The National Intelligence Estimate is out and you know what it says? It says that the 3600+ soldiers Bush sent to die in Iraq, the trillions on tax dollars we have spent, and the huge erosion of civil liberties Americans have suffered are ALL for not, that those that perpetrated 9/11 are still free, and are stronger than ever.

If for no other reason, Bush should be impeached, indited, and jailed for totally loosing the War on Terror. The whole world after 9/11 was with us, even Iran, and Bush and his administration found a way to squander the will of the world, kill hundreds of thousands, including Americans, squander sums of money that would make your head explode, and still wants more.

For the love of god, STOP THIS WAR, STOP THIS SHIT HEAD IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

From the NY Times

Bits and pieces of the new estimate have leaked already, including the giveaway title, “The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland.” Scooping up those leaks over the past week has kept The Associated Press busy, reporting that Al Qaeda is seen as strong as before, and is more determined than ever to attack the United States.

According to The A.P.. the estimate will say that Al Qaeda has re-established three of the four elements needed to mount an attack on United States soil. “It could not immediately be learned what the missing fourth element is,” the news agency added ominously.

The intelligence community’s assessment of Al Qaeda’s influence on the war in Iraq will be important. Critics say that President Bush has greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership. Last year’s estimate on Iraq saw a diverse set of fighters there:

Iraqi society’s growing polarization, the persistent weakness of security forces and the state in general, and all sides’ ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism.

Check back with us after the estimate is posted at 11 a.m. Eastern time over at the intelligence chief’s Web site. We’ll be covering this all day.

From ThinkProgress 

On April 11, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that tours of duty for the Army would be extended from 12 months to 15 months, effective immediately. In exchange for the extensions, soldiers would receive at least a year home between deployments. This rest time was intended to “provide some long-term predictability for the soldiers and their families…particularly guaranteeing that they will be at home for a full 12 months,” Gates added. Watch it…

But Gates has not kept his promise. Stars and Stripes reports:

The Army is sending a company of Europe-based soldiers back to Iraq before the unit has had a full 12 months of “dwell time,” or at-home rest.

Members of the 1st Armored Division’s 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry, Company A, learned Tuesday that they are scheduled to head back to Iraq in November, just nine months after the 150-soldier company left the combat zone in February after a 13-month deployment.

A recent Pentagon report concluded that soldiers on extended and repeated deployments “were more likely to suffer acute stress, and that mental health problems correlated with higher rates of battlefield misconduct.”

When asked yesterday about this nine-month deployment, Gates simply replied, “I’ll be very interested in finding out more about that.” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman’s response was that “there are some people, just by the nature of transferring units and things like that may not end up with the full 12 months.”

According to Whitman, the 12-month rest period between deployments “is a goal,” not a guarantee.

I wrote about this the other day, it is good to see it is gaining traction in the rest of the press. Whashington Post was the lead on this whole mess. Remember, the Republicans are the ones that sent them over there, and the Republicans are the ones that did not give them what they needed to live, much less win…

ThinkPrgress has put together a great post, with lots of good links.
As White House Plays Anti-Military Card, Troops Go Without Guns, Supplies, Armor
The Bush administration claims that any congressional resolution opposing escalation would hurt the morale of U.S. troops. “It would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops,” Vice President Cheney said last week.

Cheney should spend less time on non-binding resolutions and more on equipping our forces. An audit by the Pentagon’s Inspector General released to Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) shows that U.S. soldiers have had to go without the necessary weapons, armor, vehicles, and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan:

The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn’t been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to “effectively complete their missions” and have had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with the Defense Dept. Inspector General’s office. Soldiers have also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles, and communications equipment, among other things, auditors found.

“As a result, service members performed missions without the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed missions while waiting to receive equipment,” reads the executive summary dated Jan. 25. Service members often borrowed or traded with each other to get the needed supplies, according to the summary.

More bombshells are likely to come soon. Following a letter last year from Slaughter to the Pentagon, the Inspector General’s office reported two ongoing audits into the procurement of armored vehicles and body armor for American soldiers. “The results of those studies will be available in July and October of 2007, respectively,” Slaughter’s office says.

Read this! Our own military is saying that there is not equipment to give these troops what they need to even dream of winning. Why does Bush, and the Republicans hate the troops so much

Washington Post (bolds are mine)

Boosting U.S. troop levels in Iraq by 21,500 would create major logistical hurdles for the Army and Marine Corps, which are short thousands of vehicles, armor kits and other equipment needed to supply the extra forces, U.S. officials said.

The increase would also further degrade the readiness of U.S.-based ground forces, hampering their ability to respond quickly, fully trained and well equipped in the case of other military contingencies around the world and increasing the risk of U.S. casualties, according to Army and Marine Corps leaders.

“The response would be slower than we might like, we would not have all of the equipment sets that ordinarily would be the case, and there is certainly risk associated with that,” the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James Conway, told the House Armed Services Committee last week.

President Bush’s plan to send five additional U.S. combat brigades into Iraq has left the Army and Marines scrambling to ensure that the troops could be supported with the necessary armored vehicles, jamming devices, radios and other gear, as well as lodging and other logistics.

-snip-

Adding to the crunch, the U.S. government has agreed to sell 600 up-armored Humvees to Iraq this year for its security forces. Such sales “better not be at the expense of the American soldier or Marine,” Speakes told defense reporters recently, saying U.S. military needs must take priority.

Yep, read it people, we are willing to sell the damn trucks to Iraq, but fuck the American troops, they can kiss Bush’s ass. This makes me cry how much Bush is willing to toy with American troops lives, so he can cash in. FUCK YOU GEROGE!

For the first time in 6 year common sense and what is good for America and the world won out over the right-wing nut bags�

From the AP

The Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissed President Bush's plans to increase troops strength in Iraq on Wednesday as "not in the national interest," an unusual wartime repudiation of the commander in chief.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 12-9 and largely along party lines.

"We better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder," said Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, the sole Republican to join 11 Democrats in support of the measure.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the panel's chairman, said the legislation is "not an attempt to embarrass the president. … It's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq."

Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Democratic Response of Senator Jim Webb
To the President's State of the Union Address

Good evening.

I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown - an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.

It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.

There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy - how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy - how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy - that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.

With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues - those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death - we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us - sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable - and predicted - disarray that has followed.

The war's costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves "as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.

Oh no, it is the day before the State of the Union address by one of the most disrespected and hated �presidents� in modern time, what do we do? Well we do what we always do, we release a new Al Qaeda video and hope for the best that it scares the shit out of a few people.

I am almost starting to think that the �hosts� of these guys is in fact George himself, I mean it. They are working for George, or they have the best timing in the world, anytime ol� Bush is looking like a dear in the headlights, BOOM there is a new video.

Forget America Al Qaeda, you should just play the lotto, because no one has the luck you guys do�

Oh and about the vedio, well it is official, no one thinks Bush�s escalation in Iraq is a good idea, the terrorists said it gives them more to shoot at.

Also for the record, it is over 5 years later and Al Qaeda is still free, Hey Bush, why don't you tell the American people why you have not captured Osama, "Dead it Alive"?

�19� 25 soldiers were killed on Saturday

Read Here is a new link

Just like the rest of the this failure of an administration it is all about the message and not about the substance. The White House is going ape shit over the fact that the Senate is working on a NONBINDING resolution about the escalation of Bush�s war in Iraq. AmericaBlog points out, �Here's an idea for the White House: worry less about the battle over a resolution in the Senate, worry more about the actual war in Iraq.�

The New York Times

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, an outspoken Republican critic of the administration�s Iraq policy, will join two leading Democrats in introducing a resolution opposing President Bush�s buildup of troops in Iraq, putting a bipartisan stamp on the looming Congressional showdown over the war…

…

That official said that the message to Congressional Republicans was similar to the one the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, conveyed Tuesday at his press briefing: that approval of any resolution critical of Mr. Bush�s approach, even if nonbinding, would send a damaging message.

�In an age of instant and global communication, what message does it send to the people who are fighting democracy in Iraq?� asked Mr. Snow. �And, also, what message does it send to the troops?�

Mr. Bush on Tuesday stepped up his challenge to Congress to provide an alternative plan if it is going to criticize his.

This is a Must Read, but PLEASE BE WARNED, the link is to Playboy.com (Yes ladies there is some great stories in Playboy, it's true)

If You Think The Iraq War Hasn't Worked Out Well For Anyone, Think Again…

…In November of 2002, Stephen J. Hadley, deputy national security advisor, asked Bruce Jackson to meet with him in the White House. They met in Hadley's office on the ground floor of the West Wing, not far from the offices of Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Hadley had an exterior office with windows, an overt indicator of his importance within the West Wing hierarchy.

This was months before Secretary of State Colin Powell would go to the United Nations to make the administration's case for the invasion of Iraq, touting the subsequently discredited evidence of weapons of mass destruction. But according to Jackson, Hadley told him that "they were going to war and were struggling with a rationale" to justify it. Jackson, recalling the meeting, reports that Hadley said they were "still working out" a cause, too, but asked that he, Jackson, "set up something like the Committee on NATO" to come up with a rationale…

…What Bruce Jackson came up with for Hadley this time, in 2002, was the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. The mission statement of the committee says it was "formed to promote regional peace, political freedom and international security by replacing the Saddam Hussein regime with a democratic government that respects the rights of the Iraqi people and ceases to threaten the community of nations." The pressure group began pushing for regime change — that is, military action to remove Hussein — in the usual Washington ways, lobbying members of congress, working the media and throwing money around. The committee's pitch, or rationale as Hadley would call it, was that Saddam was a monster — routinely violating human rights — and a general menace in the Middle East…

…Bush couldn't go into Iraq without a major ally and Lockheed knew it. To sweeten the pot for Blair, Lockheed dragged BAE Systems (British Aerospace) into the F-35 deal. When BAE still struggled prior to the war (Goldman Sachs reported that BAE would have to cut its dividend), Lockheed began renegotiating the contract — with the new version unveiled in 2005, giving BAE billions more to be paid "as needed." This put BAE back on its feet, able to build the Typhoon jet fighter for sale to Saudi Arabia in a $70 billion deal, saving 10,000 BAE jobs and 4,000 Rolls-Royce jet engine building jobs…

This thing is 7 pages, and is a Must Read.

How dumb do I think they are? I think they would sell military parts to Iran at the same time we try to go to war with them. The government as a whole is such a mess under George W. Bush, and his Republican backers, that the Pentagon knowingly sold US Military surplus to Iran, the same nation that ol� George is beating the drum to go to war with.

Oh no, I am not making this up. The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service a site ran by I am guessing the US Government, given it .mil web address sold F-14 Tomcat spare parts to a Pakistani arms broker convicted of exporting US missile parts to Iran. Yes, he was just released from prison, what was the first thing he did, deal weapons to Iran after serving time for selling weapons to Iran! We sold them to him. Iran is so desprate for those parts because that is their Air Force, they have the F-14 Tom Cats from back in the 1970's when we were friends.

See I told you that Bush and the gang are nothing more than Wae Profiteers.

You are welcome to read the whole article, but this is the greatest paragraphs�

In one case, convicted middlemen for Iran bought Tomcat parts from the Defense Department�s surplus division. Customs agents confiscated them and returned them to the Pentagon, which sold them again - customs evidence tags still attached - to another buyer, a suspected broker for Iran.

That incident appalled even an expert on weaknesses in Pentagon surplus security controls. �That would be evidence of a significant breakdown, in my view, in controls and processes,� said Greg Kutz, the Government Accountability Office�s head of special investigations. �It shouldn�t happen the first time, let alone the second time.�

Remember that sad day in September of 2001 when a group of terrorist that were trained in Afghanistan and �hosted� by the ruling party, the Taliban? After those gruesome attacks we vowed to go after the people that brought those buildings to the ground, remember that?

Well George Bush, and the Republicans that let him run amuck, screwed the retaliation for that tragic event up, and has since squandered the resolve of the American people on Iraq, a nation that did NOTHING to us. Guess what, the Taliban is back, and stronger than ever!

From CBS News (Bolds are mine)

… Asked about prospects for increasing U.S. troops levels in Afghanistan, where the Taliban resistance has been growing, Gates said that if U.S. commander asked for more, "then I would be strongly inclined to recommend that to the president."

There are nearly 24,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said was the highest number since the war began in 2001. He said he sees no prospect of reducing the U.S. troop presence during 2007 and he held out the possibility of adding some troops.

Eikenberry told reporters earlier Tuesday that he has recommended to the Pentagon that an infantry battalion of the 10th Mountain Division, which is about halfway through a scheduled four-month deployment in eastern Afghanistan, be ordered to stay for the remainder of the year.

The unit is scheduled to deploy to Iraq later this year, an illustration of how stretched U.S. forces are by the two wars.

Eikenberry said in an interview that Taliban attacks surged by 200 percent in December. A U.S. military intelligence officer said that since the peace deal went into effect Sept. 5 the number of attacks in the border area has grown by 300 percent.

"It's going to be a violent spring," Eikenberry predicted.

Clearly the only think the Neo-cons know is more war. Both of these evil bastards gave almost the same reason for escalating the wars. I have selected a few paragraphs, but I welcome you to go and read them both. We know how one of the wars turned out, so why are repeating it again. Oh I remember because AIE told Bush to, American People 0 , Right-Wing think tank 2.

Richard Nixon's Address to the Nation April 30th 1970

�Despite that warning, North Vietnam has increased its military aggression in all these areas, and particularly in Cambodia….

�First, we can do nothing. Well, the ultimate result of that course of action is clear. Unless we indulge in wishful thinking, the lives of Americans remaining in Vietnam after our next withdrawal of 150,000 would be gravely threatened. Let us go to the map again. Here is South Vietnam. Here is North Vietnam. North Vietnam already occupies this part of Laos. If North Vietnam also occupied this whole band in Cambodia, or the entire country, it would mean that South Vietnam was completely outflanked and the forces of Americans in this area, as well as the South Vietnamese, would be in an untenable military position. * Our second choice is to provide massive military assistance to Cambodia itself. Now unfortunately, while we deeply sympathize with the plight of 7 million Cambodians whose country is being invaded, massive amounts of military assistance could not be rapidly and effectively utilized by the small Cambodian Army against the immediate threat. With other nations, we shall do our best to provide the small arms and other equipment which the Cambodian Army of 40,000 needs and can use for its defense. But the aid we will provide will be limited to the purpose of enabling Cambodia to defend its neutrality and not for the purpose of making it an active belligerent on one side or the other. * Our third choice is to go to the heart of the trouble. That means cleaning out major North Vietnamese and Vietcong occupied territories � these sanctuaries which serve as bases for attacks on both Cambodia and American and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam. Some of these, incidentally, are as close to Saigon as Baltimore is to Washington. This one, for example, is called the Parrot's Beak. It is only 33 miles from Saigon�

�Now let me give you the reasons for my decision.

* A majority of the American people, a majority of you listening to me, are for the withdrawal of our forces from Vietnam. The action I have taken tonight is indispensable for the continuing success of that withdrawal program. * A majority of the American people want to end this war rather than to have it drag on interminably. The action I have taken tonight will serve that purpose. * A majority of the American people want to keep the casualties of our brave men in Vietnam at an absolute minimum. The action I take tonight is essential if we are to accomplish that goal.

We take this action not for the purpose of expanding the war into CambodiaVietnam and winning the just peace we all desire. We have made - we will continue to make every possible effort to end this war through negotiation at the conference table rather than through more fighting on the battlefield� but for the purpose of ending the war in…

George Bush's Address to the Nation Jan 10th 2007

...But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis…

�The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq�

�This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs�

�Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad — or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home…

For the first time in a while someone is calling out the �president� and his administration for maybe not telling the truth to Americans when it comes to IraqIraq) (Well everything really, but for now, let�s stick to

From McClatchy Newspapers (My Bolds so there)

President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq.

It goes on for a bit but SusabG over at DailyKos said it best.

After quoting extensively from Bush�s speech on escalation given Wednesday, the gutting begins:

That version of events helps to justify Bush's "new way forward" in Iraq, in which U.S. forces will largely target Sunni insurgents and leave it to Iraq's U.S.-backed Shiite government to - perhaps - disarm its allies in Shiite militias and death squads.

But the president's account understates by at least 15 months when Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics. It also ignores the role that Iranian-backed Shiite groups had in death squad activities prior to the Samarra bombing.

Reporter Seibel then hammers Rice for repeating the same "incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events" during Barbara Boxer�s questioning at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing the following day. Then Rice is smacked down for repeating the same fairy tale before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Then Stephen Hadley gets nailed for repeating it on Meet the Press this morning. Then the reporter observes:

Much like the administration's pre-war claims about Saddam's alleged ties to al-Qaida and purported nuclear weapons program, the claims about the bombing of the Shiite mosque in Samarra ignore inconvenient facts and highlight questionable but politically useful assumptions.

A brief historical background is then offered about Shiite death squads, much of it relying on McClatchy�s own reports from the past few years � reports that were dead-on and in direct contradiction to most of what the administration was peddling.

Why is this important? Because of this:

Beginning in 2002, the administration's case for a pre-emptive war in Iraq was plagued by similar oversights, oversimplifications, misjudgments and misinformation. Unlike the administration's claims about the Samarra bombing, however, much of that information was peddled by Iraqi exiles and defectors and accepted by some eager officials and journalists.

… The administration has continued to offer inaccurate information to Congress, the American people and sometimes to itself. The Iraq Study Group, in its December report, concluded, for example, that the U.S. military was systematically under-reporting the violence in Iraq in an effort to disguise policy failings. The group recommended that the military change its reporting system.

Are these people liars or fools, McClatchy implicitly questions near the end of the piece:

Whether many of the administration's statements about Iraq for nearly five years have been deliberately misleading or honest but gullible mistakes hasn't been determined. The Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to complete an investigation into the issue that was begun but stalled when Republicans controlled the committee.

Real journalism. Real fact-checking. Real analysis. Go read the amazing piece in full, folks, to get an idea what real reporting looks like. It�s enough to make you weep for joy.

Where has all the money gone, well I have a few guesses, Halliburton, KBR, The Carlyle Group, and a few other choose, connected, corporations.

From the LA Times

By the time the Vietnam war ended in 1975, it had become America's longest war, shadowed the legacies of four presidents, killed 58,000 Americans along with many thousands more Vietnamese, and cost the U.S. more than $660 billion in today's dollars.

By the time the bill for World War II passed the $600-billion mark, in mid-1943, the United States had driven German forces out of North Africa, devastated the Japanese fleet in the Battle of Midway, and launched the vast offensives that would liberate Europe and the South Pacific.

The Iraq war is far smaller and narrower than those conflicts, and it has not extended beyond the tenure of a single president. But its price tag is beginning to reach historic proportions, and the budgetary "burn rate" for Iraq may be greater than in some periods in past wars.

If U.S. involvement continues on the current scale, the funding for the Iraq war � combined with the conflict in Afghanistan and other foreign fronts in the war on terrorism � is projected to surpass this country's Vietnam spending next year.

And the accumulating cost is adding to resistance to President Bush's war policy in Congress as well as in public opinion, even though concern about the cost in human lives, the war's impact on America's place in the world and other such factors loom larger.