CNN

Pictured here is one of multiple cover sheets for intelligence briefings prepared for Defense Sec. Rumsfeld in the early days of the Iraq war. The sheets featured biblical quotes and battle images. (COURTESY: GQ MAGAZINE)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It's been almost four months since former President Bush left office, and many would like to leave his administration in the past. But that may not be possible since there's a constant dripping of information about what really went on during those eight years.

The latest comes by way of GQ Magazine, which has released a series of cover sheets for intelligence reports written for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon brass during the early days of the Iraq war.

They featured "triumphant, color images" like soldiers praying or in action or a tank at sunset along with Biblical passages. For example: "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."

Besides the obvious question of appropriateness, what if these covers had leaked out at the time? The Muslim world could have interpreted the war as a religiously-driven battle against Islam. You think they were upset about Abu Ghraib?

But the general who thought up the covers told anyone that complained about them that his seniors, including Rumsfeld and President Bush, appreciated them. In fact, GQ says Rumsfeld hand-delivered many of these reports to President Bush.

The magazine suggests the mixing of Crusades-like messages with war imagery might not have been Rumsfeld's style - but he likely saw it as a way to connect with the deeply religious President Bush.

This is just another in a growing list of questions, and just like torture and the reasons for invading Iraq, they don't seem to be going away.

Here’s my question to you: Is a complete investigation of the Bush administration and the Iraq war becoming inevitable?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

U.S. Marine Maj. Gen. John Kelly and Anbar Province Governor Maamoun Sami Rashid al-Alwani sign papers during a handover ceremony in Ramadi, Monday.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There was more good news from Iraq over the holiday weekend. The United States military has ceded control of Anbar province, once one of the deadliest places in that country, to the Iraqi military.

American casualties continue to be way down from their peak, and there seems now to be a growing consensus that the American military is going to be able to leave that country sometime in the next couple of years.

The situation has come a long way from the darkest days when millions of Iraqis became refugees, hundreds of thousands were killed and nothing approaching political stability was anywhere on the horizon.

The oil is flowing once again from Iraq – they have an $80 billion surplus sitting in banks now, and something resembling stability is threatening to return. With the tribal animosities that go back thousands of years however, it's too soon to declare victory. But there's no doubt about it: things are looking up. As evidence of this – a recent CNN poll indicates only 18% of Americans consider the war in Iraq to be the number one issue in November's election. 48% say it's the economy.

Here’s my question to you: How important will the Iraq war be to voters come November?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

A new book says President Bush committed an impeachable offense, ordering the CIA to forge a letter to bolster his case for war in Iraq.

These explosive charges are contained in a new book, "The Way of the World" by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind. He says he spoke on the record with U.S. intelligence officials who said that President Bush was informed in January 2003 that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. The president's response to this information was reportedly "F- it. We're going in." Three months later, the U.S. invaded Iraq using a forged document as its rationale, according to Suskind.

He writes that the White House called on the CIA to concoct the forged letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein. It was backdated to before 9/11 and indicated that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had trained for his mission in Iraq, according to Suskind. The phony letter, he writes, was designed to prove a non existent link between Hussein and al Qaeda.

Watch: Cafferty: W.H. forged letter?

Meanwhile, that head of Iraqi intelligence, who told British intelligence sources that Iraq had no active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and no WMD was "resettled" in Jordan with the CIA's help and paid $5 million in hush money, Suskind writes.

Suskind calls Mr. Bush's actions "one of the greatest lies in modern American political history" and suggests they constitute a crime worse than Watergate.

The White House is pushing back hard, calling Suskind's claims "absurd" and describing his work as "gutter journalism" including "wild allegations that no one can verify." Former CIA director George Tenet ridicules the credibility of Suskind's sources and calls the White House directive to forge a letter "a complete fabrication."

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if the White House ordered the CIA to forge a letter in order to bolster its case for war in Iraq?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Senator Barack Obama meeting with Nouri al-Malaki in Iraq. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

While John McCain goes on and on about the surge and winning in Iraq – whatever that means – Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki says Barack Obama has the right idea: get U.S. troops out of his country within 16 months.

Talk about a blow to President Bush and John McCain. President Bush wants everything to be up to him, and John McCain says we could be in Iraq for 100 years. Nuri al-Maliki told the German magazine "Der Spiegel" that he'd like U.S. troops to withdraw "as soon as possible", adding that Barack Obama's talk of 16 months "would be the right time frame for a withdrawal."

The Bush administration immediately said that can't be right: the statement was out of context, it was mistranslated, that isn't what he meant blah blah blah. But the translator for the interview with the German magazine was Nuri al-Maliki's translator. And al-Maliki brought the subject of Barack Obama's timetable up on his own, voluntarily. The New York Times obtained a copy of the audio recording in which al-Maliki stated clear support for Obama's ideas for ending the war. The German magazine says it stands by its interview.

This follows a capitulation by President Bush last week in agreeing to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, something the president said he would never do unless they stopped enriching uranium. McCain, of course, goes along with President Bush, but Obama said all along we should talk to them. What could it hurt?

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when the Iraqi prime minister endorses Barack Obama’s schedule for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Marines patrol in the town of Garmser in Helmand Province of Afghanistan. (PHOTO CREDIT: AP PHOTO)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Bush is thinking about speeding up the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq starting in September.

Reports say no decision has been made yet, but anywhere from 1 to 3 of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could be withdrawn by the time Mr. Bush leaves office in January. That would leave between 120,000 and 130,000 troops in Iraq, down from a peak of 170,000 last year.

One reason for an accelerated withdrawal is because more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan, where the Taliban have been making a comeback. Yesterday, 9 U.S. troops died in an insurgent attack there – the deadliest for U.S. troops in 3 years. In the last two months, more American and allied troops have died in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

The White House says that although the president hopes to bring more troops home, he will wait to hear what General David Petraeus says in September. If President Bush decides to announce troop reductions, it could impact the presidential race. John McCain could say that the surge, which he was in favor of, worked, and therefore troops can now be withdrawn.

On the other hand, Barack Obama has been against the Iraq war from the outset and has said he would immediately look at getting our troops out of Iraq if he's elected. Obama has said the war in Afghanistan has suffered because of the administration's misguided policies in Iraq. He says he would be in favor of deploying up to 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Here’s my question to you: Would faster troop withdrawal from Iraq help John McCain or Barack Obama?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Iraqi flags flutter at a new oil refinery plant in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, central Iraq. Click the Play Button to see what jack and our viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

When it comes to the real reason for the Iraq war, we've pretty much heard it all: First it was WMD, then it was about the war on terror and removing Saddam Hussein, then it was about spreading democracy. But it was never about the oil.

Now, as Bill Moyers reported on PBS: "...one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire and ashes. And now the bottom line turns out to be ... the bottom line. It is about oil."

More than 5 years after the start of the war, the U.S. has lost more than 4,100 troops, tens of thousands more are wounded for life, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, millions more are displaced, and the U-S taxpayer is stuck with a bill that could top trillions of dollars. And, what about the oil? Well, it hit a new record high today of more than $143 a barrel. Gas prices are up almost 38% from a year ago.

The New York Times reports that the Bush administration played a key role in drawing up no-bid contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq. Critics accuse the administration of making sure Western companies get this access in the country that holds the third-largest oil reserves in the world. For example, Russian companies with experience in Iraq were hoping for contracts, but they're still waiting.

The White House denies steering the Iraqis toward any decisions. A State Department official says its advice was "not binding."

Here’s my question to you: Do you believe the Iraq war was about oil all along?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

President Bush says he regrets some of his rhetoric in lead-up to Iraq war.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Bush told the British newspaper The Times he regrets using phrases like "bring them on" and "wanted dead or alive" after 9/11. He says it made him seem anxious for war in the eyes of the world. The president says that in retrospect, he could have used a different tone from the cowboy rhetoric that sent the message that he wasn't a man of peace. Now he figures that out.

Mr. Bush talked about how painful it is for him to put youngsters in harm's way, but he said he doesn't regret invading Iraq. He insisted at a press conference today that removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision and made the world a safer place.

President Bush also said that Republican John McCain will have to distance himself from him. He called McCain an independent person who will make his own decisions. There does seem to be one avoidable similarity between the two, however. They both manage to put their feet in their mouths with some regularity.

This morning on NBC's "Today" show, McCain was asked, since the surge appears to be working, if he had a better estimate of when our troops might come home from Iraq. His answer: "No, but that's not too important." He went on to say casualties are more important, that there are Americans stationed all over the world but not in harm's way. My guess is it's very important to the families of the troops who are in Iraq.

Here’s my question to you: Do you think President Bush was misunderstood when it comes to the Iraq war?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Despite worries on the home front about the economy, the housing market and record high gas prices... the war in Iraq has made it to center stage once again in the presidential campaign.

Turns out both of the likely candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, think the debate over the war can work to their advantage.

McCain has been blasting Obama about Iraq, criticizing him for making decisions without visiting the war zone since 2006. McCain argues conditions on the ground have changed drastically since then. The RNC says, "the fact that there are 2-year-old Iraqi children who weren't born the last time Obama was in their country raises questions about what he is making his decisions on."

It's part of a larger strategy to paint Obama as inexperienced. It's also pretty convenient to shift attention away from domestic issues – like the economy, energy and health care – where Obama polls much stronger than McCain.

Obama's camp now says the candidate is considering a trip to Iraq, during which he would focus on how best to withdraw U.S. troops, not reconsider whether or not they should leave. Obama suggests McCain hasn't learned enough from all his travels to Iraq, since all he wants to do is continue President Bush's war policies – even saying at one point American soldiers could be in Iraq for 100 years.

If elected, Obama has vowed to start pulling out troops immediately, with all combat brigades out of the country within 16 months. On the other hand, McCain says the U-S can't go until Iraqi forces have been trained and al Qaeda is defeated.

However, there's also a risk for McCain here: by talking about travels to Iraq, he reminds people about his infamous stroll through the Baghdad market last year where he returned to the United States and gave Americans a completely false report about how peaceful and secure it was there.

Here’s my question to you: How important is it for Barack Obama to go to Iraq?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

President George W. Bush addressing the nation aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln May 1, 2003. (PHOTO CREIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Mission Accomplished... so read the banner prominently displayed behind President Bush on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln five years ago today.

Bush appeared in a flight suit before a cheering crowd and announced "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." I wonder if he would like to tell that to the families of the more than 50 U.S. troops who died in Iraq during the month of April, the deadliest in seven months. And this month’s first fatality has already been recorded.

The war is now in its sixth year. We have lost 4,064 troops, many of them killed long after the president announced that major combat operations were over.

Only the Vietnam War, the war in Afghanistan, and the Revolutionary War have lasted longer than the war in Iraq.

Tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and millions have been displaced. The Iraqi army which was supposed to be able to stand on its own by 2006, is pretty much worthless. During one recent battle more than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers simply ran away leaving the fighting to their countrymen and the Americans.

Today U.S. and Iraqi troops are engaged in fierce fighting against Shiite militants in Baghdad's Sadr City, a battle that began in March. More than 900 civilians and militants have died since that fighting began.

The White House admits that it has "paid the price" for the "Mission Accomplished" banner. But not nearly as high a price as the men and women of our armed forces.

Here’s my question to you: What will it take to accomplish the U.S. mission in Iraq?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

A US soldier of 3rd Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, looks toward Iraqi soldiers pushing forward during a joint patrol in a market area in Mahmudiyah. Click the Play Button to see what Jack and out viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

A new report out today from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

The Iraqi government is keeping thousands of dead, injured and missing soldiers and policemen on the payroll. Let me just run that past you again. The Iraqi government is using your money to pay thousands of dead, injured and missing soldiers and policemen as a way of compensating or caring for their families. This completely outrageous news comes from a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. It also says Iraqis have a shortage of officers and still rely on coalition forces for substantial logistical support.

The Iraqi army was supposed to be able to stand on its own two years ago. We're now being told they might get around to it by September of 2009.

This program to train Iraqi soldiers - and continue to pay the dead and missing ones - is costing American taxpayers $20 billion dollars. The report comes as Congress prepares to take up President Bush's request for another 108 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff today is accusing Iran of increasing arms and training support to insurgents in Iraq.

These news items were not known when a new USA-Today Gallup Poll was taken that shows sixty three percent of Americans say that the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq. That's the highest "mistake" percentage Gallup has ever measured for an active war involving the United States.

Only Sixty-one percent of Americans in May 1971 said the Vietnam War was a mistake.

Here’s my question to you: Are the presidential candidates going to have to spend more time talking about Iraq?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »