Polls show that the majority of Americans favor some sort of crackdown on illegal immigration. The reasons for this sentiment vary from economic and social concerns to security issues and for some, I’m afraid to say, racism. More and more we hear about “Broken Borders,” the “Death of the West” and the loss of “…Americas national identity.”

Against this backdrop, it is inevitable that one of the major political parties will eventually take up the anti-immigration mantra. The problem we face as Democrats is that we are extremely divided on this issue. If we fail to come up with a fair, practical and humane plan to deal with immigration that addresses everyone’s concerns, the division will only be exacerbated, resulting in an irreparable rift within the party.

It’s quite evident that Frank Luntz and Carl Rove can read polls with the best of them, and it would be naïve to believe that they would not attempt to take political advantage of this sentiment.  If they decide to become the “anti-immigration” party, they will distil this very complex issue down to a simple “us versus them” message. The windfall for them is that they can craft a message whereby illegal immigrants become scapegoats for every administration failure, from a faltering economy and job loss, to terrorism. This plan would also allow them to peel off whole segments of traditional blue collar Democrats leaving the party mortally weakened. The remnants could then be painted as “weak,” “un-American” and “looking very French” for supporting “foreigners” over “real Americans”.

If the Democrats were to take up the anti-immigration mantra, the picture would be even bleaker. The results would be catastrophic. The party might pick up some moderate and working class Republicans, but it would alienate a large segment of its liberal base and more importantly lose the moral high ground it has always had claim to.

In general I think immigration sentiment seems to break down into three general groups within the Democratic Party. Although I must add a caveat here that I am oversimplify and using very broad strokes, their basic philosophies can be summed up as:  

Closed Border Advocates: Those that generally feel that illegal immigration represents a threat to America both economically and socially. They feel that undocumented immigrants not only depress wages and take jobs from American workers, but also put undo stresses on our social service and education systems. They believe that there are mechanisms in place already for those who want to enter this country legally and immigrants should go through these proper channels.
Generally prefer stricter enforcement of the current immigration laws if not the strengthening of them. They see employers who hire un-documented immigrants as equally culpable and prefer higher penalties for employing them.

Economic Development Advocates: Those that believe that illegal immigration is a direct result of failures in the economic development and political policies in foreign countries. They feel that the only way to prevent illegal immigration is to treat its root causes, such as poverty, lack of education, political unrest, governmental abuse and corruption.
Generally prefer an approach that includes changing American foreign policy to foster economic development, coupled with a free trade policy that includes human rights, environmental and worker protections. They believe that over time, improving the situation on the ground in foreign countries would eliminate the conditions that encourage illegal immigration.

Open Border Advocates: Those that believe that continuous immigration is a natural state that has been occurring in America since before colonial times. That immigration has always been one of the chief contributing factors to America’s success, and is impossible to prevent. They believe that the American dream has an overpowering appeal that will always draw new immigrants to its shores. They feel that the problem of illegal immigration is a direct result of the relatively modern restrictions placed upon the free flow of immigration.
Generally prefer changes in immigration policy that would make it easier for immigrants to enter and work in the country legally, by eliminating most restrictions. They would couple this with a more efficient system for documentation and naturalization.  

From a completely pragmatic point of view we need to start to find a way to meld all three of these seemingly contradictory views into one coherent policy. A policy that addresses the concerns of those who feel their livelihoods and lifestyles are threatened. A policy that takes into account that immigration has always played a vital part in the growth and prosperity of this nation. A plan that recognizes that America and its policies have immense effects throughout the world and can do great good or cause great evil. A policy that is fair, practical, compassionate and humane. If we don’t, I fear 2006 and 2008 will look a lot like 2000 and 2004.

I would have posted this as a comment on Man Eegee’s diary but it was waaaay toooo long

       “Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead,” said Scrooge. “But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me!“
-Charles Dickens

IN A HISTORIC MOMENT, RICE SWORN IN
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20, 2009

(AP) President Congdoleeza Rice was sworn-in in a historic moment Thursday, taking the oath of office amid extraordinary security precautions in a chilly nation’s capital. Rice became not only the first women, but also the first African-American to attain the office.

“In a world of uncertainty and change, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty,” the nation’s 44th president said in her inaugural address at the noontime ceremony at the U.S. Capitol.

