Tuesday, March 28, 2023

Truest statement of the week

The American media paid only perfunctory attention to the Iraq War anniversary. What has been said is aimed at covering up for the colossal scale of the crime, and of the media’s own role in it.

The cynicism, as always, found its most perfidious expression in the pages of the New York Times. A news analysis by Max Fisher under the headline, “20 Years On, a Question Lingers About Iraq: Why Did the U.S. Invade?” treats the motives of the Bush administration in launching the war as uncertain and even “fundamentally unknowable,” in the words of one “scholar” interviewed by Fisher. 

The Times article flatly rejects the “once-prevalent theory: that Washington invaded to control Iraq’s vast oil resources,” without referring to the prominence of former oilmen like Vice President Cheney and Bush himself in driving the decisions for war. And it attributes the systematic lying about Saddam Hussein’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction” to a form of groupthink, in which “[a] critical mass of senior officials all came to the table wanting to topple Mr. Hussein for their own reasons, and then talked one another into believing the most readily available justification.”

The Times’ “analysis” carefully avoids any discussion of the role of the Times itself as one of the main promoters of the “weapons of mass destruction” campaign. 

-- Patrick Martin, "Twenty years since the US invasion of Iraq" (WSWS).




Truest statement of the week II

The motivations for the war are not “unknowable.” Indeed, they were known at the time, with tens of millions throughout the world participating in demonstrations in advance of the invasion, rejecting the lies of the administration and demanding “no blood for oil.” The size and breadth of the demonstrations were so large that it prompted the New York Times to comment that there were “two superpowers”: The United States and “world public opinion.”

-- Patrick Martin, "Twenty years since the US invasion of Iraq" (WSWS).



A note to our readers

Hey --

Monday night. 

Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

And what did we come up with? 


Patrick Martin got a truest.

In fact, he got two.

For Iraq, we're reposting C.I.'s piece on NPR.

Ava and C.I. review two new spy shows.

A parody of what Jonathan Turley could write if he wrote an autobiography.

Ava and C.I. speak with Kat and Isaiah about books.

It is a war on the LGBTQ+ community and drag queens as well.

Conflict?  I just used the title for the last time C.I. spoke about something no one wanted to talk about.

A list of books reviewed so far this year in the community.

A list of notable passings so far this year.

We went with Amy Goodman who did some outstanding work on Iraq last week.

Repost of Isaiah's book review.

Repost of Kat's  book review.

What we listened to while working on this edition.

 What we listened to while writing.




-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.


NPR disgraces itself with War Porn

Reposting this by C.I.:

Tom Bowman acts our War Porn while NPR pushes for the money shot

NPR's cancelled four podcasts.  (See Ruth's "NPR created their own problems.")  They should make it five.  TAKING COVER needs to be cancelled as well.

Tom Bowman's always been more of an idiot than a journalist -- but he really let his stupidity shine last week with a 'report.'  Bowman and company wasted 49 minutes and over 7,500 words to tell you nothing.  NPR should be ashamed of themselves.  They gave your war porn while claiming it was reporting.  

Here's how it started: A tip to Tom about the US military (when? This year? we're never told).    The tip was  about events on April 12, 2004 in Falluja.  The US military lied.  They concealed details of a death.  They didn't just conceal it in real time.  When Bowman and NPR made an open records request, they were told that there were no records.  

This should have been big.  It should have been huge.

A report like this should have ended with the family of the dead Marine -- or his friends -- speaking about how disgusting it was that the US military concealed his death for 'optics.'   It should have had a comment from Senator Jack Reed who is the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

It didn't.  Instead we got a lot of nonsense.  Including the fact that no one ever needs to hear NPR reporters tossing around the term "man" as though they're buddies with the veterans.  Graham Smith and Tom Bowman aren't part of the Marines.  They are journalists -- someone should have reminded them of that.


They use the 49 minutes  to serve up war porn.  

And to make themselves the stars.

You can listen to the report and find out about how what books and documents the two 'reporters' went through.  As though that's the story?  Because that is what they made the story.  

Not the death, not the cover up.  In fact most people listening to this garbage may not grasp at the end, after 49 minutes, that Bowman and Smith never revealed what the story needed revealed.

Here's Tom Bowman yammering away early in the porn:

 I might run into a colonel I knew in Afghanistan or a general visiting from his overseas command who can tell me what's really going on. But there are some things, well, people just don't want to talk about in the building. So I might call them at home at night, or...


BOWMAN: ...We might meet up at a bar, which is what happened one night at a whiskey bar in D.C. Actually, this very bar, a guy who spent a lot of time in Iraq told me a story very few people knew. He told me that early in the Iraq War, there'd been this tragedy. U.S. Marines had dropped a mortar or a rocket on their own people. That's what they call friendly fire. Now, in this case, he said, one Marine was killed and another seriously wounded. Friendly fire deaths - they happen. They happen in every war throughout history. That's not what made his story shocking. Here's the thing - he said that the Marine brass had actually covered it up, burying the truth about this terrible incident because, he said, the son of a powerful politician was involved in the screw-up.

"SOUNDBITE OF DRINK POURING"?  That was needed to drive home that the two are trying for entertainment not not news.

A death was covered up.  And it was covered up because "the son of a powerful politician was involved in the screw-up."

We need to know why the cover up and we need to know son of a politician.  

They can add sound effects and they can brag on themselves but Bowman and Harris can't deliver the basic facts.

This is shameful.

You can be sure this isn't the only death that got covered up in Iraq.  In real time, we used to know the helicopter 'crashes' -- they were under investigation, the US government insisted.  Then we'd either find out that they were shot down or there would be no information released on them.  But when they happened, despite what was reported by news outlets, the US military would say that it was probably mechanical issues.

No, they were being shot down and shame on the government for lying to the American people.

And shame on NPR for thinking we needed to hear about Tom Bowman and G Smith cock-knocking around with the Marines and asking if reworking a BLACK & WHITE cigar is like making a spiff -- as though that has a damn thing to do with what they're supposed to be covering.

They pad their garbage with stuff that should be on the cutting room floor.  For example, "Ben was traveling in South America with his girlfriend, a musician, when I reached him. I set up a time to talk. And a week later, I called him from a studio here at NPR."  Who gives two s**ts and what does this have to do with the powerful politician NPR never names.

We don't need 'reporter' Smith sharing, "Yeah. I mean, I've spent a lot of time with Marines over in Afghanistan. I went in 2009 with 2/8 out of Lejeune on the whole, like, insert into the Helmand River Valley and, you know, dropped in with them on the helicopters."  That doesn't have one damn thing to do with Iraq or with the April 12th incident.  But garbage like that -- where 'reporters' try to make themselves the story -- keeps popping up throughout.

Nor do we need this from NPR 'reporter' Smith, "Yeah. Yeah. And let me preface this whole thing by saying I, you know, like - even after talking to Carlos, you know, I was, like, back in the zone for, like, a week. And my wife was like, why are you being such a b****? And..."

No one needs it.  You are not the story.  You're nothing but a piece of garbage using 49 minutes of NPR's time -- and the public's money -- to make yourself a star of a report that should be focusing on facts regarding an April 12, 2004 explosion in Falluja.

Brad Shuder is apparently the one the US military lied about.  When?  When he died April 12, 2004.  When did they get honest?  I don't know but his correct cause of death (what they lied about) is listed in MILITARY TIMES' HONOR THE FALLEN  database:

Marine Lance Cpl. Brad S. Shuder

Died April 12, 2004 Serving During Operation Iraqi Freedom

21, of El Dorado, Calif.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 12 by friendly fire in Anbar province, Iraq.


Brad S. Shuder signed up for the Marine Corps soon after his 18th birthday, making for a dramatic change in lifestyle: He was a gourmet cook who wanted to open a bakery, a man who wore designer fashions and took dates to the opera. “He was a genuine person,” said his longtime friend Kurt Hall. “He was someone who you could trust to be a real friend when you needed one.” The 21-year-old Camp Pendleton Marine from El Dorado Hills, Calif., was killed April 12 by friendly fire in Iraq’s Anbar province. Shuder seemed to know he might die on his second tour in Iraq. “He told us that he felt he wouldn’t be coming back,” his father, Glenn Shuder, said. But he wouldn't listen to his family’s pleas to request a change in assignment. He felt it was his duty to return, his parents said. “From the time he was a youngster, he always wanted to be in the military,” his father said. “He always said it was every American's duty to serve in the military.”

— Associated Press

The original DoD press release lied:

DoD Identifies Marine Casualties

The Department of Defense announced today the death of two Marines who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Lance Corporal Brad S. Shuder, 21, of El Dorado Hills, California, died April 12, 2004,  from hostile fire in Al Anbar Province, Iraq.  He was assigned to EchoCompany, 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, California.

It was not hostile fire, it was friendly fire.  A bombing was called in by the US military and it hit the Marines instead.

From a 2011 Laura Newell report that GOLD COUNTRY MEDIA ran:

“It’s never the same,” said Rose Shuder, Brad’s mother. “I guess for me, I wonder what he would be doing now at the age of 29. What would he look like and be doing? It never stops. Time makes it not as difficult, but it never stops.”

Rose said the El Dorado Hills community has been supportive and helpful during the time after her son’s death.

“When Brad died, the support was unbelievable, the community was so supportive for our family,” Rose said. “Everyone was so helpful. It was a great honor for Brad’s memory.”

Brad was adopted from Korea at 18 months old into the Shuder family including Rose and her husband Glenn. They also have a younger daughter Chelsey, 26.The family moved to El Dorado Hills in 1993.

“Brad went through the El Dorado County School system and graduated from Oak Ridge in 2001,” Rose said. “He was very well liked. … He always wanted to be in the military. Upon his graduation, Sept. 11, 2001 happened, so he signed up for the Marines.”

After graduating boot camp, Brad went to Iraq in 2003.

In those six paragraphs, Newell provides more information about Brad Shuder than Bowman and Smith did in their 49 minute 'report.'

Bowman and Smith can't be bothered speaking to Brad's parents.  Strange because NPR's DAY BY DAY spoke to his father back in 2006:

MIKE PESCA: We're joined by his father, Glen Shuder. Thanks for coming on, Glenn.

Mr. GLENN SHUDER (Father of Slain Marine): You're welcome.

PESCA: Glenn, in the past three years, or maybe two and a half, since your son died, has your attitude on the war itself changed?

Mr. SHUDER: Probably more so to the point where I just don't think it's a worthwhile cause anymore.

PESCA: And in the beginning, what did you think?

Mr. SHUDER: I really had really strong reservations about invading a country that I don't think we belong there. Since then, I just think it's deteriorated to a point where we've done more harm than good.

PESCA: Now, in the beginning, did you find yourself saying to people that phrase, I support the troops, in fact my son is one but I don't support the war?

Mr. SHUDER: No, I didn't say that. I would just say, you know, I support all the troops and the military and we need to keep on with that. I never said anything against or - for or against the war at that time. 

TV: We spy something good and something sad

For months  now, we've waited with anticipation for RABBIT HOLE to debut on PARAMOUNT+ but then it did.  

This weekend also saw THE NIGHT AGENT released on NETFLIX.  We thought it might make a good comparison/contrast.  So Friday, we sat down to watch the first episode.  We are not bingers.  We are too busy to spend that kind of time or to deal with the next day where we're lagging because we watched eight episodes of a NETFLIX show.


Not eight, ten.  That's how many THE NIGHT AGENT stars.  We know that because we watched them.

One right after the other with no break.

We do not like binge viewing; however, the series is so involving that we had no choice.

THE NIGHT AGENT series is based upon the book of the same name by Matthew Quirk.  Shawn Ryan created the series and his previous work includes THE UNIT, THE SHIELD -- indicating that he has a long history with titles where the first word is an article.  The show has a slew of other producers but we'll just note Seth Gordon who also directed the ten episodes.   

The first episode opens with FBI agent Peter Sutherland (Gabriel Basso) on a subway train with a bomb about to go off.  He manages to get people off the train but is knocked down in the explosion.  Moments later, he sees the man who left the bomb and chases after him.  As the two fight, the man's hoodie slips up to his pecs and Peter sees he has a tattoo of a snake along his the right side of his upper torso.

It's a year later in a jump cut and Peter's got a job at the White House where he answers a phone that should never ring.  It's his shot at redemption.  Meanwhile Rose Larkin (Luciane Buchanan) has just lost everything -- including her computer tech company -- and goes to her aunt and uncle's home to rethink her life.  Not much time for thought, let alone lengthy contemplation.  No sooner does she try to sleep then noise pulls her downstairs.  Her aunt and uncle are in a panic.  There's a threat.  Someone in the White House is involved.  She hears all of this standing on the stairs.  When she joins them, she tries to ask questions but her aunt tells her to stop and listen, there are people outside, there isn't a lot of time.  They give her a number and a list of words to say.  Her uncle tells her to go out the back but her aunt says that they may be watching the back, go out the side door on the bedroom.  

As she does this, her aunt and her uncle are killed and she is seen.  She runs and breaks into a home to use the phone.  The number?

Peter's the one answering.  And he almost hangs up because she clearly does not know anything about the number she called.  But he stays on the phone with her and sends help to her.  

That is the first minutes of the episode.

It pulls you in.  And it does so quickly.  There is no flab, every moment is needed and used well.

By contrast, RABBIT HOLE opens with a lot of nonsense.  Even if it later pays off, it wasn't worth it.  

Glenn Ficarra has written, directed and/or produced a lot of failures -- including WHISKY TANGO FOXTROT.  Why is that?

The answers very clear in the first 30 minutes of RABBIT HOLE: Glenn doesn't know what decade it is.

For example, it's not the 1980s.  No middle aged man is watching the screen with one eye while he uses the other to make sure the wife's not about to walk in.  Nor is any middle-aged man in 2023 going to be excited by the nothing sex scene -- actually before and after sex scene -- just because a blond woman is in it.  She's not sexy in the scenes.  She's not given much to do so don't blame the actress.

But this is a paint-by-number script that would've have aired in 1983.  And it only gets worse after.  He fights with her accusing her of spying on him.  Then he argues with this person.  Then with that.  35 minutes into the program the scene that probably should have opened the episode takes place.  For the first time, we finally feel a sense of danger.  

But did most people stick around that long?  

We don't blame them if they didn't.

A spy thriller can't afford indulgence.  It needs to move and, in fact, it needs to hit the ground running.  That's why REACHER worked.  It's why THE NIGHT AGENT works.  And it's why -- thus far (we've seen three episodes) RABBIT HOLE doesn't.  

Again, this is the show we were expecting to like.  We were expecting thrills and surprises, twist and great acting.  Instead, it only delivered boredom.  

THE NIGHT AGENT is the one that offered thrills and surprise and, yes, great acting.  Hong Chau is President Travers' chief of staff Diane Farr and she's spellbinding.  Basso and Buchanan deliver strong performances as does Fola Evans-Akingbola.  Phoenix Rael and Eve Harlow are so good in their roles -- as ruthless assassins -- that you even feel some sympathy for them.  With RABBIT HOLE, you just feel sorry for Kiefer.  Yeah, he slept with stripper Celeste (who had bad eczema all over her shoulders) on the eve of his wedding to Julia Roberts.  But even that doesn't warrant getting stuck in this bad show.


Turns out he's having to self-publish but noted transphobe Jonathan Turley has written his memoir.  Hot off the presses, an excerpt of his new book, due out Tuesday, SLEEPING ON THE RIGHT SIDE.

From the intro "Toilet Training and Predestination, PLESSY V FERGUSON and All That Jazz:"


I don't have an anal fetish.  I don't.  It's not my fault that so many conservatives are getting butt hurt these days.  My kissing their rear ends to make it better doesn't give me an anal fetish.  And if I'm already down there and decide to toss their salad, well that's just free speech rights.



Gas leaving the anal lips is a form of speech.


I think my anal fondness began as a small child when mother used to tell me I was a butt baby.  Father would say she just meant I was end of the line -- fifth out of five -- but I knew what mother meant, I was something she squeezed out her sphincter -- hence my full name: Jonathan Sphincter Turley. 


Mother left me in diapers until I was 17 and sprouted my first hair.

"J-J Sphincter Turley," she said to me, "that's just one hair, soon there will be many more.  And Mommy can't keep changing your diapers.  Icky poo-pooh's going to get in those hairs and the task is just too much for an aging woman like me."

Mother was wrong.  Two weeks later, during my monthly bath, the 'hair' fell loose.  It was a dingle berry.  However, by then, I had already been toilet trained.  I missed my soggy diapers but, since I was a senior in high school, I felt I was getting too old for them anyway.  At least full time.



From the chapter "College Dreams, Dirty Schemes and ASHCROFT V FREE SPEECH COALITION:"


After my scholarship to Clown College fell through, I went to the University of Chicago because it had a reputation for further inhibiting the sexually repressed and for fostering War Criminals.  Surely, I'd learn a lot about the law there!

I certainly hadn't learned a thing in Congress!  It was my time in the House of Representatives that drove home the point that timing -- not foreplay -- is everything.  I was a Congressional page from 1977 to 1978.


As such, I had the horror of never knowing if Mark Folely might have found me attractive.  Oh, sure, I could send him childhood photos now -- and often do -- but I'll never know if his kind words ("Sit on my face, Junior!") are heartfelt or just his way of being kind.


Moments missed.  A lifetime of them.  




As a legal expert, I weigh in constantly with both blog posts and erotic fan fiction.  I really do believe that if Bill Kunstler were alive today, he'd be doing erotic HART OF DIXIE fan fiction and that this realization is what originally led Darren Star to come up with the concept for SEX AND THE CITY.

But I digress, back to the most important legal decision of our time, HINGST V MELBOURNE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING . . . 


Books (Isaiah, Kat, Ava and C.I.)



We're again increasing book coverage in the community.  Kat's "Elton John and Whitney Houston" reviews Elton John's ME ELTON JOHN and HOURLY HISTORY's WHITNEY HOUSTON: A LIFE FROM BEGINNING TO END and Isaiah's "DON RICKLES: THE MERCHANT OF VENOM," a biography written by Johnny Heller.  So, Isaiah, why this book?  What interested you?


Isaiah: I knew of Don Rickles -- mainly from TV talk shows.  I saw it in KINDLE UNLIMITED while looking for something to read.  I was really looking for a comic  book collection but I saw the book on Rickles and it interested me.


Do you recommend the book?


Isaiah: Yeah, but there has to be better one.  This was a good jumping off point for me but there wasn't enough in there -- plenty of pages, but just not enough.  Way too often it was sentences like "Only Don knows what really happened."  If you don't know if he dated a woman or not, don't include it.  There are things he did that we know, so focus on those.  I also felt him living with his mother wasn't properly addressed.  No adult male wants to hang a sheet to create two bedrooms for themselves and their mom.  Come on.  There was conflict there but it's not in the book.  And I have an LGBTQ+ issue to bring up in a moment but I'm thinking how this is sounding and want to be clear that I'm not suggesting that Don Rickles was gay.  He himself talked about how, when he wanted to go into the entertainment industry, his uncles all thought he was gay.  My point about the affairs is if you don't know if it was an affair and can't find anyone to talk about it or anything written about it, don't bring it up if two or three paragraphs later you're writing that no one knows what happened.  As for his mom, she was his biggest fan and he'd lost his father when she started going on the road with him.  They were close.  But don't pretend that they didn't have issues especially when he wanted to have sex with a woman.


Sure.  What was the LGBTQ+ issue?


Isaiah:  We got a heads up -- from C.I. -- when James Caan died where you said basically "write whatever you want but the man was a raging homophobe so don't be surprised if there's pushback."  No one noted the death in the community.  And I'm glad for the heads up on that.  But guess who shows up in the Rickles' book?  James Caan.  When Don's wife gives birth to a son, Caan shows up with $2,000 worth of sports equipment and told him, "This is to make sure your kid grows up straight."

That sounds exactly like something James Caan would do, he was disgusting.  He also prevented Sal Mineo from being cast in THE GODFATHER saying he would quit if they hired "that f**got."  There are many, many more examples.  Anything else you'd like to note?


Isaiah: Barbara Eden.  He was an insult comic.  She was surprised when she went to one of his gigs because he insulted every celebrity in the room except for her.  Backstage, he hugged her and told her he couldn't insult her, it wouldn't be right. 


Thank you.  Kat, you did two books.  Let's start with Whitney.


Kat: Yeah, I'd advise everyone to stay away from any book published by HOURLY HISTORY unless they're obsessed with the individual and can't find anything else to read.  These are very bad books.  At every turn, you'll find that WIKIPEDIA did a better job covering the topic than an HOURLY HISTORY book does.  Everything else I want to say on that book is in the review I wrote.


 Okay, the Elton John book?

Kat: I don't know if he got slammed for it or not, maybe no one pointed this out when the book came out, but when I said it and started reading, my first thought was, "ME's already been a book title."

Right, Katharine Hepburn.

Kat: And she got criticized for the vanity but I doubt he did.  He tends to skate by everything.  He's superficial and I don't like him.  I don't like how he applauds Eminem throughout the book.  Because he's gay, he thinks he can give Eminem a pass.  He does the same with Axl Rose.  On that, f**k you, Elton.  He even brings up "One In A Million" but just notes that it was seen as anti-gay.  F**k you, Elton.  He doesn't point out the racism -- and that song has the n-word in it -- or the attacks on immigrants.  Elton is Chaz Bono on the set of BRAVEHEART telling the press that Mel Gibson has no problem with gay people because he had no problem talking to Cher's child.  I'm tired of these celebrities rehabbing homophobes and insisting that because the homophobes are nice to them, they aren't really homophobes.  

Do you recommend either book?

Kat: Not at all.  There's a reason Bernie Taupin wrote the lyrics to Elton's big hits -- Bernie knows words. 


Thank you both for speaking with us.




Previous book discussions this year:




The war in the US

There is a war going on in the United States.  Crazed hate merchants have declared war on equality.   BUSINESS INSIDER reports:

Florida's push to axe gender-affirming care for minorsrestrict discussions of gender identity in schools, and, more recently, revoke a hotel's liquor license after hosting a drag show have repeatedly been painted by GOP state leaders and Gov. Ron DeSantis as an urgent crusade to protect children. 

But LGBTQ rights groups and communities are skeptical and maintain that the latest actions in Florida further marginalize a minority community that makes up less than 5% of the state's population.

"On the surface level, these pieces of legislation limit job opportunities for drag entertainers, reduce resources for transgender individuals, and prevent students (both children and adults) from being educated about LGBTQ+ topics," a drag performer who goes by the name of Venus Envy told Insider in an email. "All of these outcomes are harmful in their own right, but the greater impact of these bills is already being seen in the increase of hatred toward the LGBTQ+ community and the harmful rhetoric that drag queens are predatory."

Instead of rational and practical, we get lies and hysteria.  FOX NEWS can't help but offer lies -- they're talk show hosts' texts, for example, revealed that they hated Donald Trump but Tucker and Laura lied to viewers and pretended otherwise.  If you're hosting a talk show and you can't even be honest about your opinion, you're not a talk show host.  So FOX NEWS has its panties twisted in knots over poor little Layla Jane.  The 18 year-old is suing the hospital that started her transition to male.  She should be suing her parents.  First, she should be suing them for not using that money to fix her face -- ew, best in show is in her future.  Second, she was 13 which means no doctor proceeded because of her. wants and desires  No, her parents had to want that surgery.

But Layla Jane's going after the hospital and FOX NEWS is burying the part of the story where Layla Jane's parents signed off on the surgery.  Nothing was done to Layla Jane without her parents signing off -- she was 13-years-old -- and if she has a problem she needs to take it up with her parents. 

You got what you wanted and now you're not happy.  Sounds like a typical spoiled brat.  Sorry your parents didn't raise you better and that you're so ungrateful and so unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions.  Cry babies, if FOX NEWS didn't have them, who would host their programs? Mother Tucker is always accusing others of "playing the victim."  But on FOX NEWS, it's the hosts and the guests playing the victims,

Meanwhile, in the battlefield,  Nicholas Nehmas and Ana Ceballos (MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS) report that Florida governor and noted homophobe Ron DeSantis is cracking down on drag revues despite what his own investigators are finding:

But while agents took photos of three minors — who appeared to be accompanied by adults — at the Orlando drag show, they acknowledged that nothing indecent had happened on stage, according to an incident report obtained exclusively by the Miami Herald.

“Besides some of the outfits being provocative [bikinis and short shorts], agents did not witness any lewd acts such as exposure of genital organs,” the brief report stated. “The performers did not have any physical contact while performing to the rhythm of the music with any patrons.”

Still, the state’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation proceeded to file a complaint against the nonprofit that runs Plaza Live, claiming the venue had illegally exposed children to sexual content. The complaint, issued Feb. 3, seeks to strip the small, nonprofit theater of its liquor license — a serious blow that would likely put it out of business.

[. . .]

Carlos Guillermo Smith, a former Democratic state legislator from Orlando, said the report from state agents proves that the “moral panic” about drag shows is a “hoax.”

“What you see here is the governor sending in investigators and then dismissing what the investigators have to say because it doesn’t fit into his narrative,” said Guillermo Smith, who now works for Equality Florida, an LGBTQ rights group. “It’s more evidence that all of this … is contrived, it’s politically motivated. And it’s not about protecting children. It’s part of an ongoing effort to marginalize LGBT people and their allies because that’s the vehicle that will get him to … the GOP nomination.”


 As Jon Stewart recently pointed out on CNN, the GOP has run out of ideas -- even bad ones.





CONFLICT: Trump on the chain-gang?


Jim: Trump's going to prison!  At least that's what people were led to believe.  He still hasn't been arrested.  No one wants to talk about this but I caught C.I. talking about it on the phone to a friend so I roped her in for this conversation that everyone else avoided.  Why? They don't think Donald Trump needs the publicity.  They think the constant attention he got in 2016 is how he ended up president.  C.I., if you could more or less repeat what you said on the phone call.

C.I.: I was in the kitchen getting some water and Jim and Ava were eating lunch.  A friend called.  She wanted to know what was going on -- this was Saturday -- and I started talking about my life and she said no, the news.  So I started talking about Iraq.  No, Donald Trump.  Jim knows I immediately said I was not following it and didn't care.  She then said that she wants to see him behind bars but it's not fair if he's prosecuted for the classified information he had at his residence if Joe Biden and others aren't prosecuted as well.  I said that the Manhattan District Attorney's office does not handle national security.  This is probably about Stormy Daniels -- the porn actress he paid off to keep quiet about their affair.  

Jim: You pulled up the news on your phone at that point and said, "Yep, that's what it is."  You don't think it's a strong case.

C.I.: I cautioned then and I'm cautioning now that I wasn't following the story and had not read any of the filings but, no, it's pretty obvious it's not a strong case.  You don't leak that Donald's being arrested on Monday if you have a strong case.  And when he's not arrested that day or the next or the whole week, you clearly don't have a strong case.

Jim: But you don't think it's strong to begin with.

C.I.: I don't.  I'm not going to waste my time on this nonsense -- I think it's nonsense.  Who's the injured party?  That would be my first question if you're tying up time and money to dig into this.  Is it a case of a foreign government?  Nope.  Is Stormy the injured party?  If so, when do we consider blackmailers to be the injured party?  She was paid "hush money."  That's the term provided by the press.  Hush money means silence is being bought.  That's blackmail.  I'm not a Donald fan and I don't want to see him back in the White House.  If you can arrest him for something he's done, go for it.  But this always seemed a reach.  Are you following it?

Jim: I am.  Alvin Bragg is the d.a. and he's taking testimony again this week before a grand jury.

C.I.: Which means there's on indictment at present.  If there were, they'd be moving to arrest Donald.  This is nonsense and it needs to be ignored.  There are real stories and this isn't one.  That's reason one.  Reason two, this just inflates Donald's image: So powerful that the government is always trying to take him down!  Reason three, they have cried 'wolf' for so many years now and all this does is make Donald immune to any charges -- they weren't true before, why would they be now?  I would also point out that this was a gift for him and he knew it which is why he used his social media to constantly raise the issue.

Jim: You don't think he's going to be arrested for this?

C.I.: No one knows at this point.  Those insisting it was going to happen need to explain why they were so sure.  But, again, I'm focused on real issues.  This has turned into Jason Leopold's whole "Scotter Libby is about to be arrested!" coverage.  

Jim: So why I agree to participate?

C.I.: Because it got you off  my back and because it was easier to do this feature and move on then keep saying "no."

Jim: Should Congress be seeking the records from the Manhattan DA.

C.I.: I don't see the reason for the interest.  There's no prosecution.  They certainly have other issues to focus on.  But Congress can do more than one thing at a time -- a detail Congress members frequently forget -- so if they think they need to go prying into the workings of a city government, that's fine.  Just don't be surprised when citizens start noting areas you're not addressing.  It's not a good look for them.  Regardless, they can't get anything during an active investigation. 





"Mafia Wives (Susan Williams' WHITE MALICE)" -- C.I. reviews this book.


 "The Sewing Circle" -- Marcia reads Axel Madsen's THE SEWING CIRCLE.


 "Ellen Sander's The Lifestyle That Classic Rock Unleashed" -- Trina reviews this book.

"Phyllis Diller 1917 – 2012: News, Quotes, Interview" -- Ann reviews this book.

"Call Her Heroic (Ava and C.I.)" -- Ava and C.I. review this book.

"Boze Hadleigh's Hollywood Gays" -- Marcia reviews this book.


"Robert Sellers wrote a book of garbage" -- Kat reviews HOLLYWOOD HELLRAISERS.   



"SCREAM VI and THE BOYS" -- Stan reviews Ron and Clint Howard's THE BOYS.



"the world according to joan" -- Rebecca reviews this book.


 "Elton John and Whitney Houston" -- Kat reviews Elton John's autobiography and a biography on Whitney Houston.

"DON RICKLES: THE MERCHANT OF VENOM" -- Isaiah reviews this book.



2023 passings

Lisa Presley -- Elaine noted her passing.

Christine McVie -- Kat covered her passing.


Adam Rich -- Marcia noted his passing.


Jeff Beck -- Kat noted his passing.


Lance Kerwin -- Rebecca noted his passing.

Barrett Strong -- Ruth noted his passing.


Lisa Loring -- Rebecca noted her passing.


Burt Bacharach -- Rebecca noted his passing.


Raquel Welch -- Elaine noted her passing.


Stella Stevens  -- Rebecca noted her passing.


Richard Belzer -- Ruth noted his passing.  


Pat Schroeder -- Kat noted her passing.


Lance Reddick -- Mike notes his passing.  


Darcelle XV -- Elaine notes his passing.





Video of the week


Isaiah reviews a biography of Don Rickles



Don Rickles was a comedian who made a lot of people laugh during his career of insult comedy.  He is the subject of Johnny Heller's DON RICKLES: THE MERCHANT OF VENOM.  

Singer and violent thug Frank Sinatra shows up one night and the audience is tense.  Sinatra is a thug.  He flies off the handle and beats people up or has his bodyguard do it.  (Remember that when you try to lie and pretend Mia Farrow was every saintly.)  So does Don do his usual comedy?  Does he try to ignore Frank Sinatra?  Or does he treat him like he would anyone else?

Make yourself comfortable, Frank, slug somebody.  Frank, believe me, I'm telling you this as a friend, you're voice is gone. I just saw your movie THE PRIDE AND THE PASSION and I want to tell you, the cannon was great.

That's what he goes with and everyone -- including Frank -- laughs.  That's how he kicked off his career and it's how the book opens.

He was born and raised in the Queen borough of New York City.  He grew up a New York Giants fan at a time when NYC also boasted the Dodgers and the Yankees.  Later in life, he'd live in Los Angeles and become a Dodgers fan.  In high school, he played basketball and failed at math.  He graduated high school during WWII (1944) and enlisted in the navy.  The war would end the following year and Don would serve one more year before being discharged.

Don would stumble around in several jobs while wanting to be an entertainer and make people laugh.  He applied to the American Academy of Arts, auditioned and was accepted.  His classmates included Conrad Bain (DIFF'RENT STROKES, MAUDE), Don Murray (Marilyn Monroe's BUS STOP, KNOTS LANDING), Jason Robards Jr. (JULIA. COMES A HORSEMAN and ANY WEDNESDAY all with Jane Fonda, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST with Henry Fonda, A THOUSAND ACRES with Michelle Pfeiffer, Jessica Lange and Jennifer Jason Leigh -- Jennifer's middle name is in honor of the family friend Jason Robards Jr.) and Charles Durning (Brian De Palma's SISTERS, TOOTSIE with Dustin Hoffman and Jessica Lange, DOG DAY AFTERNOON with Al Pacino, Warren Beatty's DICK TRACY).

He auditioned repeatedly for plays after graduating but no one would hire him. Finally, a New Jersey club needed a comic and he got that job.  He quickly became a success on the comedy circuit.  In 1957, he finally got on TV -- the Jack Parr hosted THE TONIGHT SHOW. But TV otherwise ignored him.  Rose Marie (THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW) got him a job at a nightclub in California.

He starts making movies (RUN SILENT, RUN DEEP and THE RABBIT TRAP) with Burt Lancaster and Ernest Borgnine and then, in 1959, he finally played Vegas and his  standup career exploded. 


He made friends along the way (Judy Garland took to him long before he was famous, Bob Newhart would become one of his best friends) and enemies (Vincent Price).  

He dated a lot of women (including singer Connie Francis -- not a Connie fan but I don't mind including names of people I'm not a fan of -- just of people who physically make me ill)

And it was while blowing them away in Vegas that he was offered a role in THE RAT RACE -- which would go on to be the first hit movie he made -- Tony Curtis and Kay Medford were in the cast.  (I'm not mentioning people I loathe.  This is my review.  There's an actress I always considered facially repulsive and a bad actress and I'm not pumping up her online presence by noting her.  But she was really ugly.)  The standup career, films and on TV all the time (THE TWILIGHT ZONE, THE THIN MAN, WAGON TRAIN, THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, THE LUCY SHOW, BURKE'S LAW, THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES, THE ADAMS FAMILY, and many more including playing The Insulter on an episode of BATMAN).  Before the sixties were over, he'd make four films with Annette Funicello: MUSCLE BEACH PARTY, PAJAMA PARTY, BIKINI BEACH and BEACH BLANKET BINGO.  I'm a big fan of those movies.  When I was a little kid, they were on my local station after I'd get home from first grade.  I really loved those movies and Annette had so much personality.  Don worked very well with Annette. He usually knocked Frankie Avalon's character but always warmed up to Annette's character.  Annette was daring Don's agent Jack Gilardi at this time.  She would marry him and they were married from 1965 to 1981. And Don ended up marrying Jack's secretary Barbara Sklar.  They married in 1965 and were married until Don's 2017 death.

It's an interesting book and a good starting point on Don Rickles. 

Also, THE FIRST FAMILY -- a comedy album from 1962 by Vaughn Meader, Bob Booker, Earle Doud and Naomi  Brossart -- is mentioned in the book and you can stream that album on AMAZON.  I did and it was very funny.  It used to be the best selling comedy album of all time and may still be.  

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, March 24, 2023.  20 years of lies to attack Iraq (and to destroy our own country here at home).

ADDED:DEMOCRACY  NOW! video.  After that, the snapshot is the same as it was when it went up 70 minutes ago.

AMY GOODMAN: As we continue to mark the 20th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we’re joined by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, an award-winning Iraqi journalist and author. He was born in Baghdad in 1975 and was working as an architect when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. Ghaith started his journalism career at The Guardian soon after the invasion as a translator for Guardian reporters. He has since received the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, the British Press Awards’ Foreign Reporter of the Year and the Orwell Prize. His book is just out on this 20th anniversary, A Stranger in Your Own City: Travels in the Middle East’s Long War. Ghaith Abdul-Ahad is joining us from Istanbul, Turkey, today.

Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Ghaith. This book is magnificent. It is a deep dive into understanding the effects of an invasion and occupation and, beyond that, the entire region. And we congratulate you for this work. Why don’t we start off with the book’s title, A Stranger in Your Own City? Describe Baghdad, a place you had hardly left by the time you had become an architect, and then what happened on March 20th, the bombing of your country.

GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD: Well, thank you, Amy, and thank you, Nermeen, for having me back.

It’s exactly like that. I grew up in Baghdad. I rarely left the city for 28 years. And I presume I knew the city very well. I used to walk everywhere. My school was in one part of the city. My family lived in another part. My friends are in the east and the west of the city. So I knew the geography of the city very well. It’s a flat, open city, no marcations, no boundaries within the city itself.

And then, within two years of the occupation, I was awake early in the morning in my hotel room, and I’m trying to find friends who can escort me to different parts of the city. And that’s when it hit me that I have become a stranger in my own city, because I can’t actually, literally, travel from the hotel where I was staying to where my school was or where my friends were, without having a someone to escort me, and often two people escorting me, you know, because you never know what kind of militia will be manning checkpoints on the road. And that was a direct effect of the war. I mean, my life, from an architect or a journalist, an accidental journalist, I would say, was upended by this war like so many other lives in Iraq, and in the region, of course.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Ghaith, one of the things that’s very instructive and interesting in your book is the account you give of your years in Baghdad — as you said, almost 30 without barely leaving — all of the events that led up to what the society and the context was in which the U.S. invasion took place. So, if you could begin with that? You were 5 years old when the Iraq-Iran War began, and then followed swiftly by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the sanctions. If you could just walk us through that period and what Baghdad was like in those years?

GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD: I mean, of course, Iraqis, and myself included, of a certain generation, their relationship to war did not start in 2003. As you said, I was 5 when I first time witnessed the bombing of my city. It was — you know, Iraq was bombing Tehran. The Iranians were bombing Baghdad. And that eight years’ war, that although people in the cities, the major cities, were spared from, but we all lived through its dynamic, through its impact of the society, the militarization of the society — uncles, cousins, neighbors all being taken to the front. Every spring, you see the streets in Baghdad covered in this black cloth announcing the death of soldiers, conscript soldiers, at the front. So, that was part of the dynamic.


Like many people, I can't believe what's going on in the United States -- or the silence from so many claiming to be left.  One of the few things we could be proud of domestically in the last two decades was that we had moved forward on inclusion and our LGBTQ+ citizens were citizens.  Some rights and protections were still lacking but we had come a long way as a country.  

And now here we are with hate merchants like Tulsi Gabbard and Ron DeSantis and Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert and Mother Tucker Carlson and . . .  They're just preaching their hate and trying to destroy the lives of others.  And it's depressing and scary.  We are supposed to be better than this.  

I was not joking when I said BROS was a waking up point for me.  There was an organized effort to destroy that film and to destroy Billy Eichner.  DOBBS had already come down and Clarence Thomas' outrageous opinion in that case was bad.  But watching what happened to BROS made it clear just how strong homophobia remained.  And it made it clear that we had a lot of people willing to participate in it -- I'm looking at the staff of THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER and I'm looking at that trash because I know several people on staff and I spoke to them about what was going on and they did nothing to moderate their own coverage.

But while the left was silent -- or telling you that BROS wasn't that funny or it wasn't as diverse as the bad HULU movie with one woman in the cast (only one) and no real parts for African-Americans but, hey, let's pretend that recasting a novel from 1813 with a male cast makes it a comment on the state of gay men today -- the right-wing was working their hatred and launching one attack after another -- on message boards, with YOUTUBE videos, an orchestrated campaign of hate.

I knew BROS was not going to be a hit.  I'd talked about that before it came out and Stan had noted that at his site.

It was never going to be a hit due to theaters.  This is still the unacknowledged story.  And UNIVERSAL knew it too.  I spoke with friends at UNIVERSAL before the film came out.  The problem was they were announcing X number of theaters.  But it didn't matter that it had the same number of theaters that SMILE -- which opened the same week.  SMILE was being shown around the clock.  In many theaters, BROS was luck, opening weekend, to have three shows for all of Saturday.  If both were in 3,000 theaters but 3,000 theaters are showing SMILE eight or nine times on Saturday and 2,000 theaters (of 3,000) are only showing BROS three times, there's no way BROS has the same chance at ticket sales.  

UNIVERSAL's argument was that the second weekend, these same theaters would show it more times.  But why would they because the film would be seen as a failure unless UNIVERSAL got ahead on this story before the film debuted?  

They knew they were right.  They ended up wrong.  And the industry rushed to call the film a failure.  It did very well on opening weekend.  Dollars per theater only work as a comparison if the films are shown the same number of times.  If you look at the average per screening, BROS did well.  And if they'd made that argument, then the second weekend could have seen an increase (in ticket purchases but also in the number of showings per day).  They didn't make that argument and outlets like THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER (still homophobic all these years later) rushed to call the film a bomb and ensure that interest in it would die.

And I looked around and saw a few people did use their platforms to promote the film -- and bless them all -- in fact, a few surprised me -- but I mainly saw silence and this from people who make a point to label themselves as allies.  I've never labeled myself as that in any interview.  I've supported LBGTQ+ rights forever -- going back to pre-college school days -- but thought "ally" was a term for those who really did something and I don't think (even now) that I've really done something.  But I was shocked as various "allies" (self-labeled) refused to promote the film.

"It's just a movie," I was told over and over by those types.  

No, it wasn't just a movie.

First off, BROS was the best film of 2022.  It wasn't just a movie.  It was a great movie.  And our industry is supposed to applaud art.  We had a closet case starring in yet another 'he-man' film with yet another woman he had no chemistry with and that thing got applause.  But we couldn't applaud this honestly funny and moving film?  

So, no, don't tell me "it's just a movie."

Second, this is where I got how much homophobia was still present and how they were orchestrating attacks.  

I'm really good at recognizing patterns.  I always have been.  And it was a war and now we're seeing people realizing that.  But it was there with the response to BROS.  There was an organized effort to attack the film, there were talking points, there were posers, it was an organized hit on that film.  

And seeing the lengths that people would go to in order to destroy a film made it clear just how much hate was still in this country.  

I think about things now like Ryan White's funeral.  Ryan had AIDS and was ostracized at his school because of it.  He eventually had to switch schools.  By the time his young life ended, people had come around.  You had Barbara Bush, the First Lady at the time, go to his funeral, for example.  Ronald Reagan who had been loathe to even say "AIDS" during the bulk of his presidency wrote (or had ghost written) a column about Ryan for THE WASHINGTON POST.

All of the ugly hate seemed to shrink.  Not go away, not vanish --  but shrink significantly.  And these were two prominent Republicans.  To look at that party now and see it work itself into a frenzy to destroy and demonize?  

It's ugly -- and as ugly as the hate merchants are, I find the 'left' to be pretty ugly as well.  I'm not pleased with friends in the entertainment industry who are silent.  I'm not pleased with 'left' voices with YOUTUBE programs and other outlets who are silent.  But I'm especially not pleased with those like John Stauber who are promoting hate merchants on their Twitter feeds.  Cyndi Lauper is right, if we aren't all free, none of us are.  (Cyndi's someone who's earned the right to be called an "ally" of LGBTQ+ persons.) 

I look at Jonathan Turley and feel nothing but disgust.  Things changed after DOBBS and I'm not in the mood to be silent or pretend like these people like Jonathan are good people.  In times of great stress, people show their true nature and Jonathan certainly has.  He was wrong about ROE being in jeopardy and all he does now is amplify the 'plight' of those anti-choicers, that's who he feels sorry for.  He doesn't call out the homophobes.  And I'm using "homophobe" here for "transphobe, et al," by the way.  It started with transpersons and is being expanded -- even including drag queens and, sorry to break it to the right-wingers, but not every drag queen is a gay man (and not every draq king is a lesbian).  As Joni Mitchell so prophetically sang by in 1985 "They're going to slam free choice behind us."

Oh and deep in the night
Our appetites find us
Release us and bind us
Deep in the night
While madmen sit up building bombs
And making laws and bars
They'd like to slam free choice behind us

I saw a little lawyer on the tube
He said "It's so easy now anyone can sue"
"Let me show you how your petty aggravations can profit you!"
Call for the three great stimulants
Of the exhausted ones
Artifice brutality and innocence
Artifice and innocence

Oh and deep in the night
Appetites find us
Release us and blind us
Deep in the night
While madmen sit up building bombs
And making laws and bars
They're gonna slam free choice behind us

If you missed it -- and we didn't have time earlier in the week for it -- Hate Merchant Kirk Cameron was whining to the media that drag queens showed up at one of his readings.  

Oh, the horror!!!!

He blackmails his way into a public library with what he's calling a 'book' (it's not and he's not a writer, he was never an actor either so that's two creative careers he's failed at) and how dare drag queens show up!  How dare they?  It's a public facility.  Anyone can show up.  They weren't carrying guns or attacking anyone.  They have every right to be there.  

They have a lot of rights that are being destroyed yet somehow Mr. Free Speech Jonathan Turley never can write about their free speech rights.  He can defend every transphobe in the book but he can't defend the rights of the transgendered.

But, of course, he's not really for free speech. He's the one who wet his panties over the Supreme Court leak.  He leaked over the leak.  His little wiki leaked.  

And he makes his real position against free speech  clear as he refuses -- day after day -- to call out the attacks on free speech from the right-wing.  DeSantis wants to expand his hideous Don't Say Gay and Turley (who is also now attacking the education system -- they apparently don't have free speech rights either) can't call that out.

What did he do this week?  On Monday Tweeted and wrote about someone about to be arrested that day!  Oops.  Didn't happen.  Then he did the same the second day and the third day and . . .

Let's all marvel over how he chooses to waste his life.

Of all the time to be calling out the lack of free speech, it was this week.  (See, I was building to Iraq, even if you didn't think so.)  Twenty years ago the media lied.  Repeatedly.  And it shut down free speech.  It banned people -- sometimes officially and sometimes not.  This would be a time to reflect on that.  At least if you really believed in free speech.

You'd talk about this and review the current landscape.

You'd note Deepa Fernandes, for example.  And how WBAI's WAKEUP CALL didn't pay big bucks but it was an honest living.  All the years since WBAI axed the show, I thought I'd missed Deepa and was wrongly thrilled that she'd joined NPR's HERE AND NOW.  

Reality came home this week.  Deepa's not needed.  Anything she ever had to offer is long gone.  She made that clear sitting down with David Petraeus to make nice.  And she wasn't the only one.

For some reason, the media decided that they had to have him on so he was all over the radio and all over cable.  But Deepa was supposed to have stood for something and supposed to have ethics.  So her hideous chat with Petraeus was all the worse.

And let's point out that if you're going to have a disgraced US official on your 'news' program, you make them talk.  You may be too cowardly to confront them regarding Iraq, but this is Petraeus.

He left in disgrace.  He almost lost his military pension -- he should have lost it.  He was sharing secrets with his mistress, national security secrets.  He was violating every code of conduct and he got drummed out of Barack Obama's administration.  

Read this from WIKIPEDIA and ask yourself why Deepa and others fawned over Petraeus this week:

Petraeus reportedly began an affair with Paula Broadwell, principal author of his biography, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus, after Petraeus left his ISAF command on July 18, 2011, to become CIA director. Petraeus reportedly ended the affair in the summer of 2012, around the time that he learned that Broadwell had been sending harassing emails to a longstanding family friend of the Petraeuses, Jill Kelley.[197]

Kelley, a Florida socialite who frequently entertained senior military personnel at her and her husband's Tampa mansion,[198] had approached an acquaintance who worked for the FBI Tampa Field Office in the late spring with regard to anonymous emails she considered threatening.[197] The Bureau traced the emails to Broadwell, and noted that Broadwell appeared to be exchanging intimate messages with an email account belonging to Petraeus, which instigated an investigation into whether that account had been hacked into or was someone posing as Petraeus.[199][200][201] According to an Associated Press report, rather than transmit emails to each other's inbox, which would have left a more obvious email trail, Petraeus and Broadwell left messages in a draft folder and the draft messages were then read by the other person when they logged into the same account.[202]

Although U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was aware that the FBI had discovered the affair,[203] it was not until November 6, 2012, that Petraeus's nominal superior, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, was advised. That same evening Clapper called Petraeus and urged him to resign. Clapper notified the White House the next day, November 7. After being briefed on November 8, President Obama summoned Petraeus to the White House where Petraeus offered his resignation.[204] Obama accepted his resignation on November 9,[205] and Petraeus cited his affair when announcing that same day that he would resign as CIA Director.[206] Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling the classified information that he provided to his mistress and biographer.[21]

Criticism after 2012 scandal

Petraeus had a strategy to influence military conditions by using press relations, both in theater of war and in Washington, according to critics of his military career.[citation needed] On November 13, 2012, Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, CIA analyst and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity co-founder Ray McGovern, and investigative journalist Gareth Porter appeared on Al Jazeera English. Together they assessed the general's extensive military-media strategy, linking his writings on counterguerrilla operations and subsequent military media efforts to his downfall with his female biographer. Critics said that the Petraeus media strategy would prove damaging for American policy in the future because of omissions and distorted interpretations that Washington policymakers, other experts, and the American public accepted from Petraeus's media contacts.[207]

Military historians have noted the absence of field records for the Iraq and Afghanistan military campaigns, but have not been personally critical of the commanders in theater.[208] One additional aspect of Petraeus's career that has come under increased scrutiny since his affair came to light has been his lack of a direct combat record in relation to the many awards he received. In particular, his Bronze Star Medal with Valor device has been mentioned in several media reports and questioned by several former Army officers.[209] The citation for Petraeus's Bronze Star with "V" device also notes his "leadership under fire," as does award of the Combat Action Badge, but neither provides a detailed account of his actions.

Criminal charges and probation

In January 2015, The New York Times reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department had recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for providing classified information to Broadwell. Petraeus denied the allegations and was reported to have had no interest in a plea deal.[20] However, on Tuesday, March 3, 2015, the U.S. Justice Department announced that Petraeus agreed to plead guilty in federal court in Charlotte, North Carolina to a charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.[210]

In the 15-page statement of facts filed by the government along with the plea agreement, the government stated that Petraeus had provided Broadwell access to documents containing Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information, had later moved those documents to his personal residence and stored them in an unsecured drawer, and had deliberately and intentionally lied to Federal investigators about both providing Broadwell access to the documents and their improper storage. These facts were acknowledged to be true by Petraeus as part of his plea agreement.[211]

On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000. The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested.[212]

Press accounts in January 2016 indicated that Department of Defense staff were reviewing Department of Justice documents from the Petraeus prosecution and considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of Defense that Petraeus be demoted on the Army's retired list. Laws and regulations indicate that members of the military are retired at the last rank in which they are deemed to have served successfully; Petraeus's admission of an extramarital affair and guilty plea with regard to removing and retaining classified information while serving in the grade of general could be grounds for reduction in rank to lieutenant general. The matter was reviewed by then-Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh before he left office in October 2015; he recommended no further action.[213] On January 29, press accounts indicated that Stephen C. Hedger, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, had written to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. In his letter, Hedger informed the committee that Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter had concurred with the Army's recommendation, and would not impose any further punishment on Petraeus.[214]

There are no ethics and there's no reason to be thrilled that Deepa's back on the air.  On NPR, she's just another whore selling out.  And Jonathan Turley is just a sad, little man.

Plenty of embarrassments these days -- Glenneth Greenwald and John Stauber are among the fools 'jazzed' by Ron DeSantis.  Hate merchant Ron isn't just in the news for his domestic hatred, he's also in the news for his foreign hatred.  Richard Hall (INDEPENDENT) reports:

 Ron DeSantis has broken his silence on allegations that he observed the force-feeding of detainees at Guantanamo Bay during his time serving as a Navy lawyer there.

The Independent reported last week on claims by a former prisoner of the prison camp, Mansoor Adayfi, that Mr DeSantis observed his brutal force-feeding by guards during a hunger strike in 2006 – a practice the United Nations characterised as torture.

Mr DeSantis was stationed on the base between March 2006 and January 2007, according to his military records, and part of his role involved hearing complaints and concerns from prisoners over their conditions.

“I was a junior officer. I didn’t have authority to authorise anything,” Mr DeSantis told Piers Morgan, in an interview to be broadcast on Thursday.

“There may have been a commander that would have done feeding if someone was going to die, but that was not something that I would have even had authority to do.”

The Florida governor’s response did not address the central allegation from the detainee that he witnessed the force-feeding. Investigations by The Independent, The Washington Post and other outlets did not report that Mr DeSantis authorised the force-feeding – rather, that he observed and was aware of the practice.

What did we learn?  That even the deeply stupid (like DeSantis) are smarter than George Santos.  DeSantis denies ever ordering forced feeding at Abu Ghraib.  But he wasn't accused of that.  He was accused of observing it.  And if he did observe it, he observed a crime.  Physicians for Human Rights noted eight years ago:

U.S. Military Document Says Force-Feeding Violates Medical Ethics and International Law

U.S. Navy Should Drop Charges Against Nurse who Refused to Force-Feed Guantánamo Detainees

For Immediate Release

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) said today that a newly public U.S. military document acknowledging that force-feeding violates medical ethics shows the unlawfulness of hunger strike practices at the detention center at Guantánamo Bay. PHR called on the U.S. government to end all policies requiring clinicians to violate professional ethics and to immediately drop charges against the Navy nurse who refused to force-feed detainees.

“This document exposes the flawed medical and legal reasoning at the heart of Guantánamo’s force-feeding policy,” said Dr. Vincent Iacopino, PHR’s senior medical advisor. “Forcing treatment on mentally competent persons constitutes ill-treatment and possibly torture and is contrary to professional ethics. There is no evidence for the government’s claim that it is diagnosing or treating suicide or self-harm. Yet the command structure orders doctors and nurses to carry out force-feeding anyway, and attempts to justify the practice on the basis of medical necessity. The Navy nurse who stood up against this contradictory and harmful policy should not be discharged.”

PHR rejects the U.S. government’s claim that hunger strikes are a form of suicide or self-harm and that force-feeding is an appropriate therapeutic response. PHR said that this is a mischaracterization, as the hunger strikes at Guantánamo are protests of last resort against indefinite detention and ill-treatment. PHR stated that the government’s policy is inherently contradictory, in that it attempts to justify intervention ostensibly to prevent suicide or self-harm, yet fails to establish a medical foundation for intervention, such as diagnosing and treating self-harm behaviors and investigating other potential causes of weight loss.

Last year, a Navy nurse was transferred out of Guantánamo after refusing to participate in force-feeding. The nurse, who has been charged with misconduct, still awaits a decision on whether he could be discharged after 18 years of service. The American Nurses Association, the International Council of Nurses, and the World Medical Association (WMA) have publicly asserted the nurse’s professional obligation to pursue ethical practice and urged the DOD and the Navy to drop disciplinary proceedings against him.

The internal analysis by a United States Southern Command attorney, which ultimately determines that force-feeding is permitted under U.S. federal law, appears to be the military’s first documented recognition that force-feeding is contrary to professional ethics and international law. The analysis was issued on June 21, 2013 – just two months after the American Medical Association (AMA) sent a letter to U.S. Department of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (pdf), stating that “the forced feeding of detainees violates core ethical values of the medical profession.” The AMA endorses (pdf) the WMA Declarations of Tokyo and Malta, which recognize force-feeding as a form of inhuman and degrading treatment.

PHR said that Guantánamo’s force-feeding policy has required clinicians like the Navy nurse to carry out duties prohibited by medical ethics, or risk losing their careers if they refuse.

“Force-feeding requires doctors and nurses to inflict physical and mental pain without any medical justification and violate the most basic professional duty to ‘do no harm,’” Iacopino said. “Current federal policy requires doctors and nurses who serve their country to violate their professional codes and potentially jeopardize their licenses. The government must stop using health professionals as an instrument of punitive and harmful military policies.”

PHR said that force-feeding violates the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment and constitutes medical negligence, and calls on the U.S. government to:

  • Immediately end the practice of force-feeding detainees on hunger strike and institute policies and procedures consistent with the WMA’s Declarations of Tokyo and Malta on hunger strikers;
  • Ensure that no health professionals are compelled to participate in force-feeding, and that those who refuse do not face disciplinary or retaliatory actions for complying with their professional obligations; and
  • Commit to full transparency around hunger strikes at Guantánamo and medical management policies and protocols, including the release of the force-feeding tapes of former detainee Abu Wa’el Dhiab.

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) is a New York-based advocacy organization that uses science and medicine to prevent mass atrocities and severe human rights violations. Learn more here.

So what have we learned?  That Ron DeSantis wants to be president but apparently just does whatever he's told.  Ron does realize that the president of the United States is not over Nazi Germany, right?  Then again, judging by his speech and actions, Ron's hope is to turn the United States into Nazi Germany.

And John Stauber and Glenneth Greenwald will be goose stepping along with him.

The debate about the Iraq war’s 20th anniversary can be essentially reduced to three questions.

Were Iraq, and the other endless wars, worth it? Definitely not. After 20 years, Afghanistan is again ruled by the Taliban, Iraq is a dysfunctional democracy, and terrorism was weakened but did not disappear.

Was the price paid justified? The negative answer here is even louder. Brown University’s Cost of War Project has provided staggering figures about the endless wars’ cost between 2001 and 2021. Almost one million people have died due to direct war violence; 387,000 civilians have been killed because of the fighting (300,000 in Iraq alone), and 38 million people are displaced war refugees in the region. The US government spent $8 trillion, and 7,050 of its soldiers were killed.

Has any lesson been learned from this immense tragedy? Unsurprisingly, the answer is once again negative. Twenty years later, most of the endless wars’ cheerleaders are still listened to. This ensures that the war in Ukraine will likely continue until there is a complete defeat of Russia. China seems to be their next target, with Taiwan as a casus belli.

Those who built the case for the Iraq war on fake intelligence and caused so many casualties have not served one single day in jail. Those who instead denounced the conflict’s war crimes, like Julian Assange, are in solitary confinement and risk a life sentence.

On the wounded among the US troops, Dan Froomkin (PRESS WATCH) reports:

  • The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 1,985,000 veterans who served in 2003 or later have a service-connected disability — or about 40 percent of the total. Applying that proportion to the 1.5 million servicemembers who served in Iraq, that would come to about 600,000 Iraq veterans with service-connected disabilities.
  • A 2015 report from the VA disclosed that 422,167 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan were seen for potential or provisional PTSD at VA facilities following their return from Iraq or Afghanistan.
  • A 2014 research study found that rates of PTSD were higher among studies of Iraq-deployed personnel compared with personnel deployed to Afghanistan.
  • A 2008 study of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans by researchers at the RAND Corporation found that 14 percent screened positive for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and 14 percent for major depression, with 19 percent reporting a probable traumatic brain injury during deployment. (The researchers found that major depression is “highly associated with combat exposure and should be considered as being along the spectrum of post-deployment mental health consequences.”) Applying those proportions to the 1.5 million veterans of Iraq, an estimated 200,000 of them would be expected to suffer from PTSD or major depression, with 285,000 of them having experienced a probable traumatic brain injury.
  • A 2008 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 15 percent of soldiers reported an injury during deployment that involved loss of consciousness or altered mental status, and 17 percent of soldiers reported other injuries. (Using that ratio would suggest that 480,000 Iraq vets were injured one way or the other.) More than 40 percent of soldiers who lost consciousness met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder.
  • Altogether, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America group estimates that as many as 1 in 3 people deployed in those wars suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or traumatic brain injury. That would mean as many as 500,000 of the 1.5 million deployed to Iraq.
  • A 2009 Congressional Research Service report, presenting what it called “difficult-to-find statistics regarding U.S. military casualties” offers one indication of how the “wounded in action” category undercounts real casualties. It found that for every soldier wounded in action and medically evacuated from Iraq, more than four more were medically evacuated for other reasons.
  • Hearing loss is common among service-members.  A 2005 Department of Veterans Affairs research paper found that one third of soldiers who had recently returned from deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq were referred to audiologists for hearing evaluations due to exposure to acute acoustic blasts, and 72 percent of them were identified as having hearing loss. Richard Salvi, head of the University of Buffalo’s Center for Hearing and Deafness determined in 2011 that  “as many as 50 percent of combat soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who come back have tinnitus” because of the intense noise soldiers must withstand.
  • A March 2010 report from the Institute of Medicine concluded that many wounds suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan will persist over veterans’ lifetimes, and some impacts of military service may not be felt until decades later.


[Retired Marine Corporal Michael] Elliot and [Retired Marine Corporal Josh] Hisle both said they had trouble adjusting to civilian life after they were honorably discharged and left the Marines feeling remorse for some of the actions and directives they were given in Iraq.

"Every mission, everything we did, kicking doors and disrupting people's lives, bagging people's heads, bagging the dude's head and dragging him out of the house, while his kids are standing there screaming, for what? What are we doing?" Hisle said.

Hisle said he feels that America didn't learn anything from the war because civilians' lives weren't affected.

Elliot said he felt heartbroken because the post-military life for newer veterans is getting more difficult and nothing is being done to help.

While they were diagnosed with PTSD and sought help, they said the road to recovery was challenging in ways they couldn’t have predicted.

"Everything I did in combat is not going to work in civilian life. Now I have to re-learn again. And how do I take care of myself? I'm going to drink, I'm going to numb myself. I'm going to drink until I pass out," Elliot said.

After the war, at least three Fox 2/5 Marines died by suicide, and one of them is in prison for murder after allegedly suffering from PTSD.

The U.S. rush to war against Iraq 20 years ago marked the worst strategic decision of any U.S. president in history, and the worst intelligence scandal as well.  But the New York Times and the Washington Post would have you believe that the lack of “planning and staffing” was central to our failure.  Neither newspaper mentioned the long series of intelligence lies and distortions that marked the run-up to the war nor did they refer to the obvious war crimes that were committed with the support of the White House, the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Max Fisher’s essay in the Times on March 19 was particularly obtuse because it dwelt on the inability to determine U.S. motivation.  Fisher quoted Richard Haass, a senior official at the Department of State at the time of the invasion, who currently heads the Council on Foreign Relations, concluding inscrutably that the decision to go to war “was not made.  A decision happened, and you can’t say when or how.”

But we know exactly who made the decision to go to war, and we certainly know when and why that decision was made.  The decision itself had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or with the bogus claim that Saddam was somehow involved in the tragedy.  The decision was about regime change.   CIA prepared a spurious intelligence estimate in October 2022, which served as the basis for the spurious speech that Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the United Nations in February, 2003.  Senior officials at the State Department tried to keep Powell from bivouacking at the CIA where the speech was drafted and pushed by senior Agency officials led by deputy director John McLaughlin.

Fisher, moreover, cites Elizabeth Saunders, a Georgetown University scholar, who argues that “if you want to prevent this from happening again, you need to get the diagnosis right.”  Does Saunders really believe that U.S. policy makers actually learn lessons from history?  Is Saunders familiar with previous U.S. wars against Mexico in the 1840s, Spain in the 1890s, and North Vietnam in the 1960s that were initiated on the basis of lies and disinformation.

Fisher concludes with the ill-advised argument from Saunders that no matter how much we know about the facts of the 2003 invasion, “some of it will remain fundamentally unknowable.”  What is in fact unknowable is whether honest leadership from Secretary of State Powell, CIA director George Tenet, CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, and a CIA willing to tell truth to power could have created more opposition to the war from the Congress, the media, and the public.

In the Washington Post, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the paper’s bureau chief in Baghdad at the time of the invasion, argues that “Iraq is recovering” from what he gently terms U.S. “recklessness.”  Chandrasekaran faults the United States for going to war without a “real plan” for the “liberation of Baghdad.”  As a senior faculty member at the National War College in 2002-2003, I received classified briefings from the Pentagon that made it clear there was never a plan for the post-war or the so-called liberation because the United States goal was to remove Saddam Hussein and then leave.  No senior Pentagon staffer expected U.S. forces to remain in Iraq beyond the four to six months needed to remove Hussein, which explains the absence of “planning and staffing.”

A meaningful retrospective would remind the American people of the efforts of the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser, as well as the director and deputy director of CIA, to create and employ a strategic disinformation campaign to convince Congress and the American people of the need for a war that ultimately took 4,600 lives of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives.  Our motivation seems meaningless in that context; the campaign to manipulate American and global public opinion is dispositive and needs to be fully understood.  By any standard, the Bush administration and its key officials throughout the policy and intelligence communities must be judged as reckless in the extreme.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq is a memory forever etched in the minds of millions of Iraqis who were living in and outside the country at the time. Years of war, followed by continued instability in the country, has cost generations time and trauma. In Ruptured Domesticity, a digital archive, Iraqi researcher Sana Murrani has collected the memories of Iraqis living inside and outside the country during the times of war.

Nearly 1.2 million Iraqis are still internally displaced due to the war, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency. Through the project, Murrani, who is also associate professor in Spatial Practice and Architecture at the University of Plymouth, UK, pulled on memories of geographic spaces and forced travel due to the circumstances of war, but also what Iraqis carried with them to represent their homes.

Jeffrey St. Clair (COUNTERPUNCH) provides a strong walkthrough of how the US has been at war with Iraq for decades.  He also shares a series of quotes he's kept from the latest wave of war on Iraq:

I’ve kept a collection of quotes about the Iraq war for years. Here’s a inventory of who said what and when, which provides a kind of oral history of the war (mostly) from the perpetrators’ point of view…

“An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago.”

– Judith Miller, New York Times, December 20, 2001

“Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder.”

– Richard Perle, chair Pentagon Defense Policy Board, July 11, 2002

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

– Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.”

– Sen. Joseph Lieberman, September 4, 2002

“If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.”

– Sen. Joseph Biden, September 4, 2002

“Speaking on the condition that neither he nor the country in which he was interviewed be identified, Ahmed al-Shemri, his pseudonym, said Iraq had continued developing, producing, and storing chemical agents at many mobile and fixed site throughout the country, many of them underground.

“All of Iraq is one large storage facility,” said Mr. Shemri.

– Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, New York Times, September 7, 2002

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”

– George W. Bush, September 12, 2002

“I hereby declare before you that Iraq is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.”

– Saddam Hussein in message to U.N. General Assembly, September 19, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

– John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks or five months. But it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.”

– Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002

“If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.”

– Ari Fleischer, December 2, 2002

“The CIA is investigating an informant’s accusation that Iraq obtained a particularly virulent strain of smallpox from a Russian scientist who worked in a smallpox lab in Moscow during Soviet times.”

– Judith Miller, New York Times, December 3, 2002

“We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”

– Ari Fletcher, January 9, 2003

“His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, including VX, sarin, mustard gas, anthrax, botulism and possibly smallpox. And he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.”

– Donald Rumsfeld, January 20, 2003

“Former Iraqi scientists have provided American intelligence officials with a portrait of Saddam Hussein’s secret program to develop and conceal chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that is starkly at odds with the findings so far of the United Nations weapons inspectors.”

– Judith Miller, New York Times, January 24, 2003

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

– George W. Bush, January 28, 2003

“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.”

– Colin Powell, February 5, 2003

‘My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”

– Colin Powell, February 5, 2003

“Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.”

– Sen. Hillary Clinton February 5, 2003

“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

– George Bush, February 8, 2003

“So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.”

– Colin Powell, March 8, 2003

“I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”

– Dick Cheney March 16, 2003

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

– George Bush, March 18, 2003

“We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.”

Tony Blair, Prime Minister March 18, 2003

 “The criminal little Bush has committed a crime against humanity.”

– Saddam Hussein, March 20, 2003

“Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.”

– Ari Fleisher, March 21, 2003

“There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.”

– Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003

“One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.”

– Victoria Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman, March 22, 2003

“I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.”

– Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board, March 23, 2003

“We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.”

– Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

“Saddam’s removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction.”

– Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary, April 2, 2003

“Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find — and there will be plenty.”

– Robert Kagan, Neocon scholar, April 9, 2003

“I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.”

– Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003

 “Stuff happens.”

– Donald Rumsfeld, April 11, 2003

“We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.”

– George Bush, April 24, 2003

“There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.”

– Donald Rumsfeld, April 25, 2003

“Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.”

Tony Blair, April 28, 2003

 “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

– George W. Bush, May 1, 2003

“We’ll find them [WMDs]. It’ll be a matter of time to do so.”

– George Bush May 3, 2003

“I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.”

– Colin Powell, May 4, 2003

“I never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.”

– Donald Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003

“I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein — because he had a weapons program.”

George W. Bush, May 6, 2003

“U.S. officials never expected that “we were going to open garages and find” weapons of mass destruction.”

– Condoleezza Rice, May 12, 2003

“I just don’t know whether it was all destroyed years ago — I mean, there’s no question that there were chemical weapons years ago — whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they’re still hidden.”

– Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

“Before the war, there’s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.”

– Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

“Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction.”

– Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, May 26, 2003

“They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer.”

– Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”

– Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003

“He (Saddam) had long established ties with al Qaeda.”

– Dick Cheney, September 14, 2003

“They confined us like sheep. They hit people. They humiliated people.”

– Saad Naif, former prisoner at Abu Ghraib, November 1, 2003

“Numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force.”

– Maj. General Antonio Taguba, February 2004

“I actually did vote for the $87 billion [to fund the invasion of Iraq] — before I voted against it.”

– John Kerry, March 16, 2004

– “The vast majority of the people in Abu Ghraib had no intelligence value whatsoever.”

– Brigadier General Janet Karpinski, April 7, 2004

– “What do I tell the people of Iraq? This is wrong. This is reprehensible. But this is not representative of the 150,000 soldiers that are over here. I’d say the same thing to the American people. Don’t judge your army based on the actions of a few.”

– Brigadier General Mark Kimmit, April 27, 2004

– “We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things  like rules and regulations, and it just wasn’t happening.”

– Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick, one of the guards at Abu Ghraib

– It is important to recognize the differences between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. The treatment of those detained at Abu Ghraib is governed by the Geneva Conventions, which have been signed by both the U.S. and Iraq.”

– John Yoo, May 2004

“It’s the photographs that gives one the vivid impression of what took place.”

– Donald Rumsfeld, May 2004

– “American journalists and politicians made a perfect spectacle of themselves in discussing the Abu Ghraib prison controversy.”

– Tony Snow, May 2004

– “This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we’re going to ruin people’s lives over it and we’re going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I’m talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of emotional release?”

– Rush Limbaugh, May 5, 2004

“I’m sorry, those pictures from the Abu Ghraib. At first, they, like infuriated me, I was sad. Then like, a couple days later, after they cut the guy’s head off, they didn’t seem like much. And now, I like to trade them with my friends.”

– Dennis Miller, May 2004

 “This is an historic moment for Iraq, a day when Iraqis can hold their heads high because they are challenging the terrorists and starting to write their future with their own hands.”

– Iyad Allawi, Interim Prime Minister of Iraq, January 30, 2005

‘The intelligence community was absolutely uniform and uniformly wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq).”

– Federal Judge Laurence Silberman, co-chair Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities, March 31, 2005

‘We are losing each day on average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.’

– Iyad Allawi, March 19, 2006

 “I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there’s a strong will for democracy.”

– George W. Bush, September 23, 2006

‘It’s my responsibility to provide the American people with a candid assessment on the way forward.  Absolutely, we’re winning.”

– George W. Bush, October 25, 2006

 “We’re not winning. We’re not losing.”

– George W. Bush December 20, 2006

“There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. I ask them to come back to their senses.”

–Nouri al-Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq,  August 26, 2007

“I tell folks all the time one way to train to conduct operations in Iraq is to watch the last season of the Sopranos. You get a sense of the conflict among like individuals.”

– Major-General Rick Lynch, commander of U.S. troops south of Baghdad November 16, 2007

“I get asked all the time ‘Do I feel guilty about what happened?’ the answer’s ‘No, I don’t.’ I’ve made the decision, the best decision I could make. It was important for the defense of our country, I knew going into war that somebody can get hurt that, but made whole decision so much graver. On the other hand, Laura and I have met hundreds who said ‘I would it again Mr. President.'”

– George W. Bush, 2017

The following sites updated:

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }