GOV. BUSH: If at any time I found that the Iraqis were developing weapons of mass destruction, they wouldn’t exist anymore. [Jan. 2000]

RICE: There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. [Sept. 2002]

RUMSFELD: There is no question but that there are fabricators that operate in the intelligence world, and there’s also no question you can find intelligence reports on every side of every issue. [Nov. 2005]

CHENEY: You can go back and argue the whole thing all over again, Wolf, but what we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do. [Jan. 2007]

Watch it:

Barnes also inadvertently endorsed a “permanent” occupation in Iraq, but then quickly corrected himself to say “small American contingent.”

The party for birthday on Sunday was informal; the gift was not. The staff presented him with a wooden box made from a giant oak tree that fell on the White House lawn in 2007. Some of the wood from the tree, planted by Benjamin Harrison’s daughter in 1892, had been sent to Texas to be fashioned into a box about 12-by-18 inches. They filled it with notes and cards from members of his senior staff.

Barnes specifically said that McCain is “going to have use” gays in the military and gay marriage as wedge issues:

BARNES: In particular, gays in the military for one. We know Barack Obama is for allowing gays in the military, and Bill Clinton tried to do, but backed off. This is not a popular issue. Gay marriage is another one. These are both issues that I think McCain’s going to have to use. You can’t ignore the right. If he does, he’ll lose.

Watch it:

Barnes is advocating that McCain embrace the well-worn right-wing tactic of discriminating against the LGBT community for electoral gain. But he has his facts wrong when he claims that letting gay men and women serve in the military “is not a popular issue.”

Polling consistently finds that the public supports allowing openly-gay people to serve in the military. In fact, that support is growing even stronger with time:

The poll also finds less opposition to gays serving openly in the military and a greater public willingness to allow gays to adopt children. A 60% majority now favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, up from 52% in 1994, and 46% support gay adoption, up from 38% in 1999.

It wouldn’t be shocking if McCain takes Barnes advice, especially since his chief strategist, Charlie Black, has previously acknowledged the use of gay issues as a wedge. It’s “a game of margins” that “could make a difference,” Black told the New York Times in 2006.

They use words such as “terrified,” “disgusted” and “scary” to describe what one calls “this mess” we Americans find ourselves in. … One member’s son is serving his second tour in Iraq. Another speaks of a daughter who’s lost her job in the mortgage industry and a son in construction whose salary was slashed. Still another mentions a friend who can barely afford gas.

Joanne Kontak, 60, an elementary school lunch aid inducted just this day as an Optimist, sums things up like this: “There’s just entirely too much wrong right now.”

Happy birthday, America? This year, we’re not so sure.

A May Washington Post-ABC News poll found that nearly “seven in 10 Americans are worried about maintaining their standard of living,” and a separate ABC poll showed economic anxiety at its “highest level on record since 1981.”

Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 — a thirteen-fold increase.

One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote of possible “nightmare” scenarios that would deliver bin Laden’s goal. Neela Banerjee warned that among the “misguided decisions” that would put oil supplies at risk would be “that the United States attacks Iraq.” The Times included this quote in its story:

“If bin Laden takes over and becomes king of Saudi Arabia, he’d turn off the tap,” said Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company, a consulting firm in Washington. “He said at one point that he wants oil to be $144 a barrel” — about six times what it sells for now.

Bin Laden didn’t have to become king of Saudi Arabia to achieve his goal; in fact, Bush’s policies delivered it for him. The Bush administration’s catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, sink the nation into debt to pay for that war, and consequently, weaken the dollar have all caused oil prices to soar astronomically.

Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last May, Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, reminded Congress about bin Laden’s goal:

[A]bout ten years ago, Osama bin Laden stated that his target price for oil is $144 a barrel and that the American people, who allegedly robbed the Muslim people of their oil, owe each Muslim man, woman, and child $30,000 in back payments. At the time, $144 a barrel seemed farfetched to most. […]

I would like to impress upon this Committee that $144 a barrel oil will be perceived as a victory for the Jihadist movement and a reaffirmation that the economic warfare component of its campaign against the West is a resounding success. There is no need to elaborate on the implications of such a victory in terms of loss of U.S. prestige and our ability to prevail in the Long War of the 21st century.

Indeed, ten years later, a mission accomplished for bin Laden.

(HT: Reddit user homeworld)

“No, no to colonization! Out, out you occupier!” the crowd shouted in the centre of Sadr City where fierce battles raged in March and April between Shiite militants and US forces in which hundreds of people were killed. […]

In the central town of Kufa, protesters chanted anti-US and anti-Israel slogans. “No to America! No to Israel! We reject signing the agreement with the occupation,” shouted devotees.

In the city of Karbala, an aide of revered Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani urged Baghdad to refrain from signing a deal that would compromise national interests.

“If the government signs the deal it has to preserve the interests of the people, not compromise sovereignty and not permit Iraq to be used as a base for attacks on neighboring countries,” said Sheikh Abdul al-Mahdi al-Karbalae.

“I don’t think there are a lot of people who want to see him at the convention,” said Mr. Rohrabacher, who is especially irked with Mr. Bush for his stance on immigration. He said the president “should stay home from the Republican convention, and everybody would be better off.”

What you may not see tonight:

In an interview with Bloomberg TV yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was unable to acknowledge the failure of Iraq. Woodruff presented Buckley’s argument to Rice that Bush’s legacy will be Iraq. “That’s just fine,” said Rice.

“We tend to forget very quickly what Saddam Hussein meant. … In the post 9/11 environment, you couldn’t let a threat to international peace and stability like that remain.” She added:

Yes, it’s been very, very tough. But I know that great historical events go through difficult phases and often emerge with the world left for the better. And I am proud of the decision of this administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I am proud of the liberation of 25 million Iraqis.

Watch it:

Rice tends to forget what she thought of Iraq prior to 9/11. In July 2001, Rice said on CNN: “In terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” (See the video.)

Digg It!

“It dealt with people’s worst fears,” Gantt later said of the ad. “In one sense, we thought the ad was political genius. In the other sense, we couldn’t believe that someone in 1990 would run an ad like that.”

UPDATE: Fox News phoned former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) for his reaction to Helms’ passing. “He had a philosophy, had principles he believed in, and he stood and fought for them,” Lott said, adding that he admired that Helms accomplished his work without being “mean-spirited and disrespectful.” Lott added:

Senator Helms did it by sometimes supporting things that surprised people. But if you looked at it, if you looked at his faith and principles he believed in, it made sense.

Watch it:

UPDATE II: Steve Benen highlights David Broder’s analysis of Helms’ legacy.

The El Paso Times reported yesterday that the environmental impacts of the fence were so severe that even the Environmental Protection Agency criticized it, reportedly voicing “serious concerns about how barrier fencing would affect habitat, animals and communities.”

According to documents obtained by the Sierra Club, the EPA warned DHS about the severe implications of extending the border fence. One official rated the project in the Lower Rio Grande Valley as “EC-2, Environmental Concerns-Insufficient Information“:

The draft Environmental Impact Study contains insufficient information for an adequate review. Of particular concern to EPA is the potential for long-term adverse environmental and ecological habitat impacts in the study area.

The EPA reported to DHS several deleterious impacts of the fence which DHS did not adequately consider:

– No mention of “how the wall would impact water quality.”

– No discussion of the “fence’s potential impact on migratory species or impact to their home range, in particular, large mammal species (e.g., deer or carnivores) or birds.”

– Maps created by DHS show that “the fence could run straight through houses and backyards.”

– “The fence could also cut off farmers from prime farmland close to the water.”

The EPA urged the Border Patrol to “consider alternative locations for fence placement that will result in the least impacts.” Ultimately, however, Chertoff issued “the biggest use of legal waivers since the administration started building the fence.” “From the EPA’s comments, it was clear they weren’t going to get any kind of go ahead anytime soon,” the Sierra Club noted.

Ironically, when pushing for the construction of the border fence in 2007, Chertoff remarked, “Illegal migrants really degrade the environment.”

In the White House press briefing today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino tried to spin the dissonance between the administration’s 2007 public comments and the documents released yesterday:

QUESTION: Who in the White House was aware of the negotiations between the Hunt Oil Company and the Kurdistan government?

PERINO: As far as I know, I don’t know of anybody who was aware of it, as we had said before. But the State Department had said that they had been aware of it and they had raised questions about it, and that’s what they’re maintaining today. So I don’t know of anybody in the White House who was aware of it.

Watch it:

Perino’s description of what happened in Sept. 2007 is selective and misleading. According to the documents released by the Oversight Committee, it actually appears that “State Department officials raised no objections to the contract.”

Three days before the oil deal was signed, Hunt’s general manager informed the State Department’s Regional Reconstruction Team that “Hunt is expecting to sign an exploration contract.” According to the general manager, no State Department officials said Hunt should “not pursue” the contract:

There was no communication to me or in my presence made by any of the 9 state department officials with whom I met prior to 8 September that Hunt should not pursue our course of action leading to a contract. In fact there was ample opportunity to do so, but it did not happen.

Unprompted, Perino brought up Hunt Oil CEO Ray Hunt’s letter to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, informing them that “he would be traveling overseas.” She dismissed it as “routine.”

But Perino neglected to mention that more than a month before he informed the board of his travel plans, he sent a separate letter “making clear his intentions to pursue oil exploration in Kurdistan.”

Transcript:

QUESTION: Who in the White House was aware of the negotiations between the Hunt Oil Company and the Kurdistan government?

PERINO: As far as I know, I don’t know of anybody who was aware of it, as we had said before. But the State Department had said that they had been aware of it and they had raised questions about it, and that’s what they’re maintaining today. So I don’t know of anybody in the White House who was aware of it.

QUESTION: Is it unusual that somebody in the State Department wouldn’t have told someone in the White House that this was going on, since this ran contrary to administration policy?

PERINO: I’m not sure. And I think a lot of the conversations actually happened in Iraq, and so I’m not sure how all that happened. So I’d refer you over there.

I think one of the things that — one of the questions has been that there was notification by Mr. Hunt that he would be traveling overseas. Just want to make sure something’s very clear on that. It is the law and it is routine and it is required that any member of the PFIAB board, if they’re going to be traveling overseas, send a letter notifying that they will be doing so. So that suggestion that that letter is suspicious is, I think, just headed in the wrong direction.

QUESTION: And the notification went to State, not — didn’t come here or…

PERINO: It goes to the PFIAB, but that doesn’t necessarily — I don’t know what’s in the letter, but I don’t think it had anything to do with substance of the travel.

QUESTION: It just says, I’m traveling abroad ?

PERINO: Yes. You have to list where you’re going.

QUESTION: And it didn’t raise any flags when he said, I’m going to Iraq ?

PERINO: Not that I’m aware of, and, again, it’s the PFIAB, and I don’t know who all saw — who all would have seen it at that time.

So I’d refer you to the State Department, because they had said that they had had the contacts beforehand, and that’s what they’re maintaining today. I don’t know of anybody else in the White House who would have known about the letters. QUESTION: And if you’d talk — and you probably discussed in the gaggle a little bit — but on camera if you could talk a little bit about when the president was first informed that there was some intelligence that maybe would lead to this Colombian rescue mission. How early was he looped in? How involved was the president? Just kind of broadly speaking.

[O]ne of the applicants rejected for a position is suing for $100,000 in damages. Sean Gerlich has filed a class action suit. Gerlich says he was rejected because of his liberal affiliations, which officials dug up through Internet searches. […]

Daniel Metcalfe, Gerlich’s attorney and a Washington College of Law professor at American University, says his client was upset at being turned down in 2006 because he had received good marks during his previous stint as a Justice summer intern. In fact, Metcalfe says, his client was a law clerk to an unidentified chief in one of the department’s 40 components.

BLANKLEY: I would take it [to] another area where I think patriotism is slipping…people who have views on the environment may feel that they’re more loyal[] to the environmental principle than they do to American advancement. We see this very specifically on the question of the Kyoto treaty.

Listen here:

Transcript:

HAYNES JOHNSON: I don’t like people who beat their chests and say they’re more patriotic than their fellow Americans.

REHM: And Tony Blankley, what about you?

BLANKLEY: I’d like to put forward a proposition for this discussion. I’ve thought about this over time. I think patriotism is a form of love – love of country. And like other loves, they can be more intense, they can be faithful, they can be intermittent, they can be weak.

By the way which means that the opposite of patriotism isn’t necessarily treason; it may simply mean indifference or divided sentiments. And I think in that way, there can be a person who is more patriotic and it doesn’t mean the person who is less patriotic is a traitor.

One evidence — and I think Obama and Wes Clark got tangled in it this week. One evidence, not the exclusive one of one’s love of country is one’s willingness to put one’s life on the line. Its not the sole test, there are other ways of doing it but a person who volunteers to do that we presume has a deep love, just as you would defend your wife or children because you love them against all dangers or risks. […]

BLANKLEY: I agree with Haynes, I would take it [to] another area where I think patriotism is slipping is that people, some Americans, are developing loyalties to things — not — other than the country’s. Take the international businessman a major corporate leader of a multi-national corporation. The people who work there. They tend to think of their interests in the company across borders not like their grandfather similarly situation or their grandmother’s thinking of them as an American corporation.

Similarly, people who have views on the environment may feel that they’re more loyalty to the environmental principle than they do to American advancement. We see this very specifically on the question of the Kyoto treaty where people who believe in environmentalism to that degree say we should give up our economic expansion while other parts of the world don’t have to for the general good interests of the world.

“Going to war with Iran” has become an accepted notion in liberal circles and every kernel of news gets fanned by people who believe — with no foundation in my opinion — that it’s only a matter of time before Bush pulls the proverbial trigger.

Americans hardly need to “fan” “every kernel of news” to come to the conclusion that Bush might be gearing up for an attack — or at least encouraging its ally, Israel, to attack in its stead. After all, neocon allies of the Bush administration — not liberals — strive constantly to make it clear that an attack is still very much a possibility:

John Bolton: The Isrealies attacking Iran “during President Bush’s term makes a lot of sense.”

Bill Kristol: When asked if “there’s any chance” Bush will attack Iran, Kristol replied, “I don’t think it’s out of the question.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT): “I wish that this administration would specifically and clearly warn the Iranians that…unless they stop it, we’re going to take action. … They ought to believe that we’re going to hit those training camps.”

Daniel Pipes: Pipes said that the U.S. should tell Tehran to “watch out” for “an American attack,” adding, “Should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something.”

Liz Cheney: “The time for diplomacy here is rapidly coming to an end.“

New reports indicate that the U.S. has already begun cross-border operations into Iran. Is it really so crazy for Americans to worry that Bush could launch a pre-emptive strike against a country that had not attacked us?

We want to make clear that the Subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Mr. Rove to appear, and that a refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.

Your letter states that Mr. Rove will not attend the hearing because he is “obligated” to disregard the subpoena as a result of the White House’s claim of immunity for former advisors. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. As a private party, Mr. Rove is “obligated” to comply with the subpoena issued to him and, at the very least, appear at the July 10 hearing.

In addition to the Siegelman matter, the committee has also asked Rove to testify on the politicization of the Justice Department, including the U.S. attorney scandal.