The former Secretary of State made a sweeping pledge to not only continue the spread liberty and freedom “to every corner of the world,” but to also ensure that the “ideals on which our great nation were build, must be fostered by whatever means necessary”

The oath was administered by newly confirmed Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, who replaced the ailing William Renquist just weeks before the ceremony after a heated six month confirmation battle.

Earlier, Vice President Bill Frist was sworn-in by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Ca)

A crowd of more than 100,000 people gathered in snowy Washington for the swearing-in at the West Front of the Capitol and the traditional parade down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Ms. Rice, 54, awoke before dawn Thursday and then traveled by motorcade with her announced Cabinet nominees John Bolton (Sec. of State) and John McCain (Sec. of Defense), to nearby St. John’s Church for the traditional pre-inauguration prayer service.

Ms. Rice takes office against a backdrop of controversy following a highly divisive election. Trailing in the polls by double digits throughout the campaign, Rice was not favored to win the contest. Exit polling had in fact had shown Rice trailing Democratic nominee Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Md.) by as much as five points on Election Day.

With record voter turnouts, the early polling proved wrong. At the end of a long and suspenseful night, chief advisor, Florida’s Jeb Bush, was able to reassure faithful supporters that ” by a miracle of Biblical proportions” Ms. Rice was in fact chosen to  “lead our nation through these troubled times”

Critics have attributed Rice’s unexpected victory to election reform measures enacted by her predecessor. Bush’s “Voting Modernization Act” ensured that all polling places would be equipped with new Diebold electronic voting machines in order to “level the playing field”. Despite concerns about verifiability, the bill was enacted in the summer of 2006 just prior to the mid-term elections by a Republican controlled Congress. Although the machines were not on-line for that election, Bush had vowed that he would have them in place before the next Presidential contest.

Rice, initially tarnished by her association with the disgraced Bush, at first distanced herself from her previous boss. After the “Wartime Continuity” compromise of 2007, whereby the Senate decided not to follow through on articles of impeachment drafted in the lower house, her prospects began to rise. When the “Group of Eighteen” moderate Senators led by John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) reached a compromise whereby Bush was in effect guaranteed he would not be convicted in a Senate trial, the impeachment process was essentially over, and Rice’s path to the Whitehouse cleared.

Opponents, although shocked by Rice’s stunning victory, had long voiced concerns about Democratic inability to capitalize on Rice’s inherent vulnerability. Many felt that although they had a record war chest raised by Party Chairmen, Howard Dean, the candidates never really took advantage of public sentiment.

Having silencing most of the liberal, anti-war wing of the party early on, fearing characterizations of weakness on defense, the majority of Democratic contenders raced quickly to the political center and remained there throughout the primary season. This, despite the fact that polling had shown that the vast majority of the American people were disenchanted with the war.

After early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire only Clinton, Biden, Edwards, Clark and Bayh were still in the race. Although Edwards and Clark did make overtures to the ant-war movement, it was the more centrist candidates, Clinton, Biden and Bayh who had the backing of party insiders who felt they were “more electable”.  

By March 2008, only Biden and Clinton had the momentum necessary to win the nomination. As each moved further to the center, many complained that their positions were indistinguishable from those of Ms. Rice. At one point, Rice quipped that if they were in fact going to “continue to endorse my policies” they may as well “just endorse me” and be over with it.  Eventually, Biden was endorsed by the “Group of Eighteen” Senate moderates, guaranteeing him the nomination.

Having alienated the “far left” of the party, the Democrats lost further ground when Rice was able to peel off some of the disenchanted working class base of the party with her Immigration reform plan. Pressured by a faltering economy and continued job loss, blue color workers were drawn to Rice’s plan to close the borders, and deport undocumented workers in order to  “Save American Jobs for Americans”.  Although leading economists questioned whether her plan would in fact have a negative effect on the economy, the message, crafted by political advisor Karl Rove, rang true to many Americans suffering the worst economic hardship in a generation.

The 44th President takes office in a time of increasing uncertainty for the American people. With mounting tension in Syria, along with the wars in Iraq and Iran, double-digit inflation, and an ever increasing deficit, Rice pledged in her inaugural  to: “Follow the path set for us by the last administration, and the Almighty, to make this Nation, and the world in which we live more secure, safe and free.”

With a small ceremony on April 26, 2003, control of Prince Sultan Air Base was handed back to the government of Saudi Arabia. Since the mid-nineties it had been the premier US air base in the region and the nerve center for all air force operations in the Gulf.  As the home of the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC), the base was the primary command and control facility responsible for orchestrating the air campaigns for both Operation Southern Watch in Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.  

The timing of the closing of PSAB seemed odd, coming just weeks after the official start of military actions in Iraq.  It should have, at the very least, caused unwanted logistical problems for the Pentagon and regional commanders, but it didn’t. A contingency plan had long been in the works, not only for Prince Sultan Air Base, but also for the entire map of the Middle East, including Iraq.
Long before the US pullout, a new home for the operations had secretly been built in the deserts of Qatar.  What had been in October 2001 “nothing more than a runway and a field of sand covered by two-dozen tents and a few warehouses”, the Al Udeid Air Base was transformed in a few short months into one of the largest air bases in the world.  

Published reports and official DOD statements claimed that the amazing transformation was the result of the heroic response of US servicemen to the tragedy of 9-11.  A determined military had beaten indeterminate odds to transform a barren wasteland into a state of the art military base in order to “take the war to the terrorists”.

The true story of the building of Al-Udeid is actually quite different. The planning for the mammoth base had in fact taken place long before Sept. 11, and actual work on the base began as early as the spring of 2001. The building of Al Udeid turns out not to be a “miracle in the desert” in response to a heinous attack, as touted by the military, but rather a required step on the path to regime change in Iraq.

It has long been accepted knowledge that the Bush Administration was working feverishly towards regime change in Iraq during the 18-month period between 9-11 and the official start of the war in March of 2003. The Downing St Minutes confirmed that the Administration was set on a path to war at least as early as mid-summer of 2002. The accounts of Paul O’Neil and Richard Clarke verified that Iraq was a front burner issue for the Administration from the very first day, and only intensified after the attacks. Yet finding hard evidence to prove that planning for the war in Iraq was taking place prior to 9-11 has been hard to find. A look at the building of Al Udied can provide that evidence.

THE BUILDING OF AL-UDEID (THE OFFICIAL STORY)

According to published reports, the groundwork for what would become Al-Udeid Air Base was first laid at a cost of over one billion dollars in 1996 in an attempt by the Qatari government to lure the American military to set up shop in the small Gulf nation.  At the time it was built, Qatar had not yet acquired as much as a single airplane to call the base home. Although they would later purchase an air force comprised of 12 French Mirage fighter jets, they would never actually station them at Al-Udeid. They were simply playing a waiting game, hoping that eventually the volatile nature of the region would bring the Americans knocking at their door. The Qatari’s gamble paid off with the events of Sept. 11. In response to the attacks, the US presence in the region needed to increase exponentially. By Sept. 29, 2001, according to the official records, the first military teams arrived to begin looking the base over in preparation for Operation Enduring Freedom.

On October 2, 2001 a rapid-response team of civil engineers, the 823rd RED HORSE Squadron whose specialty is to repair and build structures such as runways and roads in remote areas, arrived. According to the accounts of the 823rd, the Qatar base “was nothing more than a runway and a field of sand covered by two-dozen tents and a few warehouses”. Since there was no room in the warehouses for the RED HORSE airmen to sleep, they moved into an expandable shelter on the flightline and lived and worked out of there

They had come to begin the largest construction project ever undertaken by a RED HORSE team; a $9.1 million military construction project that consisted of building a 1,240- foot by 630-foot concrete ramp with taxiways, shoulders and lighting. While waiting for funding and approval for the ramp project, the RED HORSE troops spent two months doing other base projects, like building the operations center and helping set up the tent city. Finally in January 2002 ramp construction began. The completed ramp, as big as 8 football fields, was finished in late March.

As March 2002 began, the airfield was still classified as “Secret”.

Only a handwritten “Army Camp” sign marked its entrance. By the middle of the month, several thousand new American troops were now stationed at the base. Many of these troops were supporting the large complement of US aircraft, which included F-16 fighters, JSTARS reconnaissance aircraft, and KC-10, KC-130 and KC-135 aerial tankers. The rapid growth of the base made Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani decide he had to let his people know about extent of the American presence in their country. It was agreed that the best way to announce the presence of the base was to have Vice President Cheney visit on March 17, 2002.

Within ten days of Cheney’s visit, reports were coming out of Saudi Arabia that the US was moving communications and computer equipment from Prince Sultan Air Base to Al-Udeid in anticipation of a base closing.  US military trucks had been seen leaving the base 50 miles south of Riyadh, and arriving at the border with Qatar in the second week of March. It was speculated that a move was being made in response to the Saudi government’s refusal to allow air raids on Afghanistan to be launched from its soil. Additionally, in the event of a Saudi refusal to collaborate in a second phase of the US “war on terror” against Iraq, the move would be needed to allow the US to effectively conduct an air campaign.

At the time US central command spokesman, Major Ralph Mills confirmed the equipment movements but insisted they represented business as usual. Mills told reporters, “This is not uncommon. This is status quo. We are moving stuff from point A to point B, this is an ongoing process.” Dick Cheney also denied there were any plans to close Prince Sultan AB, claiming no decision had made to change military positions with respect to Saudi Arabia.

By June of 2002 the work on the first phase Al Udeid was nearing completion.

The US military had quietly moved munitions, equipment and communications gear to the base from Saudi Arabia. The base was now home to 3,000 troops. A huge tent city had been erected with warehouses and miles of security barriers. Miles of freshly paved runways and acres of new aircraft parking ramps showed up on satellite imagery from the period.  Newly built hangers, munitions supply areas and control facilities had been hardened with concrete to withstand aerial attack, and the base now boasted the longest runway in the region at over 15,000 feet. It had become as one military analyst said; “The most capable base in the Gulf region.”

On August 7, 2002

the Saudis announced that the US would no longer be allowed to fly combat missions in Iraq out of Prince Sultan Air Base in support of Operation Southern Watch. The Saudi decision had no effect on US war plans by that time, as Al Udeid was more than prepared to pick up where the Saudis had left off. A year later, Prince Sultan was closed after all Command and Control was moved to Al Udeid.

 A HIDDEN HISTORY OF AL-UDEID  (PAVING THE ROAD TO WAR IN IRAQ)

As the Bush Administration came to power in January 2001, the sound of war drums began beating along the Potomac. Numerous accounts from the period tell of an increased emphasis on the need for regime change in Iraq. As the political wing of the administration worked on setting the stage for policy change, the military began to deal with the practicalities of waging war. With the deteriorating situation in Saudi Arabia in general, and the possible need replace Prince Sultan AB in particular; the DOD began to make moves to find a replacement.    

Since the first Gulf War, the US had had limited military agreements with Qatar. In 1992, a Defense Cooperation Agreement was signed that permitted “access and prepositioning” of US assets in the country. In November, 1995 another agreement to host “several Air Expeditionary Force deployments” was reached. Yet as of 2000, Al Udeid had been mostly ignored, but that was about to change.  

In 2000 the US planned to to use Al-Udeid as a munitions storage facility

according to The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) 2000 report released in the fall of that year.

The ICBL 2001 report, which was completed just prior to 9-11 confirmed that the munitions storage plan had in fact gone into effect. Located in the remote desert region of Qatar, Al-Udeid was a perfect candidate for this kind of usage. But munitions storage facility would not last long. As the Bush administration came to power they had new plans for the air base, plans that would clear the path to war with Iraq.

By March 2001 the Air Force began investigating moving operations to the Al-Udeid.

According to a Congressional report given by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the airfield was now being looked at as potential US base. In his annual Allied Contributions to the Common Defense Report , Rumsfeld stated:

“Since November 1995, Bahrain and Qatar have both hosted several Air Expeditionary Force deployments in support of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH, and the United States Air Force recently established a limited prepositioning facility at Qatar’s Al-Udeid Airbase and is investigating moving to the airfield. Qatar also hosts prepositioned U.S. Army assets at As-Saliyah.”

This was the first time the use of Al-Udied as a potential base for US air operations was officially acknowledged. Back in April 2000, then Defense Secretary William Cohen had been asked about the use of Al-Udeid at a press conference in Kuwait. He acknowledge that he had “discussed ways in which Al-Udeid may be used in the future, in a crisis situation” with the Qataris, but no agreement could be reached. Obviously the new administration had more luck with the Qatari negotiations then its predecessors.

In June 2001 communications capabilities were completed at Al Udeid

According to his online biography archived at a website for those who had served at Prum Air Station in Germany, Bill Goodman (USAF Ret) states that communications work began at Al Udeid sometime before June 2001. Towards the end of his long and distinguished military career, Goodman says that while working for Air Force Central Command, he oversaw the installation of “communications capability” at Al Udeid in the spring.

Around the same period, Alaswar Technology Group Co (aka.Al-Aswar Electronic) of Hawally Kuwait supplied and installed two “60 foot guy masts, microwave dishes and allied works” in Qatar; one at the Saliyah Army Base, the other at Al-Udeid. Whether these communication dishes were part of the work Bill Goodman was doing cannot be known. What is known is that the US military had personnel working at Al-Udied long before the Sept 29, 2001 date always claimed to be the first time US servicemen set foot at the base.

In the Summer of 2001 construction contracts for the airbase began to go out for bids.

By the summer of 2001 plans to expand Al Udeid into a large-scale installation were well under way. The bidding process for contracts to do the work had all ready begun.

On August 9, 2001 bids went out for a “contractor owned-contractor operated” fueling station for both fighter and cargo planes as well as a diesel and automotive gasoline facility for ground vehicles. Also in the bid was a fueling station for mobile aircraft refueling vehicles and a commercial tank truck receiving facility.  

COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY ISSUE OF AUGUST 13, 2001 PSA #2913

SOLICITATIONS

X — COCO SITE AT AL UDEID

Notice Date

August 9, 2001

Contracting Office

Defense Logistics Agency,

Logistics Operations,

Defense Energy Support Center,

8725 John J. Kingman Road,

Fort Belvoir, VA, 22060-6222

ZIP Code

22060-6222

Solicitation Number

SP0600-01-R-0117

Response Due

October 5, 2001

Description

COCO Site at AL Udeid, Qatar 1. An aircraft hydrant fuel system capable of servicing both fighter and cargo aircrafts. 2. Approximately 72,000 barrels of JP8 storage capacity. 3. A ground products dispensing facility for Diesel Fuel and Automotive Gasoline. 4. A truck fill stand capable for mobile aircraft refueling vehicles. 5. A commercial tank truck receiving facility (i.e. tank truck off loading heads).

Record

Loren Data Corp. 20010813/XSOL001.HTM (D-221 SN50U5O6)

(Contact info edited)

On Sept 7, 2001, according to company news releases, a contract was awarded GSCSGulf to build “administration facilities, a worker break room, ablution facilities, an outside storage area, a loading dock, FMSE facility, and a generator run up.” Later in the month GSCSGulf was awarded two contracts farmed out from DynCorp. One was for a Fuel Receiving Point, the other for a Bulk Fuel Storage facility. “The projects (were) to be built under expedited construction schedules in order to ensure fuel systems (were) in-place for incoming USAF tanker squadrons deployed as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.”

Although the press release from the 30th of September mentions “Operation Enduring Freedom”, bidding on the contract had to have been completed long before that date. As the release states GSCSGulf had won the contracts from DynCorp, one must assume they competed for them.

GSCSGulf was awarded two more contracts during this period. Both had been won competitively, hence bids had been taken. Although it is impossible to know how the events of 9-11 affected the bid review and acceptance process, even under expedited conditions it seems highly unlikely that any but the last contract would have been initiated after 9-11 given the DOD’s usual 60 to 120 day turn around time.

October 2001 satellite images showed extensive work had already been completed at Al-Udeid

The Oct 2001 images of runways, structures and roads show an air base far more advanced than the official story would have us believe, revealing that the base was certainly more than one month old. If this construction was part of the original Qatari project, or new US additions cannot be known. What is known is that the base was not “a simple runway and a field of sand covered by two-dozen tents and a few warehouses”. Satellite images from Jan 2002, and the following June, show the rapidity with which base was completed. The clock on war with Iraq was running, and the military was in a race to beat that clock.

THE ROAD TO WAR WAS PAVED WITH PROPAGANDA

As any chess player can attest, the game is most often won or lost in the first few moves. The Bush Administrations plan for regime change in Iraq was much like a chess game, each piece needed to be in place before the gambit. Although the grand schemes were hatched in the plush offices of right wing think tanks and corporate boardrooms, the heavy lifting was done by simple pawns in the hot deserts of the Southwest Asia, long before the first rumbles of shock and awe were ever heard.

Able to use the smoldering embers of the World Trade Center as a canard to sell a “global” war on terror to not only the American people, but to those who would fight it, the Administration was able to cover their tracks with a web of misinformation. Al-Udeid was never intended as a frontline in a war against the terrorists of 9-11. It was planned as the frontline for something far different; the “War on Terror”, which was nothing more then a clever repackaging of the plans for Iraqi regime change that began with the first Gulf War.

The level of misinformation can be illustrated with a simple story coming from the building of Al Udeid:

Just as Master Sgt. Andrews parents were not told the truth about their sons’ death in Qatar, the American people were never told about the planning and execution of the war in Iraq. The history of the building of AL Udeid demonstrates that the Military planners were on a path to war long before the events of that fateful September morning “changed everything”.

This is the second in a series by the IRAQFACT working group. For previous IRAQFACT stories see:

What “spikes in activity” meant in Downing St Memo

Contact IRAQFACT at: iraqfact@Yahoo.com

When the Downing St Minutes were first published in beginning of May, one of the oft quoted lines was: “The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime”.  “Spikes of activity”, such an interesting term, it leaves much to the imagination. You can almost here it coming out of John Reid’s mouth as if he were a character in a James Bond movie, a term so innocuous yet at the same time very menacing.

If we look at exactly what the US was doing during the period to put pressure on the regime, the incongruity of the phrase becomes apparent. The buildup of men and materials in the region was unprecedented. The US had stepped up its air attacks in June with the start of Operation Southern Focus in an attempt to soften Saddam’s defenses prior to invasion and there was an increase in the training and equipping of the Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq.

Just weeks after Tony Blair and his cabinet met to discuss how they would balance the increasing pressure from Washington to go to war with the actual political realities of doing so, one of the largest “spikes of activity” to date would begin. On August 8,2002, a joint US, British and Turkish strike force would cross the border into Iraq and engage the enemy for the first time in the opening salvo of what would become Operation Iraqi Freedom.

US-UK-TURK JOINT OPERATION PUT “BOOTS ON THE GROUND” IN IRAQ AUG. 8, 2002

After months of preparation that had begun in March of 2002 with the insertion of US special forces into the Kurdish regions in northern Iraq, and continued in April with the arrival of Turkish special forces troops entering the Turkman regions around the big oil towns of Mosul and Kirkuk, the stage was set for what would be the opening salvo in the war in Iraq.

The attack began on August 6, at 8:00 AM, when US and British bombers destroyed the Iraqi air command and control center at al-Nukhaib located about 260 miles southwest of Baghdad. The center had recently installed a new advanced fiber optic network.

To test the effectiveness of the raid, US warplanes from the Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia and from US aircraft carriers in the Gulf were then dispatched to fly over the Iraqi capital. “This deep air penetration told the Americans that the early warning radar system protecting Baghdad and its environs from intrusion by enemy aircraft and missiles was inactive”

On Wednesday August 8, at 5:00 PM local time the combined air and ground assault was ready to begin.

On August 9,2002  future Iraqi President Jalal Talabani,  then head of the Patriot Union of Kurdistan (PUK), spoke with CNN-TURK. He confirmed that the airport was in fact under Turkish control but with an odd twist.

By August 20, 2002 the news finally made it into the British press. The Sunday Express reported:

Although this story of a “spike in activity” was covered in the world press it received little attention from the US media. Clearly the evidence is incontrovertible that although it would be more than two months before Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq, and seven months before “all the diplomatic options were exhausted”, the military had already gone forward with the Administration’s plans for war.

This is the second in a series of articles dealing with the US military’s activities prior to the official start of hostilities in Iraq in March of 2003. It is the result of research done by the IRAQFACT working group.

To contact IRAQFACT: iraqfact@Yahoo.com

Carrie Underwood won “American Idol” last night.  It’s apparently one of the biggest stories of the day. I really don’t know much about it since I only watched the first few episodes when the really poor singers auditioned. The interesting, and probably more pertinent point of the story is that five times as many people voted of an “American Idol ” contestant, than voted in the presidential election of 2004.  

This in itself is an unimaginable statistic and says volumes about the state of this country, but it also got me to thinking about my own little world, and just how out of touch those of us in the “reality based community” really are. Those of us who are actively engaged in the great battles of the American political and cultural war seem to live in a bubble where we just don’t understand what it is that moves the great mass of the American public.

This little story might illustrate the point:

I own a small restaurant with a staff of about ten or twelve waiters and busboys. They consist of the usual mix of college students trying to offset their 30k+ tuition fees, and aspiring actors or singers. Amongst them have been political science majors, international studies majors, pre-law students, Middle Eastern studies majors, and those studying history. Needless to say, with that kind of mix, the between rush conversations often turn to current events and politics. Between folding the napkins and polishing silverware anything from Iraq to stem cell research might come up. In some ways, having so many “scholars” around has been like having a little “think tank” of my very own. It’s always been an interesting group and there have been many very stimulating discussions. Before each election, they urge one another to register to vote and I’m happy to say they all have taken part in our great democratic experiment, some for the very first time.

It’s gone on pretty much like that for the past nine years. As each employee left, a new one seemed to come to fill their place at the round table. Perhaps, because I enjoy being surrounded by bright and engaging young people I’ve always tended to look for those qualities when I’ve interviewed perspective new employees. I’ve hired people from all sides of the political spectrum and some of our best conversations have been with those who’ve held views different from my own. As long as everyone argued their case in a concise and coherent manner, there has always been a respect for differing opinions.  We lived in our own little world, not unlike the world I feel many of us in the politically active world inhabit. A world  based on intellectual honesty and passion  

A short time ago it all changed when I had to hire two new waiters to fill the void created by some graduating seniors. The new waiters were older, “pros”. They had worked in numerous other restaurants and had careers stretching back fifteen or twenty years. From a business point of view it was a good move as it made the transition and training easy, but the dynamic of our daily conversations started to shift.  Although both of the “new guys” are well educated, watch the news and read the papers ever day, their input tended to be more of the “Runaway Bride” variety. It’s as if these guys are walking encyclopedias of pop and pulp culture. They know ever aspect of the latest exploits of Paris Hilton, and can quote verbatim the daily testimony from the Michael Jackson trial. From Desperate Housewives to American Idol they are the masters. Yet, they are generally well informed, and politely engage in our discussions of events of the day, with input that is quite knowledgeable and insightful. Given their druthers though, they tend to prefer to steer the conversation to the more sensational and tawdry stories.

This morning as I came in, one of the “new guys” was setting up for the lunch rush and caught my eye. “I know you won’t think its funny”, he said,” but did you see that more people voted for “American Idol” than voted in the Presidential election.” There was smugness to his tone, as if to say, “See, I was right all along, more people do care about that kind of stuff, then the egghead news you guys like to discuss.” And of course he was right, but as I walked to my small office the exchange left me thinking about a much larger question.

Those of us who inhabit wonk world, on both sides of the fence, seem to exist in a bubble where we feel everyone would be as passionate about the issues as we are, given the right circumstances. We assert that those who are not engaged on any given topic simply just don’t know enough about it.  With an almost evangelical zeal, we believe that if only we could get the message out things would be different. Given the knowledge, people would surely make the right decisions. We blame the media for not doing their jobs, politicians for not speaking up, and ourselves for not being able to change either.

 It’s as if we revert back to some adolescent mindset where we really believe that if we could only convince our friend to listen to just one more song on the album, they would surely know that our favorite band is in fact the greatest band that ever existed. But at some point you come to the realization that one more “Sugar Magnolia” or “Trukin” is not going to convince your friend that Jerry Garcia is a God.

The “news guys” brought that point home by poking holes in my little bubble world of misconceptions. These guys are not uninformed or ignorant of the issues. They are well informed and know what’s going, they just prefer to live in a different American cultural universe. Whether it has to do with cynicism or apathy, they’ve decided that Michael Jackson is just as important as John Bolton, and the American Idol is as relevant as any other election.

I believe that they represent the greatest challenge to those of us who wish to enact change. Ignorance can always be overcome, but a conscious decision to choose infotainment over information is not easily countered. Those that have intentionally chosen to disengage will be the hardest to re-engage.

With the “sluggish” coverage of the Downing St. Minutes and the attempts to discredit Newsweek, it might seem as if a free press is truly in the last throws of death.  Having been branded for years with “liberal bias” by the right wing noise machine, the 2004 election cycle only helped to nail the coffin on an independent media.  There was the humiliating resignation of Dan Rather, and the media’s miscalculation of Karl Rove’s ability to rally an army of right wing religious zealot’s with “moral values” issues to deliver the election to an incumbent who could not poll above a fifty percent approval rating. They totally missed the early signs of vote fraud and manipulation, and once again had to deal with claims of “faulty exit polling”. “How could we have missed this?” was the general tone of the punditry on the evening of November 3rd. They appeared to be rolling over dead.
Having been living with a lap dog media that was comatose at best, and in many cases appeared to be collaborators with the political right, the imminent death of the free press has gone relatively unnoticed by the public in general.  As long as a steady stream of Scott Peterson and other such trifles could be viewed on screen, or read in a tabloid by an American public grown complacent by mediocrity, there has been a general satisfaction by most that they have seen “All the news that’s fit to print”.

Within the past few days it appears that the rumors of the press’s demise may have been exaggerated. Although still on life support, a combination of provoking from the “liberal” side of the blogosphere and prodding by certain members of Congress seems to have breathed some new life into the dying beast. This emergency resuscitation coupled with a right wing whose reach seems to have exceeded its grasp on such issues as Shiavo, the filibuster, and social security could prove to be just what the doctor prescribed.  As the President’s approval ratings  continue to fall along with those of the Republican Congress, a newly emboldened 4th estate might be starting to come back to life.

As we’ve all become aware, in the last few days there seems to have been a flurry of activity from the press on a variety of topics. The Downing St Minutes were picked up in the print press by Knight Ridder, the LA TIMES, the WASHIGTON POST and Paul Krugman at the NYT. On cable news it was covered on CNN, and featured on Keith Olberman’s “Countdown” on MSNBC. Scott McClellan had to address it and Condoleezza Rice faced questions on the subject from a somewhat hostile Andrea Koppel during a joint press conference with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.  Although Rice tried to brush off the questioning, she was finally forced to acknowledge the “memo” even if she did revert to standard pre-war talking points to avoid giving any substantive answer.

The Galloway story also seemed to demonstrate another increase in the intestinal fortitude of the press.  The press was fully aware of Galloway’s reputation for fiery rhetoric and his staunch anti-war credentials.  They fully anticipated the fact that at the end of the day “Gorgeous George” would be picking pieces of Smilin’ Norm flesh from between his teeth. It was the mismatch of the century. Knowing this, CNN ran it live and every news agency covered it.  Clips were show on virtually every TV news outlet, and most papers carried stories with extensive quotes.  This kind of coverage would have been unheard off a few short months ago.  Galloway’s 47 min. of testimony became a shot heard `round the world.

The NEWSWEEK issue has proved to be a shot in the arm for the ailing press corp. On Wednesday, during a regular press conference, the press seemed to explode on Scott McClellan
with a fury we haven’t seen in ages. Not since the days of Nixon has the press appeared so adversarial. An excellent recounting of the exchange was covered at dKos by diarist Magorn. Although the motivation of the press on this subject is unquestionably suspect, the fact that they are willing to put up this kind of fight after years of complacency is a very encouraging sign.  

Although I believe we are far from pronouncing that the patient has been cured, this newly invigorated press seems to finally be taking baby steps back to a position where they can fulfill their obligation as the public’s watchdog over a Government run amuck.

I can only hope that the trend continues and they reexamine Gannon and all the implications of that story from Plame to TANG. They could take on Delay and his improprieties. They should further explore the Downing Minutes and the whole story of the lies that led to the occupation of Iraq. Maybe they might reexamine the voting irregularities in the last election. Then there’s Haliburton, Gonzales, PNAC, Dobson, Tax cuts, The Patriot Act, 9/11, Afghanistan, Chilabi, “No Child Left Behind”, the gutting environmental regulations, election reform, campaign finance reform, Pearle and Feith,  AIPAC, “faith based initiatives”, redistricting, and a list that goes on forever.

A healthy press could have a field day with this current administration if only they had the stomach to. I know it’s probably just a dream, but oh what a beautiful dream it would be.

Update [2005-5-19 21:5:52 by Duke1676]:
NYT JUST BROKE STORY OF ABUSE AND DEATH OF AFGHAN PRISONERS IN US CUSTODY

In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths