Bush and Cheney need to be Impeached. They are more incompetent today as they leave office do to their own desperations.

"...it was something we never wanted people to look at...caveats were dropped over time...contradictory intelligence was talked about...the American people didn't have that forthright view...the intelligence was portrayed and packaged to be more grave that it was..."

"...the press becomes complicant enablers..."

The extension being bandied about regarding the USA Occupation in Iraq is a threat to USA national security. Any 'permanent' commitment by the Bush/Cheney Executive Branch will allow a globally imposed Iraq Occupation to 'contain' the USA in its expansion into other sovereign countries. The USA needs to return to policies of National Security and not one of aggression and occupation. That change in policy is necessary to return the USA to its place as a partner in peace rather than a despot for oil reserves.

...Senate intelligence committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) yesterday said Hayden's assessment, in an interview this week with The Washington Post, was inconsistent with recent intelligence reports to Capitol Hill. In a letter to Hayden, Rockefeller said that he was "surprised and troubled by your comments" and asked for "a full explanation of both the rationale for, and the substance of" the interview (click here)....

Hayden has never been qualified for his current position and needs to be removed from his authority.

If the Democrats were not in the majority of both houses at this point in USA history, the McClellan book would have been swept out of the view of the American people just as every other 'Truth Teller' book about the Bush White House since that of Paul O'Neill's (click here), "The Price of Loyalty."

Democrats may seek McClellan's testimony over Plame leak (click here)

By KEN HERMAN

Cox News Service

Published on: 05/30/08
WASHINGTON — Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, branded a "miserable creature" by ex-Sen. Bob Dole, could be headed for a congressional hearing examining his new book's account of Bush administration involvement in the disclosure of a CIA operative's identity.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said Friday he will talk to McClellan about the book's account of the possible White House cover-up of top aides' involvement in the leak of Valerie Plame's name.
Conyers said McClellan's revelations about the episode are "extremely troubling."...

The USA - Iraq Pact is an act of desperation the global community does not approve of.

...The United Nations mandate that allows foreign forces to occupy Iraq will not be renewed at the end of the year, so any future U.S. military involvement in the war-torn nation can continue only with such an agreement. (click title to entry)...

Any further occupation of Iraq will be viewed as an act of aggression within the Middle East and will provide a 'staging ground' for more war, instability and aggression at the hand of future USA presidents. The Iraq occupation has to end allowing Iraq to recover as a country, providing the people there with the opportunity to rebuild and take on an economic identity to pilgramage now denied to many Muslims in the face of chronic and provoked internal conflict.

The continued occupation in Iraq by both the British and Americans is about oil, not any form of National Security UNLESS one defines national security as a 'ready glut of Persian oil.' In revealing controversy recently in Russia, it was noted the CEO, Robert Dudly of TNK-BP is being asked to resign for his 'conflict of interest' in managing priorities in oil access and disaffecting Russian interests in countries like Iraq.

...Russian shareholders in TNK-BP want to expand into Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Venezuela, where TNK-BP has a competitive advantage. BP has resisted the idea, as well as plans to take part in high-risk projects in countries including Iraq, Uganda, Syria and Libya (click here)....

Allowing the USA and British occupation of Iraq would continue to insure no other country could provide stability to the country in cooperation with oil trade from the region. If the occupation ended, it would force MULTI-NATIONAL support to Iraq's military in order to provide the oil export business to thrive. Removing the USA-British occupation would 'demand' the return of Multi-National interests to Iraq forcing the global community to take an active role in securing the nation of Iraq. The ONLY reason the British and Americans are in Iraq is for the oil and HENCE the recent atrocities in Basra, the oil port city of Iraq.

Currently, the Iraqi government is forced to deal with companies and services allowed to them by Western interests. When that is the case there can be no negotiations with other countries such as Russia to bolster Iraq's military or police. Literally, the Iraq War is to secure America's strangle hold on Iraqi oil.

BP, Exxon submit Iraq deal plans (click here)

By Hassan Hafidh
Last update: 6:16 a.m. EDT May 27, 2008

AMMAN (MarketWatch) -- After several months of negotiations and pressure from the Iraqi government, BP PLC (BP: BP p.l.c.XOM 88.76, -0.59, -0.7%) have finally submitted proposals to the Iraqi oil ministry on technical services contracts to boost production at Iraq's prized oil fields, sources close to the Iraqi ministry said Tuesday.
Other oil majors, which have been negotiating similar deals with Baghdad, haven't yet submitted their plans, but they would follow suit, according to these sources.
Iraq's Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani has threatened to cancel these technical services contracts, or TSC, if they are not signed in June. The TSCs are designed to boost Iraq's crude oil production in producing oil fields....
BP and Exxon Mobil's proposals include suggestions on how Iraq would pay them back for their services and the costs of equipment. The Iraqi oil ministry needs to approve these proposals before signing the contracts. Iraqi oil officials have said that each TSC would cost around $500 million....

The contracts were a little slow in coming because the 'terms' weren't attractive enough. Would the 'terms' have been more 'user friendly' for Iraq if there was Multi-National bidding for them? Of course they would be. The American occupation eliminates 'competition' in the market place for any of Iraq's needs. The continued and sustained occupation of Iraq is disaffecting not only the Iraqi people in continued conflict, but, also in defining their economic growth and opportunity. Literally, the Bush Era No Bid Contracts have caused a great deal of hardship to the Iraqi people, their ability to compete for better services and support and has caused massive impoverishment of the people while limiting its government's choices in alternatives to the Western influence.

We don't belong in Iraq.

We never did.