The MSM’s Gift to Moms? The Mushroom Cloud Brigade

I noted this already, but it so exceeds even the abysmal standards of the Sunday show bookers, I’m going to repeat it.

To celebrate Mothers Day, the Sunday shows have brought you the Mushroom Cloud Brigade–Condi Rice, Rummy, and Dick Cheney–the three people who, on September 8, 2002 used the Sunday shows to trumpet the intelligence they had laundered through Judy Miller to lie us into war against Iraq.

RICE: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance — into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to — high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.

We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t what the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Of course, the Mushroom Cloud Brigade won’t be lying about Iraq today. They’ll be lying about torture. And they’ll be helped by a slew of other torture apologists: Michael Hayden, Michael Chertoff, Rudy “9/11” Giuliani, and Liz “BabyDick” Cheney. Update: My apologies for forgetting Univision, which also hosted a torture apologist (Alberto Gonzales), today.

As they spew their torture apology, remember this. The guy who ran their torture program, Jose Rodriguez, has said the best piece of intelligence we got from torture with respect to Osama bin Laden led him to conclude that OBL was no longer the tactical leader of al Qaeda.

Al-Libbi told interrogators that the courier would carry messages from bin Laden to the outside world only every two months or so. “I realized that bin Laden was not really running his organization. You can’t run an organization and have a courier who makes the rounds every two months,” Rodriguez says. “So I became convinced then that this was a person who was just a figurehead and was not calling the shots, the tactical shots, of the organization. So that was significant.”

That led the CIA to shut down its search for OBL precisely because they believed OBL no longer headed a hierarchical organization.

Only, at least according to a background briefing at the Pentagon yesterday (which could itself be more propaganda), that conclusion was wrong. The biggest lesson our intelligence agencies have gotten from analyzing the stash of materials at OBL’s compound is that OBL was not a figurehead, he remained not just the strategic, but also the tactical head of al Qaeda.

The following is a key point:  the materials reviewed over the past several days clearly show that bin Laden remained an active leader in al Qaeda, providing strategic, operational and tactical instructions to the group.  Though separated from many al Qaeda members who are located in more remote areas of the region, he was far from a figurehead.  He was an active player making the recent operation even more essential for our nation’s security.

According to torture apologist Jose Rodriguez, the most important information we got on OBL using torture was that he was a figurehead. According to those analyzing the materials from OBL’s compound, OBL “was far from a figurehead.”

Rodriguez’ torture-induced conclusion was completely wrong.

That’s what the torture apologists have to show for themselves: they gave up the hunt for OBL because they got bad information from torture.

So whereas on September 8, 2002, the Mushroom Cloud Brigade used the Sunday shows to sell a war that would distract us from fighting al Qaeda and getting OBL, today they’ll use the Sunday shows to claim torture helped find OBL. Yet another lie from the Mushroom Cloud Brigade on the Sunday shows.

Happy Mothers Day, moms! May the breakfast in bed your kids made for you help you avoid seeing the Mushroom Cloud Brigade and torture apologists on TV.

image_print
  1. tjbs says:

    Thanks for your tireless attention to this vile violation of our Constitution.

    Unless or until there are trials and jail time for the traitorous torturers by the U.S.of A. torture will have been woven into the fabric of who we are. It would take some rearview attention instead of Xbox drone targeting.

    If we assassinate with drones instead of torturing a suspect to death, are we improving morally ?

  2. pdaly says:

    Torture? Ms. Rice? Mother’s Day?

    Makes me realize it’s time to revisit Rice mothering her Stanford University students, “Do your homework!”:

    I hope the Sunday news shows bring the student on for a surprise reunion/rematch.

  3. stagemom says:

    always at war, republicans…
    Pre-emptive morning PR war v. President O’s story tonight on 60 mins.?

  4. Frank33 says:

    Intelligence officials said Alec Station was disbanded after Robert Grenier, who until February was in charge of the Counterterrorist Center, decided the agency needed to reorganize to better address constant changes in terrorist organizations.

    The New York Times called disbanding the “Bin Laden Unit”, a “milestone”. Robert Grenier opposed the torture that led to that milestone. But Grenier was fired by torturer Rodriguez, supposedly because he opposed the illegal and psychotic brutality of Rodriguez. The Times quotes an anonymous spy. The Thug Rodriguez? The Times article implies Grenier closed it down.

    An intelligence official who was granted anonymity to discuss classified information said the closing of the bin Laden unit reflected a greater grasp of the organization. “Our understanding of Al Qaeda has greatly evolved from where it was in the late 1990’s,” the official said…

    Intelligence officials said Alec Station was disbanded after Robert Grenier, who until February was in charge of the Counterterrorist Center, decided the agency needed to reorganize to better address constant changes in terrorist organizations.

    So I will briefly go into Over-The-Top mode. The torturers used torture to get the answers they wanted. Rodriguez seems to be a secret spymaster, in charge of the “Clandestine Department’. Bin Laden was protected by both the secret governments of Pakistan and the US.

    Incompetence or Conspiracy, it is so tough to decide.

  5. pdaly says:

    What is Bush’s answer to this press question? He mumbles something at the end I cannot decipher.

  6. 1der says:

    We are manipulated and led, sheeplike,by a narcissistic, sociopathic Power Elite who, IMO, are some of the stupidest people on the planet. Forever wrong, forever fail.

  7. orionATL says:

    this is a superb summary.

    and “the mushroom cloud brigade” is a keeper, appropriately derisive.

    nothing clears the fog of war like a spot of history.

  8. PeasantParty says:

    Sunday talk shows=Inferior Product.

    No need to watch because it is a propaganda plan.

    EW and FDL has better coverage of the issues and connects facts, not talking points.

  9. bluewombat says:

    Well, with any luck, buoyed by overconfidence, they’ll say self-incriminating things that can be used against them during their eventual trials for war crimes.

  10. lsls says:

    Bugga Bugga 24/7…and it’s gonna get worse before the anniversary. They already have a documentary on Discovery Channel complete with last weeks “story”. Forever justification for never-ending MIC-manufactured war.

    Keep up the great work EW regarding the evil torturers. Don’t let up.

  11. MadDog says:

    …To celebrate Mothers Day, the Sunday shows have brought you the Mushroom Cloud Brigade–Condi Rice, Rummy, and Dick Cheney…

    Their enduring legacy is the Mainlining of Fear as the defining and debilitating addiction of the American body politic.

    Their real core Family Values are best exemplified by the central compulsive Fear addicts themselves, paranoids Dick and Lynn.

    To live in their worldview meant that every night was Scary Movie Night at Chez Cheney.

  12. sadlyyes says:

    WAL-MART Costs Taxpayers $1,557,000,000,00 to Support its Employees

    •”The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:

    ◦$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.

    ◦$42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.

    ◦$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.

    ◦$100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.

    ◦$108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children’s health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.

    ◦$9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance.”

    •The total figure is based on the average $420,750 per-store figure, multiplied by 3700 (the approximate number of stores currently in the United States).

    •Source: Rep. George Miller / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, “Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart”, February 16, 2004.

    http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php

  13. JohnLopresti says:

    Rice impromptu April 30, (?2007? ?2009?) interchange with student at college dorm where some people are more equal than others.

    Excerpt:

    Q. I read a recent report, recently, that said that you did a memo, you were the one who authorized torture to the — I*m sorry, not torture, waterboarding. Is waterboarding torture?
    A. The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against torture. So that*s — and by the way, I didn*t authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency. That they had policy authorization subject to the Justice Department*s clearance. That*s what I did.
    Q. Okay. Is waterboarding torture?
    A. I just said — the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Conventions Against Torture.

    Then there*s the ex-SecDef*s similar declaration last week:

    Asked if harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay played a role in obtaining intelligence on bin Laden*s whereabouts, Rumsfeld declares: **First of all, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. That*s a myth that*s been perpetrated around the country by critics.

    **The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.**

    However, I think the senate committees on intelligence, and armed services, might be asking the pirate nuclear materials question still, just as Rice alluded in her Europe speaking and denial tours; it*s a proposition straight out of Rice*s historic cold-war studies; and, one, I think, with considerable persistence.

    Still, I wonder how the chief executive feels when leaving a meeting with this *brigade*, having obtained some form of consensus on a controversial policy. If these people can agree that positive and negative are identical, consensus might leave some room for doubt about what really was agreed, or said, or, if taped, whether the tape ought to be disappeared.

    • lsls says:

      A. The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against torture. So that*s — and by the way, I didn*t authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency. That they had policy authorization subject to the Justice Department*s clearance. That’s what I did.
      Q. Okay. Is waterboarding torture?
      A. I just said — the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Conventions Against Torture.

      (my bold)

      No one could have anticipated…

      I just love their “stories”.

    • manys says:

      Paraphrasing Nixon, “If the president authorizes it, that means it’s not torture.”

  14. mafr says:

    thanks a lot.

    I wish the invasion of Iraq was discussed frequently. all prewar justifications outlined in relentless details. all the mindless destruction during and after the war.

    the descent of Iraq into a country which in many ways is much worse, and with many of the same problems as before the invasion.

    the millions dead, the millions of refugees that still can’t go home, but live in misery.

    the whole thing, over and over again, from the start, right to today.

    The feeling I get from the fact that all of the people responsible for that ongoing atrocity are still honoured and celebrated (well maybe not Blair)

    is hard for me to describe.

  15. Sharkbabe says:

    torture good
    torture good
    torture good

    got it? no?

    okay, let’s go over it again

    torture good
    torture good
    torture good

    wars are the best
    need more wars

    back after this word from GE/Boeing/Monsanto/Citi

  16. wagonjak says:

    And don’t forget that little turd Sec. of Defense Panetta, who gave all of these lying bastards cover by saying some of the intelligence came from “enhanced interrogation!” ne TORTURE!

    Why he felt he had to say this is way beyond my level of understanding, but the continuted cluelessness and cowardice of many Obama administration figures is breathtaking and disgusting.

  17. spanishinquisition says:

    According to torture apologist Jose Rodriguez, the most important information we got on OBL using torture was that he was a figurehead. According to those analyzing the materials from OBL’s compound, OBL “was far from a figurehead.”

    So torture bad, extrajudicial killings good. Why bother with arrests with alleged terrorists when we can just kill them on the spot? It is in fact the claims that OBL was more than a figurehead that are being used to retroactively legally justify the strike as being a “command and control center.”

  18. wendydavis says:

    Well, at least Condi’s gonna get her just desserts: appearing on Thirty Rock soon.

    Happy Mother’s Day, Emptywheel and all of us! (Hint: don’t eat the mushrooms at dinner…)

  19. waynec says:

    Reply to pdaly @ 5

    What is Bush’s answer to this press question? He mumbles something at the end I cannot decipher.

    It’s the same sort of denial Michael Moore had in his film when Bush sat for 7 minutes after being told of the 9/11 plane crashes. A deer caught in the headlights.

  20. dipper says:

    I had to make my own breakfast, but I missed all those talk shows anyway. Love your sense of humor, EW. I did see Lawrence O’Donnell’s interview with Condi, and Rachel Maddow critiquing afterwards. T’was interesting. Condi always shakes her head “nooooo” while she is lying, possibly warning us not to believe her.

  21. sherwood says:

    This return of the Bushies to the morning show circuit, pitching torture and trying to cover their asses for 7 years of failing to do their job – e.g. target Osama Bin Laden, serves as a useful reminder of the very real difference between the current administration and the previous one. This administration ended the policy of torture on taking office and won’t bring it back. They have no problem asserting that torture, and publishing pictures of ObL:s ruptured skull to satisfy the bloodhungry crowds, are simply “wrong” and “not who we are as a nation”.

    This issue is of far greater consequence than the silly Bradley Manning faux outrage, over whether a spy was woken up a few times to many in the middle of the night. A perfect illustration of “making the perfect the enemy of the good” if there ever was one.

    (Not that Bradley Manning doesnt deserve to have someone look out for his rights, like all suspected criminals, and it was good that somebody did. The rethoric and righteous outrage from e.g. Greenwald et al was laughable though)

    It’s healthy at times for something to come along and remind us of who the real enemies are. For that, we must thank Condoleeza, Donnie, Dick and Andy.

    • pdaly says:

      sherwood, I agree with the first half of your first sentence.

      Define “their job” as upholding the U.S. Constitution, and then you have to include Obama in that list of yours.

      Manning’s treatment under the Obama administration is a big deal. It is torture. It is also torture brought home to America, torture of an innocent American accused of a crime and held in pre-trial indefinite detention.

      And Obama, as Commander-in-Chief of the military officers who have yet to hear Manning defend himself in a military trial or Obama, as U.S. President of the public who may have to sit on a jury if Manning is ever brought to a criminal trial–the great Obama has already announced that Manning committed a crime. No innocent until proved guilty in Obama’s world view. (Later Obama’s handlers helped to spin the ‘guilty’ pronouncement by Obama as a gaffe. Whatever.)

      • pdaly says:

        and to clarify: Manning does not have to defend himself (unless military trials are different) if he does not choose to. The government has to prove his guilt.

      • sherwood says:

        Sure, Manning is accused and not convicted, and his innocence should be presumed. But that of course didnt stop Greenwald from proclaiming Manning a “hero” for leaking which of course implies guilt, so in that regard he is just as culpable as the president (whatever he said, i’m not privy).

        Furthermore, calling him a “hero” (if guilty) is terribly wrongheaded, since iff Manning is behind the leak – which seems plausible on it’s face – then he is in fact a spy. Or is it more acceptable to give 250,000 to Wikileaks than it would be to give them to AIPAC? Either way, they are likely to end up in the hands of Mossad. But in the former case they are also likely to end up in the hands of Al Qaeda, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Il, or anyone in the possession of a computer.

        Of course that is a crime in the eyes of the government, that should render more or less the same sentence no matter who the recipient is. If he is found guilty. You will never see a president pardon a guy like that, no matter where he may be on the spectrum – communist, liberal, fascist, doesn’t matter.

        As far as I understand the case then, there are various allegations of mistreatment, in some cases it comes down to word against word, in others whether you assume good or bad faith on account of his handlers (e.g. was Manning at one point suicidal or wasnt he, was his health at risk from other prisoners, i o w judgement calls).

        Without getting into the merits of Mannings accusations it is trivial to conclude that there is a qualitative difference between getting water poured down your lungs 183 times, being kept awake for 4 consecutive days, strung up by ropes for hours to cause extreme pain – on the one hand, and being woken and asked if you’re alright everytime you move your head out of site e.g. under the covers – on the other.

        The latter is (assuming Manning is right, and speculations on motives are correct) a case of bullying, mistreatment or psychological manipulation. Equating it with the torture at e.g. Guantanamo and black ops sites is disingenious because it devalues the meaning of the word torture and lends credibility to the phony rightwing attack that IE are similar to pranks and bullying. IOW crying wolf.

        Of course “cruel or unusual punishment”, then, is a formulation with a lot of “air” in it, so who knows the legal domestic status, not me – IANAL. Let Manning have his day in court. That’s how we solve these things in a democracy, by the law of the land.

        Moving forward, there is also a qualitative difference between being legally defined as an “unlawful combatant” – a made up concept – in order to circumvent the Geneva Accords and US law. That can’t be equated with being apprehended and tried according to the same process that has been in place for a long time, and applied on numerous alleged spies in the past. In the latter case there is a framework in place that is supposed to ensure the rights of our citizens, and there are established remedies.

        So once again, the Manning case is of miniscule importance in comparison to Bush era torture, extraordinary renditions etc. If it is found that individuals have broken the law in Mannings treatment, and that the administration was involved, let those responsible be punished. As of now, the judges are still out, and frankly I’m not holding my breath. I’ll save my indignation until they’re back. What we already know is that the Manning case is no threat to the moral fabric of our republic, but the Bush torture regime was and still is, for as long as it’s surrogates are busy trying to bring it back.

        This effort to try to lend them equal importance by Greenwald and his followers is a bit distasteful, reeks of self importance, and is ultimately dangerous.

        But then again, Greenwald’s in the business of righteous indignation, and being a civil libertarian, his objectives are not necessarily the same as a progressives, so I could certainly see why he would stick it to the president.

        • pdaly says:

          Set your alarm clock to go off every 5 minutes while you try to sleep and report back to us in several months how you are doing.

          “they are also likely to end up in the hands of Al Qaeda, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Il, or anyone in the possession of a computer.”

          You mean like the American taxpayers and American voters? http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/02/time-to-reevaluate-the-importance-of-bradley-mannings-alleged-leak/

          wrt “250,000 diplomatic cables”. It’s quite a leak and our government wants to stop additional cyber security leaks by 2013.

          I’ll let emptywheel take it out from here:

          “if our government is going to claim that leaks are as urgent as it does, if it’s going to continue to pretend that secrets are, you know, really secret, then it really ought to at least pretend to show urgency on responding to the gaping technical issues that will not only protect against leakers, but also provide better cybersecurity and protect against spies. Aspiring to fix those issues years after the fact really doesn’t cut it.”

          • sherwood says:

            Set your alarm clock to go off every 5 minutes while you try to sleep and report back to us in several months how you are doing.

            Has anyone claimed that they in fact woke him up every 5 minutes? Has even Manning claimed that? The regiment was that they checked on him every 5 minutes and asked him the question if his head was out of sight (e.g. under the covers).

            You mean like the American taxpayers and American voters?

            Sure. Al Qaeda, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Il, the American taxpayers and American voters and anyone in the possession of a computer.

            In grown-up world it is perfectly possible that an act have many consequences – some of them good, some of them bad. As a citizen, I am better informed, and also entertained, by the (alleged) Manning leak. It may well be that we will perfect flaws in how our government operates because of it. It may well be that the leak had some small part in producing the Arab spring underway right now.

            But there’s also certainly the potential that some of these 250 thousand documents, which Manning (if him) could not possibly have read every one, will risk sensitive US intelligence gathering and operations, sabotage our diplomatic efforts, put US citizens and interests at risk.

            What it boils down to is this: should it be legal to do something that is illegal if there’s good reason to expect that it will also lead to outcomes that are good? Should it be legal to kill a baby if you have good reason that he will grow up to kill Hitler?

            Can you stomach the thought of someone doing a thing that is in some ways very good and in some ways bad, and that he should go to jail for it – to uphold the rule of law?

            Not: Should you do it, but should it be legal?

            You’re free to take the position that all spying on the US government that may result in something good should be legal, but you must understand that we will never elect a president that shares that sentiment. In this country, or any other country. Ranting at Obama over this is like cursing the new pope for being christian.

            wrt “250,000 diplomatic cables”. It’s quite a leak and our government wants to stop additional cyber security leaks by 2013.

            Sure, you think Obama’s administration is teh suxxor. Are you (and emptywheel) also implying that the administration is somehow culpable for (alledgedly) providing Manning with the opportunity and since the opportunity makes the thief, Manning is absolved? That’s… dim. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re implying though, because you seem a tad bit nervous about taking the leap and actually constructing a coherent argument..

            If that is what you’re implying, you better remember to lock your door before you go to bed tonight, lest some neighbour should take your carelessness as licence to do whatever he pleases, since he is no longer considered responsible for his actions.

            Anyho, I wrote a whole lot of words in my post up thread, taking great care to lay out my reasons for holding the opinions that i hold re Manning, asking you a few questions in the process. That took some time and effort. When you respond with minimal effort, throwing out some links and making some vague suggestions about… something, i take it to mean that you are in fact conceding the argument.

            Isn’t it somewhat embarrassing to read through all that reporting on how Obama is super mean to the hero Manning and take home nothing of substance whatsoever to defend your position. Doesn’t it make you doubt somewhat if all those tru progressive bloggers that write about Manning know what the h-ll they’re talking about?

  22. bobschacht says:

    BTW, I have to note with approval that there have been no diaries posted by EW today since 5:50 AM (served with breakfast in bed, I hope). She deserved to take Mom’s day off, and I hope she was treated royally by Mr. EW. She may not be a mom *biologically,* but here she is the Mother of all Mothers, and Queen of the Roost. In fact, I hope that at this moment she is still basking in warm fuzzies from the day. We are content to see what the morrow brings.

    But did anyone else watch Obama on 60 Minutes tonight? He said he didn’t lose any sleep overnight after ordering the extermination of Osama BL. In his comments, Obama showed a distressing (to me) tendency to take on the role of judge and jury, as well as President and CIC, which shows me once again that he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Constitution, much as I am sorry to say it. He also minimized it, saying that whenever he orders troops into the field, someone’s likely to get killed, so he doesn’t worry about it– or words to that effect. Can he be as much of a sociopath as George W. Bush? I wish he’d emulate Abe Lincoln a bit more in this regard.

    Bob in AZ

    • sherwood says:

      We have to assume that Obama is considering Bin Ladin a combatant as defined in the Geneva Conventions, on account of him claiming credit for 9/11 and other terrorist acts on video. That means that we are free (under international law) to kill him, just like a soldier on the battlefield is free to sneak up on an enemy soldier and shoot him in the back while he’s taking a leak. As long as the combatant doesn’t take action to surrender.

      Perhaps you’ll notice that sending a SEAL to shoot Bin Laden in the eye is roughly analogous in it’s intended effect to sending 66 cruise missiles towards his training camp (like Clinton did). The expected side effects are however quite different since 66 cruise missiles can be expected to destroy many things and creatures that aren’t Osama Bin Laden. The SEAL was also more effective.

      IOW, you’re inviting allegations of hypocracy if you weren’t railing against Clinton back in 98.

      “saying that whenever he orders troops into the field, someone’s likely to get killed, so he doesn’t worry about it – or words to that effect”

      No, he implied that he worried about the troops, but not about the man (he considers) responsible for 9/11.

      Did you catch his spirited defence of treating the fallen bodies of our enemies with dignity, since “that is what makes us different”, in the same interview? That was quite nice; just some small words to help us keep our humanity in this country, in stark contrast to the aims of the old Bush crew who are also doing the circuit these days.

      I could give you a link to a Andrew McCarthy post over at The Corner where he rails against the reading from the Koran at Bin Laden’s sea funeral. He (falsely) asserted that the first sura contains an eternal curse against all christians and jews and that it must be investigated whether fine, american soldiers had to partake in such a heathen ceremony. Just making sure you know what the options are here….

  23. milesscott says:

    This is what happen when you have a word challenge president who loves liquor.You have a season bureaucrat who knew the right button to push on Bush. Dick Cheney was a old hat from the Nixon and Ford era .He was the man standing next to the man(Dub-ya). If you really love puppet theater the older masters of the art would have been proud of their savant Dick Cheney. Because George did every thing Cheney told him to do the first four years. Cheney ran his own spy operation out of the White House. Here we have old Rummy “The argument From Ignorance=Absence OF evidence Is Evidence Of Absence”. My mother use to say “That Fool Talk”. The Main stream media thought his words were John The Baptist announcing the coming of the great one. He made lite of human death like it was a video game. Oh yes Miss Condoleezza Rice The worst National Security Advisory the office have ever had. Her expertise were in Soviet and East European Affairs. She did not know a dam thing Africa Asia or The Middle East. Her only claim to fame is taken The Golden Rectangle of Human Experience and perverse it.The teller of lies and the murder of women children . Let us not forget the the Denier “little Jack Horn-er “Colin Powell standing in the corner with a flash, photos ,maps, . He knew the intelligence was cook like a Christmas pie. This is what happen when you fail the prosecuted the body of lies of this hydra. Because cutting off its head futile.