Re: BUSH & NEOCON'S PLAN--WWIII-GOVERNORS OF STATES MIGHT BE ABLE TO STOP NAT'L GUARD TO IRAQ
JACKEL
GOING ON SO "HE" HAS THE TOTAL AUTHORITY TO COMMAND THE NATIONAL GUARD
TO GO WHERE HE TELLS THEM TO GO.
>
BASED ON THE "EMERGENCY NEED" OF THE STATE GOVERNORS TO TAKE CARE OF
THE FLOOD-FIRE-SNOW STORM-POWER OUTAGES IN MANY STATES, "INCLUDING" ALL
OF THE WORK NEEDED RE THE KATRINA HURRICANES IN WHICH MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS ARE SUFFERING, PLUS...SEN. TED KENNEDY'S BILL TO "REPEAL THE
WAR RESOLUTION" COULD BE USED TO "LEGALLY STOP BUSH FROM HIS CLEAR "WAR
PLANS" THAT WILL GO ON FOR EVER.
>
SEND A COPY OF THIS TO YOUR CONGRESS PERSON "NOW" IF YOU WANT THEM TO
STOP THE FASCIST BUSH REGIME.
>
------
Subject: "SURGE" WILL CHANGE PENTAGON'S POLICY-STATE GOVERNORS
INVOLVED!
>
Subject:Guard and Reserve May Bear the Brunt of Surge--1-09-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010907C.shtml
>
-----
Citizen Soldiers May Be the Key to Iraq Buildup
-----
By Julian E. Barnes
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 09 January 2007
---
Sending Guard, Reserve units on second tours would be a policy shift.
----
Washington - The nation's top military officials, expecting President
Bush to order an increase in the size of the force in Iraq, have
concluded that such a buildup would require them to "reverse Pentagon
policy" and
----
send the Army's National Guard and Reserve units on lengthy second
tours in Iraq, Defense Department officials said Monday.
----
Under Pentagon policy,
*************************
Guard and Reserve units have been limited to
24 months of mobilization for the Iraq war.
**********************************************
That means most Reserve units that already have been sent to Iraq "are
ineligible to return."
---
But the Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that a significant troop
buildup would require the Pentagon to send Guard and Reserve units for
additional yearlong tours.
---
Such an order probably would be controversial
among the nation's governors -
**********************************
who "share authority" over the Guard - and
****************************************
could heighten concerns in Congress over the war and Bush's plans for a
troop increase.
---
In addition, National Guard leaders were skeptical of calls for
additional combat tours, which they fear could hurt recruiting and
retention.
---
"If you have to sustain a surge long-term, you have to use the Guard
and Reserve,"
---
said a Defense Department official who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because the president had not unveiled his strategy shift.
---
Bush, who is set to "announce his new policy" Wednesday, met on Monday
with about a "dozen Republican senators" to discuss the plan.
---
After the meeting,
Sen. Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.) said:
Bush appeared to be planning an increase of 20,000 troops.
---
"It was clear to me that a decision was made for a surge of 20,000
additional troops," Smith said. "He did not affirm that that would be
the number, but he said roughly that amount. I understood it as a
hypothetical."
---
Any boost in combat forces will require some increase in Reserve
support units, such as engineering or intelligence teams.
----
But "because of training requirements", National Guard infantry forces
are unlikely to be used as part of the initial buildup. However, they
would be needed later in the year to sustain a higher level of forces.
----
Defense Department officials say it would be difficult to build up an
extra 20,000 soldiers and Marines quickly.
---
Although there is a Reserve brigade in Kuwait, building up to the full
expansion may take until "late March or April", an Army official said.
---
The expected increase is likely to rely heavily on speeding up the
deployments of units that
---
"had been scheduled to ship to Iraq in the summer",
---
while "extending the tours" of
Marine and Army units due to return from Iraq in late spring and
summer.
---
It is unclear which National Guard units would be tapped to go as part
of a troop buildup, although officials said it was likely that the
first Guard units sent into Iraq would be considered for the first
return tours.
---
The 1st Battalion, 185th Armored Regiment, from San Bernardino, and
---
the 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, from Modesto,
----
are the biggest units from the California National Guard that have
served in Iraq.
----
Members of the 185th, now an infantry unit, served in Iraq from early
2004 until 2005 and could be "among the first sent for a return tour."
---
In early 2005, the National Guard and Reserves "made up nearly half the
fighting force in Iraq."
---
Today, of the "15 combat brigades in Iraq",
----
one is from the National Guard - although there are other smaller
Reserve units also deployed in Iraq.
----
Army Chief of Staff,
Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker
*******************************
has complained publicly that:
********************************
the "policy against involuntary second tours" has forced the National
Guard to cobble together units from dozens of states,
----
rather than sending whole battalions or brigades that have worked and
trained together.
---
"Current policies restrict our ability to remobilize Reserve component
units, and,
"in my view",
---
the current policies are more restrictive than need be under the law
and hamper our ability to remobilize the best-trained, best-led and
best-equipped units," Schoomaker said last month.
---
Military-Civilian Divide
**************************
In the "internal debates" over whether the military should send extra
troops into Iraq,
---
the service chiefs have been convinced that sustaining an increase
would require sending National Guard combat brigades for return tours
as part of what the military is calling "assured access" to the
reserves.
---
"If you increase [the force in Iraq], part of that requirement will
require assured access to the Guard," said a second Army official. "If
you look at the brigades that are available, you are going to have to
require the assured access."
----
The officials interviewed spoke on condition of anonymity because no
formal decision had been made to change the policy on the Guard and
Reserves.
---
Some civilians inside the Defense Department are "deeply skeptical of a
change in policy" -
in particular,
---
David Chu,
***********
the undersecretary for
personnel and readiness,
a department official said.
---
Chu and other officials have argued that the military should try to
find other ways to fill the need for reservists - by:
---
tapping Navy and Air Force units, for example - rather than sending
Guard and Reserve units for second tours.
---
"We see no reason to change the policy," said a second department
official.
---
"It is an option open to the new secretary of Defense. But they are
trying to fill these needs in other ways." ----
Pentagon officials said that leaders of the National Guard remained
skeptical about calling up their combat brigades for a second tour.
----
Before a "so-called surge" was considered,
"no National Guard brigade combat team"
**********************************************
was scheduled to deploy to Iraq "until 2009",
**********************************************
to give the force time to replace personnel and equipment.
-----
The Wall: 1 Tour in 6 Years
*******************************
National Guard officials have argued that their units can sustain:
"one-year deployments every six years."
---
But recruiting and retention could suffer if the policy is changed and
Guard units are remobilized too quickly, a Pentagon official said.
----
"They can sustain one in six. Anything other than that becomes
problematic,"
said a "Pentagon official opposed"
to sending the Guard as part of a buildup.
---
"If there is a real and imminent danger",
*******************************************
the National Guard people will go.
They are willing to go, but
they have to believe in what they are doing."
**********************************************
---
Nearly 206,000 National Guard soldiers
*********************************************
have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.
---
"Under current policy",
***********************
those soldiers would only be sent for a second tour "if they
volunteered."
----
According to the Pentagon, more than 23,500 Guard soldiers have been
"on more than one deployment."
---
"Depending on how they execute the formula, it could leave everyone who
has deployed eligible [to return] since our deployments are typically
18 months,"
***********************
said a National Guard officer.
---
National Guard leaders,
the Pentagon official said,
"are worried that employers" would be less likely to support Guard
participation by their employees if units were sent to Iraq more often.
---
"We have the soldier,
we have the employer and
we have the family,"
the official said.
---
"All of these need to support the war effort, and if they don't, we
have problems."
-------
Times staff writers Maura Reynolds in Washington and Rone Tempest in
California contributed to this report.
=================
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored
by the originator.)
Jim E
"JACKEL" <jack...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1168544289....@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
IF ANYONE "WONDERED" HOW MUCH BUSH IS CONTROLLED BY THE NEOCONS AND THE
"INTENT OF FOLLOWING THE FASCIST'S "PNAC" ONE WORLD ORDER PLAN, HERE IS
THE PROOF, I.E. BUSH HAS PUBLICLY "REFUSED" TO TAKE THE ADVICE OF HIS
OWN MILITARY LEADERS, WHO HE "TOLD US", WAS WHO HE WOULD LISTEN TO RE
"MILITARY MATTERS", BUT, HE FIRED THEM BECAUSE "THEY WEREN'T FOLLOWING
THE "PNAC PLAN".
>
BUSH "ALSO TOLD US" THAT HE WOULD "REMOVE OUR TROOPS WHEN THE "IRAQ
GOVERNMENT TOLD HIM TO DO SO". AGAIN, BUSH LIED TO US, I.E. THE IRAQ
PRIME MINISTER "TOLD HIM HE WANTS U.S. TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ", INSTEAD
BUSH ORDERS MORE TROOPS "IN" IRAQ.
>
HERE IS THE PNAC-NEOCON WHO WROTE THE "NEW SURGE PLAN" AND AS YOU WILL
READ, CHENEY AND BUSH'S CABINET WERE SUPPORTING THESE PNAC-NEOCONS. NOW
YOU KNOW "WHO IS IN CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT DESTRUCTION".
>
NOTE: ALL AMERICANS ARE "PAYING FOR THESE "PRIVATE THINK-TANKS" LIKE
THE BELOW "AEI", WHICH ARE "PART OF THE PNAC". DEMAND DEFUNDING OF THEM
IF YOU DON'T WANT OUR GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED BY THESE NEO-CONS. THEY ARE
"NOT" WORKING FOR PEOPLE OF THE U.S. IN FACT, THEY ARE DESTROYING THE
U.S. IN FAVOR OF HUGE CORPORATIONS WHICH THESE SO-CALLED THINK-TANK
MEMBERS BELONG, JUST LIKE THE MEMBERS OF THE PNAC.
---
Subject:SURGE PLAN IS FROM FREDRICK KAGAN OF THE PNAC
Subject:The Architect of Mr. Bush's Plan-1-11-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012107J.shtml
>
You have two problems.
Your caps lock is stuck.
You are stupid.
Jim E
JACKEL
----
NOTE: CAN YOU READ & UNDERSTAND THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE?
>
IF SO, YOU WILL FIND THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS "INTENTIONAL PROPAGANDA
RE THE "AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE "NATIONAL
GUARD" & SEND THEM "OVERSEAS".
>
BASED ON THE INFORMATION THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES RE "THE CITINGS OF THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE "ALLEGED CHANGES MADE TO THE "SEDITION ACT
LAW", THERE IS "NOTHING STATING THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN DO THIS.
---
WHILE I HAVE "NOT" RESEARCHED EITHER LAWS, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHAT IS
REPORTED HERE, IS CLEARLY BOGUS ON IT'S FACE.
---
HERE IS THE "STATELINE.ORG'S" WEBSITE RE "ABOUT US" LINK WHICH SHOWS
THAT THIS SITE IS 100% FUNDED BY THE "PEW CHARITABLE TRUST" .
---
Subject:STATELINE.ORG-"ABOUT US" WEBPAGE
---
http://www.stateline.org/live/static/About+Us?contentId=170453
>
----
I HAVE TRIED 3 TIMES TO MAKE A URL TO THE "BIO'S" OF THE ONLY "2
LEADERSHIP STAFF", FOR THIS SITE, BUT IT DIDN'T WORK, SO CLICK ON THE
ABOVE URL AND CLICK ON THE "BIO" LINK AND YOU WILL SEE THAT NEITHER OF
"THESE TOP JOURNALIST" SHOW ANY "LEGAL TRAINING", AND...DOESN'T EVEN
MENTION THE REPORTER OF THIS ARTICLE.
---
WE ALL KNOW HOW MUCH LYING PROPAGANDA WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE BUSH
REGIME AND "IT'S MEDIA PROSTITUTES", THIS LOOKS LIKE ANOTHER, IN HOPES
THAT AMERICANS WILL "NOT QUESTION THE LEGALITY OF THE "SO-CALLED
"PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY". IT'S TIME TO CONTACT YOUR GOVERNOR ABOUT
THIS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU BELONG TO THE NATIONAL GUARD.
---
Subject: BOGUS MEDIA REPORT RE PRES CAN DEPLOY NATIONAL GUARD!
----
Subject:Governors Lose in Power Struggle Over National Guard--1-12-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011207B.shtml
>
-----
Governors Lose in Power Struggle Over National Guard
By Kavan Peterson
Stateline
Friday 12 January 2007
A little-noticed change in federal law
*****************************************
packs an important change in:
"who is in charge" the next time a state is devastated by a disaster
such as Hurricane Katrina.
To the dismay of the nation's governors,:
the White House now will be empowered to go
**********************************************
over a governor's head and
**************************
call up National Guard troops to:
aid a state in time of natural disasters or
"other public emergencies."
******************************
Up to now, governors were the sole
****************************************
"commanders in chief of citizen soldiers"
********************************************
in local Guard units during emergencies
within the state.
A conflict over who should control Guard units arose in the days after
Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
President "Bush sought to federalize" control of Guardsmen in Louisiana
in the chaos after the hurricane, but Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) refused
to relinquish command.
Over objections from all 50 governors,
******************************************
"Congress in October" [2006]
************************
tweaked the 200-year-old "Insurrection Act"
to empower the hand of the president in future
**********************************************
"stateside emergencies."
***************************
In a letter to Congress,
the governors called the change
"a dramatic expansion of federal authority" during natural disasters
that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National
Guard and interfere with states' ability to respond to natural
disasters within their borders."
The change adds to tensions between governors and the White House:
after more than four years of heavy federal
**********************************************
deployment of state-based Guard forces
*********************************************
to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
***********************************
Since the 2001 terrorist attacks,
***********************************
"four out of five guardsmen" have been sent
**********************************************
"overseas" in the largest deployment of the
**********************************************
National Guard since World War II.
****************************************
Shortage of the Guard's military equipment - such as helicopters to
drop hay to snow-stranded cattle in Colorado - also is a nagging issue
as: much of units' heavy equipment is left overseas
**********************************************
and "unavailable" in case of a natural disaster
**********************************************
at home.
*********
"A bipartisan majority of both chambers"
********************************************
of Congress adopted the change:
*************************************
as part of the 439-page,
$538 billion 2007 "Defense Authorization Bill"
**********************************************
signed into law last October. [2006]
***************************************
The nation's governors through the
"National Governors Association (NGA)" successfully lobbied to defeat a
broader proposal to:
"give the president power to federalize Guard
**********************************************
troops "without invoking the Insurrection Act."
**********************************************
But the passage that "became law"
**************************************
also "disappointed" governors because:
"it expands federal power" and
****************************
could cause confusion between state and federal authorities trying to
respond to an emergency situation,
said David Quam,
an NGA homeland security advisor.
"Governors need to be focused on assisting their citizens during an
emergency instead of looking over their shoulders to see if the federal
government is going to step in," Quam said.
Under the U.S. Constitution,
*******************************
each state's National Guard unit is
"controlled by the governor in time of peace" but "can be called up for
"federal duty" by the
**********************************************
president.
***********
The National Guard employs 444,000
part-time soldiers between its two branches: the Army and Air National
Guards.
"The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878"
***************************************
forbids U.S. troops from being deployed on American soil "for law
enforcement".
*****************************************
The one exception is provided by the
*****************************************
"Insurrection Act of 1807", which
****************************
lets the president use the military
only for the purpose of:
**************************
"putting down rebellions" or
***************************
"enforcing constitutional rights"
*********************************
if state authorities fail to do so.
**********************************
Under that law,
****************
the "president can declare an insurrection" and "call in the armed
forces". The act has been invoked only a handful of times in the past
50 years, including in 1957 to desegregate schools and in 1992 during
riots in south central Los Angeles after the acquittal of police
accused of beating Rodney King.
Congress changed the "Insurrection Act"
*********************************************
to list:
******
"natural disaster,
epidemic, or
other serious public health emergency,
"terrorist attack" or "incident"
****************************
"as conditions" under which:
*******************************
the president can:
********************
deploy U.S. armed forces and
****************************
"federalize state Guard troops"
**********************************
if he determines that:
************************
"authorities of the state" or possession are "incapable" of
"maintaining public order."
**********************************************
Backers of the new rules, including:
****************************************
U.S. Sens. John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said:
the changes were needed to
"clarify the role of the armed forces" in: responding to serious
"domestic" emergencies.
**********************************************
Mark Smith,
spokesperson for
the Louisiana Governor's Office
of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, said: local and state
emergency responders know what their communities need during a crisis
better than officials in Washington.
"The president should not be able to step in and take control of the
National Guard without a governor's consent. The Guard belongs to the
states, has always belonged to the states and should remain a function
of the states," Smith said.
-------
JACKEL
PUBLICLY RIDICULE HIM!
--
NOTE: WM. KRISTOL IS KNOWN AS ONE OF THE LEADING FOUNDERS OF THE
"PNAC-NEO-CON PROJECT"
---
Subject:Opposition to Iraq Plan Leaves Bush Isolated--1-14-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011407Z.shtml
>
---
Opposition to Iraq Plan Leaves Bush Isolated
---
By Peter Baker and Michael Abramowitz
The Washington Post
Sunday 14 January 2007
---
Even some in GOP keeping distance.
---
"The bipartisan opposition" to President Bush's troop-increase plan has
proved more intense than his advisers hoped and has left them
scrambling to find support, but the White House is banking on the
assumption that it can execute its "new way forward" in Iraq "before
Congress can derail it."
---
The plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq was virtually guaranteed to
provoke a furor in Washington, Bush advisers said, but
---
the storm was exacerbated by the slow, leaky way that the White House
reached a decision.
---
The policy review stretched two months after the election and the
essence of the plan "became known long before Bush announced it, making
it a political pinata for opponents.
----
Without Bush making the case for it until last week, resistance
hardened, and aides now harbor no hope of winning over Democrats.
---
Instead, they aim mainly to keep Republicans from abandoning him
further.
---
"Bush invited GOP leaders to Camp David" this weekend and will argue
his case to the nation on CBS's "60 Minutes" tonight.
**********************************
Vice President, Cheney and
national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley will also hit the airwaves
today.
---
"We recognize that many members of Congress are skeptical," Bush said
in his radio address yesterday, adding:
---
"Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express
them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to
work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better
chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is
irresponsible."
---
Many Democrats, in fact, have proposed alternatives centered around
pulling out troops, an idea Bush flatly rejects.
---
So hopes for a bipartisan consensus after Democrats captured Congress
in the November midterm elections have evaporated, and "Bush appears
more isolated than ever. "
---
"We are headed towards quite a donnybrook in Congress," said former
congressman. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), co-chairman of the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group,
---
whose plan for withdrawing combat forces by early 2008 was never fully
embraced by Bush or Democrats. "We had hoped that there would be more
progress towards a more bipartisan approach."
---
The White House has:
--
"downscaled its goals" and "is playing for time."
---
Advisers resign themselves to:
--
a nonbinding congressional resolution "condemning the troop increase"
but
want to avoid many Republicans voting for it.
---
Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who lost reelection, called
Bush's
plan:
---
"a step in the right direction" and said Republicans do not want to
walk away from Iraq but are "in full political survival mode" now.
---
"It's very hard,
particularly if you're on the ballot in two years,
**********************************************
to run on the side of the president
**************************************
on anything to do with the war."
**********************************
---
The more serious threat to the White House would be:
--
"a Democratic attempt to restrict funds" for more troops. Bush aides
said that current funds are enough to get started, and they are
counting on the notion that:
---
it will take two months until the supplemental appropriation bill
providing more war funds comes to a vote. By then, they said,:
---
"extra troops will be on the ground" and "it will be too late for
Congress to stop them."
---
And they "hope for signs of progress" that would let them argue that
"the plan is working."
----
"This buys us time,"
**********************
said a senior administration official,
speaking on the condition of anonymity
"to discuss strategy."
---
A "political strategist who advises the White House added:
---
"The public responds to progress and to events. Every time they can see
real progress -
---
an election, catching Saddam, whatever it is - they like it."
---
And so "if violence can be tamped down", it could "defuse some public
hostility."
---
If that happens, the White House hopes
"the troop buildup then will succeed"
in bringing enough stability to Baghdad by August that:
---
U.S. forces can withdraw to the city outskirts.
---
And officials said "it must be sustained." "By the end of the year,
Baghdad's got to look significantly different,"
--
said a "National Security Council official" not authorized to speak on
the record.
---
Democrats believe that:
"Bush made a fundamental mistake."
---
Had he embraced the Iraq Study Group, or even made a show of embracing
some of its elements,
---
he could have called the Democrats' bluff about wanting to work
together, party strategists said.
---
"That would have really jammed us,"
said a top congressional Democratic aide.
---
The study group proposed:
*****************************
---
shifting the U.S. mission to support and training,
---
withdrawing combat forces "by early 2008",
---
embedding U.S. troops with Iraqi units,
---
threatening to reduce aid to the Iraqi government unless it makes
progress,
---
negotiating with Iran and Syria and
---
reinvigorating the Israeli-Arab peace process.
---
But to the consternation of Democrats,
the U.S. troop pullout would not be locked into a strict timetable and
would depend on ground conditions.
****************************************
---
"This was a real missed opportunity,"
said Leon E. Panetta,
a former Clinton White House chief of staff who served on the panel.
---
"No president can conduct a war
"without the support of the American people" and "without the support
of the Congress." That's the lesson of history."
*****************************
---
While some officials saw the report as an opportunity to change course,
Panetta said,
---
"I think deep down,
they viewed it as a sign of weakness
****************************************
to abide by an "outside group's" recommendation."
---
Former senatorM Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.), another panel member, said
that:
---
Bush's plan is "better than the status quo" but voiced disappointment
that:
"he did not agree to talk with Syria and Iran."
---
"Nothing is ever solved by not talking to somebody," he said.
---
Simpson said "he was stunned" by
Secretary of State,
Condoleezza Rice's
statement that:
--
"Iran could use talks with the United States
**********************************************
to "extort concessions."
***********************
---
"Where did that come from?" he asked.
" What the hell is gained by not thinking of some kind of system to
talk?
It makes no sense."
*********************
---
Now, since Bush has rejected it,
some Democrats have begun touting the
"Iraq Study Group plan as an alternative" despite previous misgivings,
attempting to position themselves as bipartisan.
---
"We have all endorsed the Iraq Study Group -
**********************************************
that "is our plan,"
****************
said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.),
chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
---
The White House:
"denied that it dismissed the report",
***************************************
noting that the panel said:
---
"it could support a short-term troop increase to help stabilize
Baghdad."
--
The panel "gave a lot of very valuable advice, much of which is
incorporated into the president's plan," said White House press
secretary Tony Snow.
----
Philip D. Zelikow,
******************
who as, Rice's counselor
was intimately involved in Iraq policymaking before stepping down
recently, said:
---
great thought was given to how to satisfy at least some Democrats.
---
"If you were in our shoes, what is the approach that would satisfy the
Democrats?" he asked.
---
"That's not an easy question to answer"
given the diversity of views within the party.
---
The policy review "showed a lack of discipline" unusual for the Bush
administration.
---
At first, the White House planned to announce a new plan for Iraq
before Christmas.
---
"Then, amid serious internal disagreement",
**********************************************
it postponed it until mid-January.
---
At the same time, the once-leakproof administration poured out details
of the debate, making clear that:
"generals were resisting a troop increase."
**********************************************
---
For all that, "some allies said",
---
the administration was doomed to bipartisan criticism regardless of how
it handled the review and presentation.
---
"You've got a Democratic Party that
***************************************
"doesn't believe in Bush",
"doesn't believe in the war,"
said William Kristol,
*********************
editor of the Weekly Standard.
---
"You've got a Republican Party that:
****************************************
"thinks Bush cost them the election."
---
They could have done it better,
but I'm not sure it would've made much difference."
---
Yet even Kristol, "a strong proponent"
of sending more troops,
---
"expressed aggravation at the White House"
**********************************************
"for not showing more urgency" about getting Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus
dispatched to the region as the new Middle East commander.
---
Asked why it hasn't happened, Kristol said:
**********************************************
---
"Because it's the Bush administration.
******************************************
Maybe you haven't noticed -
*******************************
they're not the most competent at
*************************************
executing the war."
********************
-------
JACKEL
Subject: 1,000 Troops Call for Iraq Withdrawal
**********************************************
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011407B.shtml
>
Breaking Ranks: Troops Call for Iraq Withdrawal
By Charles E.
*************
Anderson
********
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor
Sunday 14 January 2007
Norfolk, Virginia -
>
On Wednesday, January 10, President George W. Bush announced that he
would be sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq as early as Monday.
>
"The escalation of this war is very disappointing,"
said Mass Communications Specialist Third Class, Jonathan Hutto, 29,
a sailor stationed aboard the aircraft carrier
**********************************************
Theodore Roosevelt.
>
Ironically, as the additional troops
"begin arriving in Iraq Monday morning",
>
Hutto and other active duty troops will hold
**********************************************
"a press conference" at a church in Norfolk.
**********************************************
On Tuesday morning,
************************
the group will travel to Washington
***************************************
to present the:
***************
"Appeal for Redress of Grievances"
**************************************
from the US Congress
to US Representative, Dennis Kucinich.
********************************************
The "Appeal for Redress of Grievances",
*********************************************
which relies on whistleblower protection laws, calls for:
"the prompt withdrawal" of:
******************************
all American military forces and
***********************************
bases from Iraq" and
******************
"represents the first organized active-duty military movement "to
oppose the war"
and occupation of Iraq since Vietnam.
>
To date, over 1,000 active-duty members
**********************************************
of the US military have signed it.
************************************
While signers of the appeal "span the ranks" from private to rear
admiral, the average signatory is a corporal or sergeant and has
completed at least one tour of duty in Iraq.
**********************************************
"These [service members] are your basic typical young Americans," says
Hutto.
>
In fact, the signatories of the appeal are as varied as the backgrounds
of all men and women in the military. "Some of them have college
experience; some of them don't. Some of them came straight out of high
school. Some of them worked some common jobs," Hutto observes.
But he goes on to say,
"That's what a mass movement is.
***************************************
A mass movement is people that all come
from different walks of life, different thinking and whatnot.
But the central theme is that:
********************************
"what is taking place in Iraq is not working", and we have got to find
a different solution."
Hutto readily identifies himself:
"first as a patriotic sailor on duty",
but off duty "officially citizen sailor."
>
His personal story is really no different from that of the thousands of
men and women currently serving in the armed forces.
>
He graduated from Howard University with a bachelor's degree in
political science and began a career teaching grade school in Maryland.
But Hutto "did not find much success."
>
Unemployed and facing more than $40,000 in student loans, he sought out
a navy recruiter.
>
Though he had a substantial background in activism, Hutto did not
expect to organize within the military itself.
>
That changed shortly after he joined the navy, when one of his former
professors sent him a copy of:
David Cortwright's, "Soldiers in Revolt", a book that:
"profiles active duty resistance to the Vietnam War."
Hutto says it was after reading the book that he came to believe "there
is no contradiction ... between serving out your duty and having a
questioning attitude towards those orders [and] those directives that
are given down from your chain of command,:
especially as it pertains to war,
especially as it pertains to this current occupation,
especially as it pertains to how resources are allocated in our
society."
When asked what changed his mind about the Iraq War, Hutto replies
that:
there is an assumption that:
"service in Iraq is the "primary reason" young people join the military
today. "That is not the case," he says,
>
"That is not the overriding issue as to why men and women join the
military today.
>
The overriding issue is not raw patriotism, although I am not going to
say that the people in the military are unpatriotic, they are proud of
[their] country.
"But the overriding issue is one of economics."
**********************************************
It is one of sustainability. It's being in "a society where there "are
not enough" resources, where there is "not a right"
to education and job security.
>
For a lot of these young people in the military it is a way out."
Hutto is not alone.
>
As few as 35% of Americans support the war.
**********************************************
It is not surprising that support for the war "within the military is
declining."
***********************************
Charles E. Anderson served in Iraq with the Marine Corps' Second Tank
Battalion during the "invasion of Iraq."
During his 9-year career,
*******************************
he served in infantry, armor, and medical units.
He lives in Hampton, Virginia, where he is a World Studies student at
Thomas Nelson Community College.
>
He can be contacted through his website at
---
http://www.charleseanderson.com.
JACKEL
Subject: CHENEY-TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW ON FOX NEWS-1-14-07
GO TO THIS URL FOR THE "FULL TRANSCRIPT" AND LINKS "IN THE TEXT"
****
Subject:Transcript: Vice President Cheney on 'FOX News Sunday' -
1-14-07
***
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243632,00.html
>
----
Transcript: Vice President Cheney on 'FOX News Sunday'
Sunday , January 14, 2007
***
The following is a partial transcript of the Jan. 14, 2006, edition of
"FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":
'FOX NEWS SUNDAY' HOST CHRIS WALLACE: And good morning again from Fox
News in Washington. Joining us now, the vice president of the United
States, Dick Cheney.
Mr. Vice President, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday." VICE PRESIDENT
DICK CHENEY: It's good to be back, Chris. WALLACE: Let's start with the
president's speech this week in which he said that U.S. forces in Iraq
— and let's put it up on the screen — are "engaged in a struggle that
will determine" — his word — "determine the direction of the global War
on Terror and our safety here at home."
If you and the president really believe that, why not send even more
troops into Iraq? And why depend on the Iraqi army and government,
which have failed us again and again? Why not say, "This is a U.S. war,
and we will do whatever it takes to win"?
CHENEY: Well, in effect, we have said that. And we are putting in the
force we think is what's required to do the job. It's based on the best
military advice we can get.
It can't be just a U.S. show, in the sense that ultimately the Iraqis
are going to have to be responsible for defending Iraq, for governing
themselves. That's always been our ultimate objective, and that hasn't
changed.
But it's clear, based on recent developments, that they need help, that
we can provide that help by putting additional forces in for the
foreseeable future, and work in conjunction with the Iraqis. The Iraqis
will be there, too, right alongside us. This is not just an all-U.S.
show. It's always been a question of trying to balance what's the right
amount of American force and American leadership with the question of
handing over authority and responsibility and transitioning to the
Iraqis.
We're still very much engaged in that process. We've clearly made a
judgment here, both the Iraqis have and the United States, that we need
to do more to get a handle on the situation in Baghdad. WALLACE: But to
repeat my opening question, ultimately, will the U.S. do whatever it
takes to win?
CHENEY: I believe we will.
I think that if you look at the conflict that's involved here and
remember that Iraq is just part of the larger war — it is, in fact, a
global war that stretches from Pakistan all the way around to North
Africa. We've been engaged in Pakistan. We've been engaged in
Afghanistan. We clearly are working closely with the Saudis, with the
Gulf states, with the Egyptians.
That we have gone in and, aggressively, since 9/11, gone after state
sponsors of terror, gone after safe havens where terrorists trained and
equipped and planned and operated to strike the United States. And
we've got people now like Karzai in Afghanistan and Musharraf in
Pakistan who are great allies, who put their lives on the line every
single day that they go to work — assassination attempts on their
lives.
And for us to succeed in all of those other areas, those people have
got to have confidence in the United States, that they can count on us.
If the United States doesn't have the stomach to finish the job in
Iraq, we put at risk what we've done in all of those other locations
out there. Remember what bin Laden's strategy is. He doesn't think he
can beat us in the stand-up fight. He thinks he can force us to quit.
He believes that, after Lebanon in '83 and Somalia in '93, that the
United States doesn't have the stomach for a long war.
And Iraq is the current central battlefield in that war, and we must
win there. It's absolutely essential that we win there, and we will win
there.
WALLACE: Over the last 46 months, the president and you have repeatedly
said that you are on the path to victory, sometimes proposing exactly
the opposite policy of what the president did this week. Let's take a
look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Sending more Americans would undermine our
strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. BUSH:
Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq.
BUSH: Will we be nimble enough? You know, will we be able to deal with
the circumstances on the ground? And the answer is, yes, we will. BUSH:
Absolutely we're winning. (END VIDEO CLIPS)
WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, why should we believe that, this time,
you've got it right?
CHENEY: Well, I think if you look at what's transpired in Iraq, Chris,
we have, in fact, made enormous progress. Remember where we were four
years ago: Saddam Hussein was in power, a guy who'd started two wars,
who had produced and used weapons of mass destruction, violated 16 U.N.
Security Council resolutions, prime sponsor of terror, paying the
families of suicide bombers. Saddam has been brought to justice. He's
dead. He was executed, as we all know, here a few weeks ago. His
government is gone. There have been three national elections in Iraq.
There's a new constitution. There's a new government that's been in
place now for all of nine months. A lot of people are eager to go out
and write them off now. I think it's far too soon.
The fact is we've come a long way from where we started in Iraq. We
still have a lot to do. It's been tougher and taken longer than we
thought it would. One of the things...
WALLACE: But the fact is, some of these policies that you've proposed,
that we talked about there, haven't worked. Why should we believe this
policy will?
CHENEY: One of the things that, in fact, transpired that's changed the
circumstances over there was the successful strategies that Zarqawi
pursued. We went up, until the spring of '06, the Shia sat back and did
not respond to the attacks on them. They sat there and took it. But
after they got hit at the Golden Dome in Samarra, that precipitated the
sectarian violence that we're seeing now. We've got to get a handle on
that in order to be able to succeed. We do have to change and adjust
and adapt our tactics if we're going to succeed from a strategic
standpoint. But that's what we're doing. Now, no war ever goes smoothly
all the way. Lots of times you have to make adjustments, and that's
what we're doing here. WALLACE: Throughout this war, the president has
said that he listens to the generals on the ground and he gives them
what they want. But in November, General Abizaid, the commander of all
U.S. forces in the Middle East, spoke before the Senate committee and
said that, after meeting with every divisional commander, that sending
more troops into Iraq would prevent the Iraqis from taking on the
responsibility they should take. Let's take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GENERAL JOHN ABIZAID: General Casey, the Corps commander, General
Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, "In your professional
opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add
considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?" And they all
said no.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, why did you and the president decide to
overrule the commanders?
CHENEY: Well, I don't think we've overruled the commanders. The fact is
the plan we've got here now has been embraced by Abizaid, by General
Casey, by...
WALLACE: But how do you explain what he said right then, less than two
months ago?
CHENEY: Well, it was two months ago.
We've, in fact, looked very carefully at the situation, and we have a
plan now that has, in fact, been endorsed by the generals, including
Fox Fallon, who's the new CENTCOM commander who's about to replace
General Abizaid, and Bob Gates, who's the new secretary of defense.
Part of the debate has been, Chris, over this question of how much
emphasis you put on the priority of transitioning to Iraqi control and
how much you put on the question of using U.S. forces to deal with the
security situation. And there's a balance to be struck there. And the
old balance basically, in the past, placed the emphasis on transition
to the Iraqis. But we've made the decision and came to the conclusion
that, until we got a handle on the security situation in Baghdad, the
Iraqis weren't going to be able to make the progress they need to make
on the economic front, on the political front and so forth. And so, the
conclusion is that, with the plan that we put in place now, that we're
going to place a greater emphasis upon going after the security problem
in Baghdad, that that has to come first. Political reconciliation is
important, economic progress is important, but that we've got to get a
handle on the security situation in Baghdad. That means more Iraqi
forces; that means more U.S. forces. WALLACE: Iraqi Prime Minister
Maliki, I think it's fair to say, has disappointed us over and over
again. Let's take a look at the record. In mid-October, he demanded
that the U.S. military free an aide to Muqtada al-Sadr who was
suspected of leading a death squad. On October 31st, he made the U.S.
end a blockade of Sadr City, where we were searching for a missing U.S.
soldier. On December 30th, he ignored our calls to delay the execution
of Saddam Hussein, leading to an event the president says was right
below Abu Ghraib as an embarrassment for our country.
Question: How direct has the president been with Maliki that he can't
fail us again?
CHENEY: Well, we've been very direct with him. And I think Maliki and
his government understand very well that they, in fact, need to step up
and take responsibility; that we need to have new rules of engagement,
that there will not be any political interference, if you will, phone
calls from government officials that interfere with the legitimate
military activities of the security forces... WALLACE: Let me ask you a
specific question about that. If U.S. forces want to go into Sadr City
and take on Muqtada al-Sadr, can you pledge to the American people
we'll do that regardless of what Maliki says? CHENEY: I believe we'll
be able to do whatever we need to do in order to get a handle on the
security situation there, and Prime Minister Maliki will be directly
involved in it.
This is just as much his program as it is ours. He's the one,
ultimately, who has to perform, in terms of the capabilities of Iraqi
forces.
So I think we do have the right understanding. Time will tell. We'll
have to wait and see what happens here.
But I do believe that, based on the conversations we've had with Prime
Minister Maliki and with his senior people, direct conversations
between the president and Prime Minister Maliki, commitments that we've
made to him and that he's made to us, that, in fact, we do have an
understanding that will allow us to go forward and get the job done.
WALLACE: The question a lot of people ask is, "Or else?" In other
words, the Iraq Study Group said if Maliki didn't live up to his
promises, we would begin to cut aid, support troops. What do we do if
he doesn't live up to his promises? Is there an "or else"? And
specifically, because there's all this talk about, "Well, it's a
democracy," would the U.S. consider backing another Iraqi? CHENEY: I'm
not going to get into that, Chris. We've got a good plan. We're just
now beginning the execution of the plan. Why don't we get together in a
couple of months and see how it worked. WALLACE: Well, that's an
invitation that I'll accept. CHENEY: All right. WALLACE: But the
question is, is there anyone else? CHENEY: I'm not going to go beyond
what I've said. We're focused on making this plan work.
WALLACE: But it's not an open-ended commitment.
CHENEY: We're focused on making this plan work.
WALLACE: Does Congress have any control over how you and the president
conduct this war?
CHENEY: Well, Congress certainly has a significant role to play here.
They have clearly been instrumental and a major player, in terms of
appropriating the funds to support the force and the activities in the
global conflict as well as our operations in Iraq. We talk to the
Congress a lot. We consulted with over 120 members of Congress before
the president made his pronouncement. We agreed to set up an advisory
group, if you will, that draws on the chairman and ranking members of
the key committees of the House and Senate, as we go forward.
So Congress clearly has a role to play. It's an important... WALLACE:
But that's a consultative role. The question I'm asking... CHENEY: It
is a consultative role. WALLACE: ... though, is, if they want to stop
it, can they? CHENEY: The president is the commander in chief. He's the
one who has to make these tough decisions. He's the guy who's got to
decide how to use the force and where to deploy the force. And the
Congress, obviously, has to support the effort through the power of the
purse. So they've got a role to play, and we certainly recognize that.
But you also — you cannot run a war by committee, you know. The
Constitution is very clear that the president is, in fact, under
Article 2, the commander in chief.
WALLACE: So let me ask you a couple of specific questions. If Congress
passes a resolution opposing increasing the troops in Iraq, will that
stop you?
CHENEY: It would be a sense of the Congress' resolution, and we're
interested in it and what Congress has to say about it. But it would
not affect the president's ability to carry out his policy. WALLACE:
What do you say to members of Congress who may try to block your
efforts, your policy in Iraq? Would they be, in effect, undercutting
the troops?
CHENEY: Well, I think they would be.
But I think, more than that, Congress clearly has every right to
express their opinion and to agree or disagree with administration
policy, and they will. They haven't had any qualms at all about that.
But there's a new element here, I think, Chris, and that is to say, the
Democrats have now taken control of the House and the Senate. It's not
enough for them to be critics anymore.
We have these meetings with members of Congress, and they all agree we
can't fail; the consequences of failure would be too great. But then
they end up critical of what we're trying to do, advocating withdrawal
or so-called redeployment of force, but they have absolutely nothing to
offer in its place.
I have yet to hear a coherent policy out of the Democratic side, with
respect to an alternative to what the president's proposed in terms of
going forward. They basically, if we were to follow their guidance —
the comments, for example, that a lot of them made during the last
campaign about withdrawing U.S. forces — we simply go back and
revalidate the strategy that Osama bin Laden has been following from
day one, that if you kill enough Americans, you can force them to quit,
that we don't have the stomach for the fight. That's not an answer. If,
in fact, this is as critical as we all believe it is, then, if the
Democrats don't like what we're proposing, it seems to me they have an
obligation to put forward their proposal. And so far we haven't seen
it. WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, it's not just Democrats, though, who
oppose the plan. This week there were a number of leading Senate
Republicans who also came out against it. Let's watch. (BEGIN VIDEO
CLIP)
SEN. NORM COLEMAN, R-MINN.: I'm not prepared, at this time, to support
that.
SEN. DAVID VITTER, R-LA.: Too little, maybe too late. SEN. CHUCK HAGEL,
R-NEB.: The most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since
Vietnam.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
WALLACE: Aren't you losing a lot of support in your own caucus?
CHENEY: Well, I don't think Chuck Hagel has been with us for a long
time.
The most dangerous blunder here would be if, in fact, we took all of
that effort that's gone in to fighting the global war on terror and the
great work that we have done in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Saudi
Arabia and across the globe out there and saw it dissipated because the
United States now decides that Iraq is too tough and we're going to
pack it in and go home. And we leave high and dry those millions of
people in their part of the world that have signed on in support of the
U.S. or supported governments that are allied with the U.S. in this
global conflict.
This is an existential conflict. It is the kind of conflict that's
going to drive our policy and our government for the next 20 or 30 or
40 years.
We have to prevail, and we have to have the stomach for the fight, long
term. And for us to do what Chuck Hagel, for example, suggests or to
buy into that kind of analysis — it's not really analysis; it's just
criticism — strikes me as absolutely the wrong thing to do. These are
tough decisions, but the president's made it. It's a good decision.
It's a good policy. We think, on reflection, it's the best way for us
to move forward to achieve our objectives... WALLACE: I want to ask you
one more question about this, and then we'll talk about other issues.
Iraq was a big issue in the November election. I want you to take a
look at some numbers from the election. According to the National Exit
Poll, 67 percent said the war was either very or extremely important to
their vote, and only 17 percent supported sending in more troops. By
taking the policy you have, haven't you, Mr. Vice President, ignored
the express will of the American people in the November election?
CHENEY: Well, Chris, this president, and I don't think any president
worth his salt, can afford to make decisions of this magnitude
according to the polls. The polls change day by day... WALLACE: Well,
this was an election, sir. CHENEY: Polls change day by day, week by
week. I think the vast majority of Americans want the right outcome in
Iraq. The challenge for us is to be able to provide that. But you
cannot simply stick your finger up in the wind and say, "Gee, public
opinion's against; we'd better quit." That is part and parcel of the
underlying fundamental strategy that our adversaries believe afflicts
the United States. They are convinced that the current debate in the
Congress, that the election campaign last fall, all of that, is
evidence that they're right when they say the United States doesn't
have the stomach for the fight in this long war against terror.
They believe it. They look at past evidence of it: in Lebanon in '83
and Somalia in '93, Vietnam before that. They're convinced that the
United States will, in fact, pack it in and go home if they just kill
enough of us. They can't beat us in a stand-up fight, but they think
they can break our will.
And if we have a president who looks at the polls and sees the polls
are going south and concludes, "Oh, my goodness, we have to quit," all
it will do is validate the Al Qaeda view of the world. It's exactly the
wrong thing to do. This president does not make policy based on public
opinion polls; he should not. It's absolutely essential here that we
get it right.
WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, we have to take a quick break here, but
when we come back, we'll talk about Iran and the Democrats taking
control of Congress. Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: And we're back now with Vice President Cheney.
The president talked very tough about Iran this week. And it's not just
rhetoric. He has authorized the arrest of Iranians making trouble in
Iraq. He has moved against Iranian banks. You've sent two carrier
groups and air defense systems into the region.
What's the message that you're sending to Iran? And how tough are you
prepared to get?
CHENEY: Well, I think it's been pretty well-known that Iran is fishing
in troubled waters, if you will, inside Iraq. And the president has
responded to that, as you suggest. I think it's exactly the right thing
to do.
And Iran's a problem in a much larger sense. They have begun to conduct
themselves in ways that have created a great deal of tension throughout
the region. If you go and talk with the Gulf states or if you talk with
the Saudis or if you talk about the Israelis or the Jordanians, the
entire region is worried, partly because of the conduct of Mr.
Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, who appears to be a radical, a man
who believes in an apocalyptic vision of the future and who thinks it's
imminent.
At the same time, of course, they're pursuing the acquisition of
nuclear weapons. They are in a position where they sit astride the
Straits of Hormuz, where over 20 percent of the world's supply of oil
transits every single day, over 18 million barrels a day. They use
Hezbollahas a surrogate. And working through Syria with Hezbollah,
they're trying to topple the democratically elected government in Iran.
Working through Hamas and their support for Hamas in Gaza, they're
interfering in the peace process. So the threat that Iran represents is
growing, it's multi- dimensional, and it is, in fact, of concern to
everybody in the region. WALLACE: So what message are you sending to
Iran, and how tough are you prepared to get?
CHENEY: I think the message that the president sent clearly is that we
do not want them doing what they can to try to destabilize the
situation inside Iraq. We think it's very important that they keep
their folks at home.
They've been important, for example, in providing improvised explosive
devices to some of the forces inside Iraq. The presence of U.S.
military out there, not only in terms of what we're doing in Iraq but
also with our carrier task forces, for example, is indicated as
reassurance to our friends in the region that the United States is
committed to their security and that we're a major presence there now
and we expect to continue to be one in the future. WALLACE: So are you
increasing the pressure on Iran to stop these activities?
CHENEY: Well, the pressure, obviously — we're focused diplomatically
on the nuclear problem. We've gone through the United Nations. We've
gotten the U.N. Security Council resolution unanimously through that
body to impose sanctions on Iran.
There's no reason in the world why Iran needs to continue to pursue
nuclear weapons. But if you look down the road a few years and
speculate about the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran, astride the
world's supply of oil, able to affect adversely the global economy,
prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to
threaten their neighbors and others around the world, that's a very
serious prospect. And it's important that that not happen. WALLACE:
Well, you say it's important that not happen. In fact, it was the basis
of the Bush doctrine: You will not allow the world's most dangerous
powers to get access to the world's most dangerous weapons. Can you
pledge that, before you and the president leave office, you will take
care of the threat of Iran?
CHENEY: I think we're working right now, today, as we speak, on key
elements of that problem, specifically through the United Nations, for
example, with the nuclear program...
WALLACE: They're continuing the cascades...
CHENEY: ... through our military presence in the Gulf, with respect to
our friends and allies in that part of the world, and obviously inside
Iraq in terms of the actions we've taken or ordered be taken against
Quds Force personnel that are making trouble inside Iraq. WALLACE:
There's a report in the New York Times today that's been confirmed by
administration officials that the Pentagon and the CIA have been
obtaining financial records about hundreds of Americans suspected of
involvement in either terrorism or espionage. Why involve the CIA and
the Pentagon in domestic intelligence- gathering?
CHENEY: Well, remember what these issues are. This is a question, as I
understand it, of issuing national security letters that allow us to
collect financial information, for example, on suspected — or, on
people we have reason to suspect.
The Defense Department gets involved because we've got hundreds of
bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets.
We've got hundreds of thousands of people, innocent Americans...
WALLACE: But why not let the FBI do that, sir? CHENEY: Well, they can
do a certain amount of it, and they do. But the Department of Defense
has legitimate authority in this area. This is an authority that goes
back three or four decades. It was reaffirmed in the Patriot Act that
was renewed here about a year or so ago.
It's a perfectly legitimate activity. There's nothing wrong with it or
illegal. It doesn't violate people's civil rights. And if an
institution that receives one of these national security letters
disagrees with it, they're free to go to court to try to stop its
execution. So, you know, this is a dramatic story, but I think it's
important for people to understand here this is a legitimate security
effort that's been under way for a long time, and it does not represent
a new departure from the standpoint of our efforts to protect ourselves
against terrorist attacks.
WALLACE: Your former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, goes on trial this
coming week on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury. As I
mentioned to Mrs. Cheney when she was here a few weeks ago, I happened
to notice that you invited Mr. Libby to your Christmas party, which you
also invited me to.
Given his legal troubles, why?
CHENEY: Why what?
WALLACE: Why invite him to your party?
CHENEY: He's a friend. He's a good man. He is one of the finest
individuals I've ever known. And I did invite him to the Christmas
party. The last two years he's been at our Christmas party and before
that...
WALLACE: Is he honest?
CHENEY: I believe he's one of the more honest men I know. He's a good
man. And I obviously appreciate very much his service on my staff over
the years and have very high regard for him and his family. WALLACE:
Libby's lawyers say they're going to call you as a witness. And we've
had presidential scholars scurrying; it appears that it may be the
first time ever that a sitting vice president has testified in a
criminal trial.
Will you participate in a videotaped deposition, or will you go into
court and raise your right hand?
CHENEY: Chris, I'm not going to get into the trial. That's a matter
that's before us. I have indicated from the very beginning my
whole-hearted cooperation with the investigation and with whatever
legal proceedings emerge out of that. And this will all unfold here in
the very near future, so...
WALLACE: Do you have any problem going into open court, sir?
CHENEY: I'm going to leave it where it's at. I'm not going to comment
on
the trial itself.
WALLACE: Given the fact that it now turns out that Libby wasn't the one
who first leaked the name of Valerie Plame, what do you think of the
fact that he's the only one who's being prosecuted in this case?
CHENEY: I have strong views on the subject, but I'm not going to talk
about it.
WALLACE: Let me ask you, because your wife, when she was on — and
let's put it up on the screen — said, "It's bizarre and does not
reflect well on our judicial system."
CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about it.
WALLACE: Do you agree with your wife?
CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about it, Chris. I have strong feelings
on
the subject. I am likely to be a witness in this trial. It would be
inappropriate for me, at this point, shortly before the trial begins,
to enter into a public dialogue with you about my views on this issue.
WALLACE: But there's nothing that you have heard, nothing that you have
read that shakes your confidence in Scooter Libby's integrity? CHENEY:
That's correct. WALLACE: What's your reaction to what the congressional
Democrats, especially in the House, have done during their first 100
legislative hours?
CHENEY: Well, I think it's interesting to watch. We've got a lot of
people around town on my side of the aisle sort of wringing their
hands, you know, "My gosh, what do we do now that the Democrats are
back in control of the Congress?"
The fact is, for the nearly 40 years I've been in and around
Washington, the Democrats were always in control of Congress. We've had
a relatively new period of time here in recent years, but the fact that
the Democrats now have control of the Senate and the House isn't unique
at all. Some of my friends have to adjust to minority status, if you
will, and that's not pleasant always if you've been in the majority.
But I think the Democrats are proceeding about the way I would expect
them to proceed. They've got a few things they wanted to push, and
they're doing that early on.
But I think they've got to come to grips, as well, too, now with being
in the majority. The fact of the matter is, when you control the levers
on Capitol Hill, it's not enough for you simply to be a critic of the
administration. You've got to put forward positive proposals of your
own.
WALLACE: Well, let's talk about at least one key issue. Treasury
Secretary Paulson says that he wants to engage the Democrats on Social
Security reform without any preconditions. Does that mean that you and
the president would consider an increase in the payroll tax as part of
a grand bargain to make sure the system doesn't go bankrupt?
CHENEY: No. What it means is that Secretary Paulson is trying to get
people to the table to sit down and talk about the subject of Social
Security.
WALLACE: Does that mean, then, that you wouldn't consider an increase
in
payroll taxes?
CHENEY: The president's been very clear. I think, if you look at his
philosophy over the years, he's been very, very consistent about it. We
believe in keeping taxes as low as possible. We think that's been key
to our economic success and to the progress that we've made on the
economy, the creation of 7.2 million jobs in the last several years.
And so, we don't believe a tax increase is necessary.
WALLACE: So...
(CROSSTALK)
CHENEY: ... sit down and talk about trying to get people to the table
to
talk about Social Security, we've said, "No preconditions." And that's
exactly what it means: Come to the table, and we'll talk. WALLACE: So,
conservatives who are worried that you're going to sell them out on
payroll taxes shouldn't worry? CHENEY: I think that this president has
been very, very clear on his position on taxes, and nothing's changed.
WALLACE: A number of the new Democratic chairmen say that they're going
to conduct investigations of various things that have gone on over the
last six years in the Bush administration and are going to go on. And
you're considered something of a hard-liner when it comes to executive
authority. What's the White House position going to be when it comes to
requests for either documents or witnesses from the administration?
CHENEY: Well, we've been, I think, very responsible in that regard. And
when there is a legitimate need for those documents to be presented to
the Congress, and they have a legitimate constitutional or statutory
reason to have access to them, we try to accommodate them. Sometimes
requests have been made that clearly fall outside the boundaries,
clearly trying to get into an area, for example, that is preserved and
protected for the president — the president's ability to consult, for
example, with people in private without having to publicize or tell the
Congress who he's talking to.
We took that case on my energy task force, for example, all the way to
the Supreme Court and won on a 7-2 decision. So it depends. We'll do
everything we can to cooperate and work with the Congress. We want good
relations with the Congress.
But if they come down and seek something that we don't think is
appropriate, we'll defend our constitutional obligations and
responsibilities. We take an oath just like they do to protect,
preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. And so we
have strong feelings about it, and we've operated accordingly. WALLACE:
We've got about 30 seconds left. Do you and the president feel
embattled these days? Do you feel isolated? You see the Democrats on
Capitol Hill lining up against you. You see some of your support among
Republicans falling away.
CHENEY: I don't, and the president doesn't either. You know, I've been
here off and on a long time, Chris, going back to 1968. I've seen
embattled administrations. This isn't one of them. WALLACE: We just
went through discussions of that with Watergate, right, with President
Ford's funeral.
CHENEY: Right.
WALLACE: This is nothing compared to that.
CHENEY: Correct.
WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, we want to thank you so much for sharing
part of your Sunday with us, and please come back, sir. CHENEY: Good to
be here, Chris. Thank you.
JACKEL
NEED TO BE FORCIBLY TAKEN TO AN ASYLUM FOR THE CRIMINALLY INSANE.
***
EVERYDAY BUSH IS SENDING OUT CLEAR MESSAGES "IN OUR NAME" THAT HE
INTENDS ON KILLING EVERYONE WHO HE DEEMS INFERIOR TO HIM OR IF THEY
HAVE OIL, ETC.
***
A CASE COULD CERTAINLY BE MADE TO DO THIS, YET THE DEMOS EVEN REFUSE TO
IMPEACH HIM FOR THE WAR CRIMES & TITLE 18 FELONIES HE HAS COMMITTED.
HOW LONG TO WE, AMERICANS HAVE TO WAIT BEFORE CONGRESS ACTS, AFTER WE
ARE DEAD DUE TO THE WORLD'S NATIONS LIVING IN FEAR OF WHAT BUSH WILL DO
NEXT?
***
Subject: BUSH WANTS TO MAKE"NEW NUKES"-1-15-07
***
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011507A.shtml
>
----
Busywork for Nuclear Scientists
*************************************
The New York Times | Editorial
Monday 15 January 2007
***
The Bush administration is eager to start work on a "new nuclear
warhead" with all sorts of admirable qualities:
***
sturdy, reliable and secure from terrorists.
***
To sweeten the deal, officials say that:
***
if they can replace the current arsenal with Reliable Replacement
Warheads
(what could sound more comforting?),
***
they probably won't have to keep so many "extra warheads" to hedge
against technical failure.
***
If you're still not sold, the warhead comes with something of a
guarantee - that scientists can build the new bombs without ever
testing them.
**********************************************
Let the buyer beware. While the program has gotten very little
attention here,
***
it is a "public-relations disaster"
*********************************
in the making overseas.
***************************
Suspicions that the United States is actually trying to build up its
nuclear capabilities are undercutting Washington's arguments for
"restraining the nuclear appetites of Iran and North Korea."
***
Then there's the "tens of billions" it is likely to cost.
***
And the most important question:
*************************************
Nearly "two decades after the country stopped" building nuclear
weapons, does it really need a new one?
***
The answer, emphatically, is no.
****
This is a "make-work program" championed by "the weapons laboratories"
and
***
belatedly "by the Pentagon", which hasn't been able to get Congress to
pay for its other nuclear fantasies.
***
The Rumsfeld team's first choice was for a nuclear "bunker buster" to
go after deeply buried targets.
***
The Pentagon got concerned about "aging" warheads only after it was
clear that even the Republican-led Congress, or at least one intrepid
House subcommittee chairman, considered the bunker buster too
Strangelovian to finance.
***
One crucial argument for the new program took a major hit in November
when:
***
"the Jason"
- a prestigious panel of scientists that advises the government on
weapons -
***
reported that most of the plutonium triggers in the current arsenal can
be expected to last for 100 years.
***********
Since the oldest weapons are less than 50 years old, supporters of the
new warhead have fallen back on warnings that:
***
"other bomb components are also aging", and that the "nuclear labs need
the work" to attract and train the best scientists. But the labs are
already spending billions on studying and preserving the current
arsenal.
***
Then there's that guarantee that there will be no need for testing -
one of the few arms-control taboos President Bush hasn't broken yet.
***
While experts debate whether the labs can really build a weapon
"without testing it",
***
the more important question is:
***
whether any president would stake America's security on an untested
arsenal.
***
"America would be much safer"
if the president focused on:
***
"reducing the number of old nuclear weapons" still deployed by the
United States and the other nuclear powers.
***
The new Congress should:
***
stop this program before any more dollars are wasted, or more damage is
done to America's credibility.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features: -----------------
http://www.truthout.org
>
**
JACKEL
TALKING TO THE PRESS, BECAUSE THEY WOULD "TELL THE PRESS THE
TRUTH..THEY WANT OUT OF THIS LUNATICS SELF-MADE WAR".
******
Subject: BASE COMMANDER REFUSES TO ALLOW SOLDIERS TO TALK TO PRESS
***
Subject: At Fort Benning, a Quiet Response to a Presidential Visit -
1-12-07
***
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100389.html
>
***
At Fort Benning, a Quiet Response to a Presidential Visit
***
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 12, 2007; Page A12
****
FORT BENNING, Ga., Jan. 11 -- The pictures were just what the White
House wanted:
***
A teary-eyed President Bush presenting the Medal of Honor posthumously
to a slain war hero in the East Room, then flying here to join the chow
line with camouflage-clad soldiers as some of them prepare to return to
Iraq.
***
There are few places the president could go for an unreservedly
enthusiastic reception the day after unveiling his decision to order
21,500 more troops to Iraq.
***
A military base has usually been a reliable backdrop for the White
House, and so Bush aides chose this venerable Army installation in
western Georgia to promote his revised strategy to the nation while his
Cabinet secretaries tried to sell it on Capitol Hill.
***
In this video frame grab taken from television, President Bush
addresses the nation from the White House library in Washington,
Wednesday Jan. 10, 2007. (AP Photo/APTN) (AP)
***
To ensure that there would be no discordant notes here,
***
Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski,
***********************************
the base commander,
************************
prohibited the 300 soldiers who had lunch with
**********************************************
the president from talking with reporters.
*********************************************
If any of them harbored doubts about heading back to Iraq, many for the
third time, they were kept silent.
***
"It's going to require sacrifice, and I appreciate the sacrifices our
troops are willing to make," Bush told the troops.
***
"Some units are going to have to deploy earlier than scheduled as a
result of the decision I made. Some will remain deployed longer than
originally anticipated."
***
Among those going early will be members of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team
from the 3rd Infantry Division based here.
***
Theirs was the division that spearheaded the invasion into Iraq in
March 2003 and captured Baghdad.
***
They returned in 2005 and lost 34 troops. Now, instead of heading back
in May or June, they will return to Iraq in March.
***
Soldiers being soldiers, those who met the commander in chief Thursday
saluted smartly and applauded politely.
***
But it was hardly the boisterous, rock-star reception Bush typically
gets at military bases. During his lunchtime speech, the soldiers were
attentive but quiet.
***
Not counting the introduction of dignitaries, Bush was interrupted by
applause just three times in 30 minutes -- once when he talked about a
previous Medal of Honor winner from Fort Benning, again when he pledged
to win in Iraq and finally when he repeated his intention to expand the
Army.
***
Bush's speech essentially repeated his address to the nation the night
before, and he appeared "a little listless as he talked."
***
Aides said he was deliberately low-key to reflect the serious
situation. Whether the audience was sobered by the new mission or
responding to Bush's subdued tone was unclear,
***
because reporters were ushered out
as soon as his talk ended.
***
White House officials had promised reporters "they could talk with
soldiers."
***
But that was not good enough for Wojdakowski. "The commanding general
said he does not
**********************************************
want media talking to soldiers today,"
****************************************
spokeswoman Tracy Bailey said.
***
"He wants the focus to be on the president's
**********************************************
speech."
*********
Only hours later, after reporters complained,
**********************************************
did the base offer to make
*****************************
"selected soldiers" available,
*********************************
but the White House plane was nearing departure.
***
For Bush, it was a day of military events and images.
********
He began at the White House,
presenting the Medal of Honor to the parents of a Marine slain in Iraq.
Cpl. Jason Dunham, who died after falling on a grenade to save
colleagues two years ago, became the second service member in Iraq to
receive the nation's highest military decoration.
***
After flying here,
Bush attended a U.S. Army Airborne School training demonstration as
troops parachuted out of a helicopter.
***
He also met "privately" with the families of 25 soldiers killed in Iraq
or Afghanistan.
***
White House counselor, Dan Bartlett said:
***
Bush was impressed by the "warm reception." "The perception is he's
coming here to motivate the troops," Bartlett said, "but it has as much
of an impact on him."
*********************************************
© Copyright 1996-2007 The Washington Post
JACKEL
---
Subject: CIA AGENT OUTED-WAS A COVER-UP WORSE THAN NIXON'S ILLEGAL ACTS
****
Subject:Scooter Libby's Time-Travel Trial- 1-17-07
****
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011707J.shtml
**
Scooter Libby's Time-Travel Trial
********
By Robert Parry
Consortium News
Wednesday 17 January 2007
****
The trial of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is being
billed by the Big Media as "a case study of a favorite Washington
cliche:
- "it's not the crime but the coverup" -
***************************************
a smugly delivered line suggesting that Libby committed no real offense
beyond trimming a few facts when questioned by overzealous
investigators.
***
But the "major US news media"
************************************
is "again missing the point."
*****************************
***
The real significance of the Libby trial is that it could demonstrate
how far George W. Bush went "in 2003" to shut down legitimate criticism
of his Iraq War policies as well as questions about "his personal
honesty."
**
In that sense, the trial could be a kind of time machine for
transporting America back to that earlier era of not so long ago when
Bush and his team felt "they controlled reality itself" and "were
justified in tricking the American people into bloody adventures
overseas."
**
It was a time when President Bush "swaggered" across the political
landscape, a modern-day king fawned over by courtiers in the government
and the press - and protected by legions of followers who: "bullied
citizens who dared to dissent."
***
Libby may be going on trial for five felony counts of lying and
obstructing justice, but the essence of his criminal behavior was his
work as a "top enforcer responsible for intimidating Americans" who
wouldn't stay in line behind the infallible Bush.
***
Though many Iraq War skeptics - from the Dixie Chicks to longtime U.S.
allies in Europe, such as France -
---
"were punished for disagreeing with Bush," Libby's most notable target
was former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
**
Wilson attracted the White House's wrath in mid-2003 because he was one
of the first Washington insiders to question the official consensus
about Bush's wisdom, courage and integrity.
***
Just months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as Bush basked in
stratospheric poll numbers, Wilson went public with first-hand evidence
that Bush had "twisted" intelligence to frighten Americans about the
prospects of Iraq developing a nuclear bomb.
**
The former ambassador's heresy was countered by administration
officials who leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, covert CIA officer
Valerie Plame.
**
They also enlisted Bush's defenders in both the "right-wing and
mainstream media" to wage an unstinting attack on Wilson's credibility.
***
That "campaign of vilification continues to this day," even though
Wilson's criticism of Bush's honesty has long since been vindicated.
***
Everytime I write about Wilson, I get a flurry of e-mails repeating
administration-inspired canards about Wilson "the liar."
---
Ugly Tale
************
This ugly back story of the Libby trial dates to early 2002 when:
*****************
Vice President Dick Cheney expressed interest in dubious reports that
Iraq had sought to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger, presumably for
a revived nuclear weapons program.
---
"Senior CIA officials asked Plame",
who was working on WMD issues,
"to approach her husband" about a fact-finding trip to check out the
Niger-yellowcake claims.
---
Wilson, who had served as a U.S. diplomat in both Africa and Iraq,
accepted the unpaid assignment, traveled to Niger and reported back
that the allegations appeared to be false, a "conclusion later
confirmed" by other U.S. investigations.
---
But the White House kept looking for ways to slip the alarming
suspicions into its public statements, most notably when:
*****
"Bush inserted 16 words" about the yellowcake accusation into his
"State of the Union" address in January 2003.
*********************
Gripped by fear of mushroom clouds, many Americans supported Bush's
invasion of Iraq.
---
After toppling Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, however, the
U.S. military couldn't find Iraq's supposed stockpiles of weapons of
mass destruction, nor did they find evidence that Iraq had an active
nuclear weapons program.
---
As this reality began to sink in, Wilson told his Niger story
anonymously to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who wrote an
article about the yellowcake inquiry. Figuring out the identity of
Kristof's source, the White House prepared to retaliate.
---
In his memoir, "The Politics of Truth", Wilson cited sources as saying
that a meeting in Cheney's office led to a decision "to produce a
workup" to discredit Wilson.
---
Libby,
******
"Cheney's chief of staff,"
asked
*******
Undersecretary of State,
"Marc Grossman",
"a neoconservative ally"
in the State Department,
---
"to prepare a memo on Wilson."
---
Dated June 10, 2003,
************************
the memo referred to "Valerie Plame," a CIA officer, as Wilson's wife.
[NYT, July 16, 2005]
----
CIA Director, George Tenet
********************************
also "divulged to Cheney" that:
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and
had a hand in arranging Wilson's trip to Niger -
---
"information that Cheney then passed on" to Libby" in a
***
conversation on June 12, 2003,
*************************************
according to Libby's notes as described by lawyers in the case. [NYT,
Oct. 25, 2005]
----
The "administration shaped those two facts" - Plame's work for the CIA
and
her minor role in Wilson's Niger trip -
"into key attack points against Wilson."
---
On June 23, 2003,
****************************
"Libby briefed"
New York Times reporter, Judith Miller"
(who was considered close to the administration's neoconservative wing)
about Wilson and may then have passed on the tip that Wilson's wife
worked at the CIA.
----
"About the same time"
as the Libby-Miller meeting,
"conservative columnist Robert Novak":
received a surprise call from:
*********************************
Deputy Secretary of State,
Richard Armitage's office
******************************
"offering an interview",
*************************
Novak later recalled.
---
"During his quarter of a century in Washington, "I had had no contact
with Armitage"
before our fateful interview,"
Novak wrote in a Sept. 14, 2006, column.
---
"I tried to see him in the first 2 years of the Bush administration,
but he rebuffed me - summarily and with disdain, I thought.
---
"Then, without explanation,
in June 2003, Armitage's office said:
**************
the deputy secretary would see me."
---
Novak dated the call from Armitage's office at about: "two weeks before
Wilson went public"
with his Niger story via a New York Times Op-Ed on July 6, 2003,
*****************************
entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa."
---
In other words, Armitage's outreach to Novak and Libby's briefing of
Miller came at virtually the same time.
---
Cheney's Notes
*****************
As Cheney read Wilson's article,
a perturbed "Vice President"
scribbled down questions" he wanted pursued.
---
"Have they [CIA officials] done this sort of thing before?" Cheney
wrote. "Send an Amb[assador] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily
send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a
junket?"
---
Though Cheney did not write down Plame's name, his questions indicated
that:
"he was aware that she worked for the CIA" and was in a position
(dealing with WMD issues) to have a hand in her husband's assignment to
check out the Niger reports.
---
"Those annotations support the proposition that publication of the
Wilson Op-Ed acutely focused the attention of the Vice President and
the defendant - his chief of staff [Libby] - on Mr. Wilson, on the
assertions made in his article, and on responding to these assertions,"
special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald later wrote in a court filing.
---
That same eventful day -
July 6, 2003 - "Armitage called:
**************
"Carl W. Ford Jr.",
the assistant secretary of state
for intelligence and research,
----
at home and "asked him"
"to send a "copy of Grossman's memo"
to: "Secretary of State, Colin Powell",
*****************************************
according to a former department official interviewed by the New York
Times.
---
Since Powell was preparing to leave
"with Bush on "a state visit to Africa", Ford forwarded Grossman's memo
to the White House for delivery to Powell, the former official told the
Times. [NYT, July 16, 2005]
----
The next day, July 7, 2003,
******************************
Bush left for Africa with Powell and other senior officials. But
administration officials who stayed behind in Washington "stepped up
their efforts to counteract Wilson's Op-Ed."
---
On July 8, 2003,
******************
"Libby gave Judith Miller more details" about the Wilsons. Libby said
Wilson's wife worked at a CIA unit responsible for weapons intelligence
and non-proliferation. Miller wrote down the words "Valerie Flame," an
apparent misspelling of Mrs. Wilson's maiden name. [NYT, Oct. 16, 2005]
***
That same day, [July 8, 2003]
"Novak had his interview with Armitage." Novak later recalled that:
"Armitage divulged Plame's identity"
toward the end of an hour-long interview.
---
Armitage "told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA's
Counter-proliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's
mission,"
Novak wrote, adding that:
"Armitage seemed to want the information published."
---
Armitage "noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson's role "fit the style of
the old Evans-Novak column" - implying to me that it [the column]
continued reporting:
"Washington inside information," Novak wrote. [Washington Post, Sept.
14, 2006]
***
Feeling encouraged by Armitage to disclose the Plame connection to
Wilson's trip,
****
"Novak contacted"
Bush's chief political adviser, "Karl Rove", "who confirmed the story"
as Novak's second source.
***
"I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," Novak later told Newsday,
adding that
"Bush administration officials":
"thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
[Newsday, July 22, 2003]
****
Out of Africa
*****************
Meanwhile, "senior officials" in Bush's traveling party to Africa "were
trying to plant"
the same anti-Wilson stories.
****
To the administration's dismay,
"the Niger-yellowcake deceit"
was dogging Bush's Africa trip.
****
At every stop, questions were asked about how the infamous "16 words"
on Niger's yellowcake ended up in the State of the Union speech.
***
"Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer"
was "finally forced to concede" that:
****
the yellowcake allegation was "incorrect" and "should not have been
included in the speech."
***
On July 11, 2003,
**********************
CIA Director, Tenet "took the fall"
for the State of the Union screw-up,
apologizing for not better vetting the speech.
****
"This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required
for presidential speeches," Tenet said.
****
"The admission" was one of the first times the Bush team had retreated
on any national security issue. Administration officials were:
embarrassed, incensed and
"determined to punish Wilson."
****
Time magazine correspondent John Dickerson, who was on the Africa trip,
said:
"administration officials urged him to pursue" the "seemingly
insignificant question" of:
****
"who" had been involved in
"arranging Wilson's trip."
****
While Bush was meeting with the president of Uganda, one "senior
administration official" pulled Dickerson aside and
****
told him that "some low-level person at the CIA was responsible for the
mission" and Dickerson "should go "ask the CIA who sent Wilson."
****
Later, Dickerson discussed Wilson with a second "senior administration
official" and
"got the same advice."
****
"This official also pointed out a few times that Wilson had been sent
by a low-level CIA employee and encouraged me to follow that angle,"
Dickerson recalled.
***
"At the end of the two conversations I wrote down in my notebook: 'look
who sent.' ... What struck me was how hard both officials were working
to knock down Wilson.
****
"Discrediting your opposition is a standard tactic in Washington, but
the Bush team usually played the game differently.
****
At that stage in "the first term",
Bush aides usually blew off their critics. Or, they continued to assert
their set of facts in the hope of overcoming criticism by force of
repetition." " [See Dickerson's article, "Where's My Subpoena?" for
Slate, Feb. 7, 2006]
***
Where's My Subpoena? - Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, and me.
By John Dickerson
2-07-06
****
http://www.slate.com/id/2135565/
****
Back in Washington on:
July 11, 2003,
***************
Dickerson's Time colleague, Matthew Cooper, was "getting a similar
earful from Rove",
who tried:
****
to steer Cooper "away" from Wilson's information on the Niger deception
and
***
"toward the notion "that the Niger trip was authorized by "Wilson's
wife, who apparently works at the agency [CIA] on WMD issues,"
according to Cooper's interview notes. [See Newsweek, July 18, 2005,
issue]
****
Cooper later got the information about Wilson's wife "confirmed by
Cheney's chief of staff Libby," who was peddling the same information
to Judith Miller.
****
On July 12, 2003,
*******************
in a telephone conversation, Libby and Miller returned to the Wilson
topic. Miller's notes contain a reference to a "Victoria Wilson,"
apparently another misspelled reference to Wilson's wife, Valerie.
[NYT, Oct. 16, 2005]
****
The Novak Column
**********************
Two days later, on July 14, 2003,
*************************************
Novak - having gotten confirmation about Plame's identity from Rove -
published a column, "citing two administration sources" outing Plame as
a CIA officer and portraying Wilson's Niger trip "as a case of
nepotism."
****
Subject:Consortiumnews.com--NOVAK INTERVIEW-8-02-05 RE PLAME
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/080205.html
****
The disclosure of Plame's identity effectively "meant the end of her
CIA career" and
"put the lives of her overseas contacts in jeopardy."
****
But the "White House counterattack"
against Wilson "had only just begun."
****
On July 20, 2003,
********************
NBC's correspondent, Andrea Mitchell
told Wilson that "senior White House sources" "had called her" to
stress "the real story here is not the 16 words [from Bush's State of
the Union speech] "but Wilson and his wife."
****
The next day, [July 21, 2003]
***********************************
Wilson said: he was told by MSNBC's Chris Matthews that:
****
"I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He says and I quote,
'Wilson's wife is fair game.'"
*****************************
However, CIA officials, angered by:
************************
"the damage done to Plame's spy network," "lodged a complaint" with the
**********************************
Justice Department" about whether
***********************
the leaks "amounted to an illegal exposure" of a CIA officer.
****
But the "initial investigation"
was under the "direct control" of:
"Attorney General. John Ashcroft."
************************************
So, Bush and other White House officials "confidently denied" any
knowledge of the leak."
***
"Bush even "vowed to fire"
anyone who "leaked classified material."
****
"The President has set high standards,
"the highest of standards",
"for people in his administration,"
***********************************
White House press secretary, Scott McClellan said on Sept. 29, 2003.
*************************
Sept. 30, 2003
***************
Subject:President-PRESS INTERVIEW RE PLAME INVESTIGATION-9-30-03
--
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html
****
"If anyone" in this administration
"was involved" in it,
they would no longer be in this administration."
****
Bush personally announced he wanted
"to get to the bottom of the matter."
****
"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it
is,"
Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003.
*******************************
"I want to know the truth."
****************************
If anybody has got "any information inside" our administration"
or "outside our administration", it would be helpful if they came
forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these
allegations are true."
*****
Yet, even as Bush was professing his curiosity and calling for anyone
with information to step forward,
***
"he was withholding the fact" that:
******************************************
"he had authorized the "declassification" of some secrets about the
Niger uranium issue and "had ordered Cheney":
******
to arrange for those secrets to be given to reporters.
***
"Bush's legal danger" came into clearer focus later with "the release
of a court document" citing "testimony from Libby,"
*******
who claimed that:
"Bush approved the selective release of intelligence in July 2003":
****
to counter growing complaints that
"Bush had hyped evidence on Iraq's pursuit of uranium.
****
Libby testified that:
*********************
"he was told by Cheney" that:
**************************
"Bush had approved a plan"
********************************
in which:
"Libby would tell a specific New York Times reporter" about the "CIA's
secret analysis," "according to a court filing by special prosecutor
Fitzgerald."
****
"Defendant's [Libby's] participation in a critical conversation with:
Judith Miller on July 8 [2003]
********************************
occurred "only after the Vice President" advised defendant, [Libby]
that:
****
"the President specifically had authorized" "defendant to disclose"
certain information in the NIE,"
***
the "highly classified National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq, the
filing said.
****
In other words,
"though "Bush knew a great deal"
*************************************
about how the anti-Wilson scheme got started -
***
"since he was involved in starting it" -
***************************************
he "uttered misleading public statements"
**********************************************
"to conceal the White House role" and
*************************************
possibly to signal to others that they should follow suit in denying
knowledge.
****
Retaliation
*************
Privately, some administration officials acknowledged that:
****
the "Plame disclosure was an act of retaliation" against Wilson for
being one of the first mainstream public figures to challenge Bush on
the WMD intelligence.
***
In September 2003,
*****
a "White House official" told
the Washington Post that:
****
"at least six reporters" had been informed about Plame "before" Novak's
column. The official said the disclosure was: "purely and simply out of
revenge."
****
"Bush's cover-up" might have worked,
******************************************
except in late 2003, "Ashcroft recused himself"
**********************************************
"because of a conflict of interest", and
************************************
[Patrick] Fitzgerald -
the U.S. Attorney in Chicago -
was named as "the special prosecutor."
****
Fitzgerald pursued the investigation far more aggressively, even
demanding that journalists testify about the White House leaks.
***
Yet, from 2003 to 2005,
**************************
as the Plame case grew into
"a political embarrassment for Bush",
*****
"Republican operatives" and
"their right-wing media allies"
"stepped up efforts" to:
****
transform Wilson - a private citizen -
into a national bete noire.
****
The Republican-run:
"Senate Intelligence Committee"
"made misleading and derogatory claims"
about "Wilson's honesty" in a WMD report.
****
The "Republican National Committee"
posted an article entitled:
****
"Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies and Misstatements,"
****
which itself used glaring inaccuracies and misstatements to discredit
Wilson.
[For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Novak Recycles Gannon on
'Plame-gate.'"]
****
Rather than thank Wilson for undertaking a "difficult fact-finding trip
to Niger for no pay"
- and for reporting accurately about the dubious Iraq-Niger claims -
****
the "Bush administration"
sought to smear the former ambassador.
****
But Bush's strategy did not entirely succeed.
**********************************************
In October 2005,
*******************
Fitzgerald indicted Libby on:
five counts of perjury,
lying to investigators and
obstruction of justice.
Libby resigned from Cheney's staff.
****
In a "court filing on April 5, 2006",
*************************************
Fitzgerald added that:
***
his "investigation had uncovered"
a "concerted" effort "by the White House" to:
**********************************************
***
"discredit, punish or seek revenge against" Wilson because:
***
of "his criticism" of the administration's "handling of the Niger
evidence."
****
Still, the cost to the Wilsons was high. Sidelined by the notoriety
from the scandal and faced with the destruction of her spy network,
Plame eventually quit the CIA.
***
(It was later revealed that Plame's operation was focused on:
"obtaining intelligence about Iran's"
nuclear ambitions, another flash point that could boil over into a new
war.)
***
Even then, "the public punishment"
of Wilson wasn't over.
****
In late summer 2006,
***********************
authors: Michael Isikoff and David Corn promoted an angle in their
book,
"Hubris",
that:
*****
"identified the State Department's, Armitage "as Novak's original
source" on the CIA identity of Valerie Plame.
*****
The Isikoff-Corn disclosure was quickly cited by the mainstream
Washington press corps as vindication for the Bush administration and
yet another reason to dump on Joe Wilson.
*****
The Armitage Mistake
*************************
Since the "conventional wisdom" held that "Armitage wasn't part of":
"the administration's neocon inner circle" and was a skeptic about the
Iraq War,
the major news media jumped on the story "as evidence" that:
***************
"there never had been a White House conspiracy" to punish Wilson by
outing his wife.
*****
"It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against
the Bush White House - that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's
identity
- "is untrue,"
*****
a Washington Post editorial
declared on Sept. 1, 2006.
*****************************
While acknowledging that:
Libby and other White House officials
"were not "blameless," since they allegedly released Plame's identity
while "trying to discredit Mr. Wilson,"
****
the Post still reserved
"its harshest condemnation for Wilson",
blaming his criticism of Bush's false State of the Union claim for
Plame's exposure.
****
"It now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms.
Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson," the Post editorial said.
***
"Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -
falsely,
as it turned out - that he had debunked reports of Iraqi
uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior
administration officials.
***
"He ought to have expected" that:
*******************************
both those officials and journalists such as "Mr. Novak would ask":
why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and
that the answer would point to his wife.
***
"He diverted responsibility from himself and "his false charges" by
claiming that:
****
President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an "illegal conspiracy."
It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."
****
The Post's editorial, however, is at best: "an argumentative smear" and
"most likely a willful lie."
*******
Along with:
"other government investigators",
************************************
"Wilson did debunk the reports"
***********************************
of Iraq acquiring yellowcake in Niger and those findings did circulate
to senior levels,
****
explaining why CIA Director, Tenet
*****************************************
struck the yellowcake claims
*******************************
"from other Bush speeches."
******************************
(The Post's accusation about Wilson "falsely" claiming to have debunked
the yellowcake reports, apparently is based on:
****
Wilson's inclusion in his report of:
"speculation from one Niger official"
who "suspected that Iraq "might be interested" in buying yellowcake,
although
***
the Iraqi officials never mentioned yellowcake and "made no effort to
buy any."
****
This irrelevant point has been a centerpiece of Republican attacks on
Wilson.)
****
In "shifting the blame" for "exposing"
Plame's identity "away from the White House" and Novak and "onto
Wilson",
****
Post editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt
"also absolved himself", since
"he published Novak's column revealing Plame's identity in the first
place."
*****
Contrary to the Post's assertion that Wilson "ought to have expected"
that the White House and Novak:
****
would "zero in on Wilson's wife",
a reasonable expectation in "a normal world" "would have been just the
opposite."
****
Even amid the ugly partisanship of today's Washington, "it was
shocking" to
many longtime observers of government that:
***
"any administration official" or
even an "experienced journalist"
*****
"would disclose the name" of
"a covert CIA officer" for such a flimsy reason as trying to discredit
her husband.
****
And only in this upside-down world
"would a major newspaper"
***
be "so irresponsible" and "so dishonest" as to "lay off the blame" for
exposing a CIA officer "on her husband" because:
***
"he dared criticize lies told by the President" of the United States,
"deceptions" that:
***
have led the nation into a military debacle and to the deaths of more
than 3,000 American soldiers.
***
The day after the Post's editorial,
the New York Times took a slightly different tack "in defending the
White House."
****
The Times article suggested that:
"special prosecutor, Fitzgerald"
was the real villain for having pursued the Plame investigation for:
****
more than two years "after" Armitage had "admitted in secret grand jury
testimony"
"that he was Novak's firstl source."
[NYT, Sept. 2, 2006]
****
Armitage-Rove Connection
*******************************
But these major news outlets had
"missed another key fact."
****
They assumed that "Armitage" -
as Colin Powell's well-liked deputy -
"had no significant connection"
to the White House political machinations."
****
"That was not the reality",
according to a well-placed conservative source who spoke with me.
****
An early supporter of George W. Bush who "knew both Armitage and Rove",
the source told me that:
"Armitage and Rove were much closer"
than many Washington insiders knew.
****
Armitage and Rove developed a friendship and a close working
relationship when
"Bush was lining up Powell" to be his Secretary of State, the source
said.
***
In those negotiations,
Armitage stood in for Powell and
Rove represented Bush -
and after that,:
****
the two men "provided a back channel"
"for sensitive information" to pass
between the White House and the State Department, the source said.
****
The significance of this detail is that:
***
it undermines the current "conventional wisdom" among Washington
pundits that "Armitage acted alone" - and innocently - in July 2003
when:
*************
he disclosed Plame's covert identity to Novak, who then turned to Rove
as a secondary source confirming the information from Armitage.
****
The "revelation from the conservative source" as well as Novak's
version of how he got the story - "I didn't dig it out, it was given to
me" - suggest that:
*****
"Armitage and Rove were collaborating on the anti-Wilson operation",
not simply operating on parallel tracks without knowing what the other
was doing.
****
The mainstream media's assumption that Armitage "inadvertently" let
Plame's identity slip out almost "as gossip" also: was challenged by my
conservative source.
***
When I asked him about that scenario, he laughed and said,
****
"Armitage isn't a gossip, but he is a leaker. There's a difference."
****
Also forgotten in the mainstream news coverage was "the fact" that:
***
in 1998, Armitage was one of the 18 signatories ********* to a "seminal
letter from the neoconservative" "Project for the New American Century"
********************************************
urging President Bill Clinton to "oust Saddam" "Hussein by military
force if necessary."
*******************************************
***
"Armitage joined":
*******************
a host of neoconservative icons", such as:
************************************
Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, William Kristol, Richard Perle and Paul
Wolfowitz.
****
Many of the signers, including Donald Rumsfeld, would become:
"architects of Bush's Iraq War policy"
****************************************
five years later.
****************
Subject:Letter to President Clinton on Iraq-FROM ARMITAGE-1-26-98 VIA
PNAC
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Nevertheless, the Armitage-as-innocent-gossip version of events "was
embraced by":
leading Washington pundits as:
"the final proof" that Rove and the White House had gotten a bum rap on
the Plame affair.
****
In a Sept. 7, 2006, article,
****************************
entitled "One Leak and a Flood of Silliness," veteran Washington Post
columnist,
"David Broder" wrote that:
****
publications which had made allegations about White House wrongdoing
"owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the
lesson:
"Can the conspiracy theories[t] stick to the facts."
***
But David Broder, Fred Hiatt and the other see-no-evil pundits: "appear
to be the ones ignoring facts"
in favor of a more pleasant "conventional wisdom" about well-meaning
Bush aides who would never think about smearing some Iraq War critic.
****
As the Libby case finally gets underway, the trial will offer another
opportunity for the major news media to climb back into that time
machine and travel back to the happier era when:
****
"everyone who mattered in Washington"
"just knew" that:
***
"George W. Bush was always right" and
anyone who thought otherwise
"must be a "conspiracy theorist."
--------
****
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege:
Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at
secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his
1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
JACKEL
Subject: POLL: 2/3 OF AMERICANS OPPOSE MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ
URL FOR ORIGINAL- AT BOTTOM
-----
Poll: Two-thirds of Americans oppose more troops in Iraq--1-12-07
**
WASHINGTON (CNN) --
**
Two out of three Americans oppose President Bush's plan to send more
troops to Iraq,
a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday indicates.
**
Nearly two-thirds of those polled also say: Bush has no clear plan for
Iraq.
**********************************
While his numbers have inched up slightly on that question since the
previous poll last week, "Bush's address to the nation" Wednesday night
"seems to have made little difference."
**
Nearly half of those who saw the speech say their minds were not
changed, while the rest are evenly split over whether they'd be more or
less likely to support his policies.
***
This is the "first poll" gauging Americans' positions on "the strategy"
following Bush's address.
***
The telephone survey of 1,093 adult Americans was conducted Thursday.
The sampling error on all the questions in the poll is plus or minus 3
percentage points. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF--GO TO URL AT
BOTTOM)
***
In his Wednesday evening address,
Bush said he would send more than 20,000 additional troops to help the
embattled government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki "secure
Baghdad",
the scene of intense sectarian violence, and "other regions" roiled by
the Sunni-backed insurgency.
***
Bush also said:
***
"he would request billions more dollars" to fund reconstruction
efforts.
(Watch how the plan is supposed to work)
***
The president argued that the increase in troop strength would be the
best chance to succeed "in a war the U.S. cannot afford to lose."
********************************************
***
But Americans, the poll indicates, do not see it that way.
***
Asked their positions on sending more troops to Iraq,:
**
66% of respondents said:
they oppose the move,
**************************
while 32% said:
they favor it.
***
(Interactive: Where the troops are going)
***
50% of the respondents said:
they "strongly oppose" sending more troops,
***
while 16% "moderately oppose."
***
Only 19% "strongly favor"
****************************
sending additional troops, and
**
13% "moderately favor" the idea.
***
Watching Bush address had little, no impact on opinions
***
Asked whether they believe additional troops "will help the United
States achieve its goals",
***
48% who answered the poll said:
it will make no difference;
****************************
31% said:
it would help, and
*************
18% said:
the United States would be
"less likely" to accomplish its goals in Iraq.
************
Asked whether Bush has a clear plan for Iraq,
****
63% said:
no, while
****
35% said:
yes.
****
A week earlier,
***
72% said:
no and
***
25% said
yes.
****
But that slight rise is apparently not attributable to having watched
Bush's speech Wednesday night.
****
Among those who watched the speech --
[which was a little less than half the people surveyed] --
***
45% said:
it made no difference.
******
Meanwhile,
27% said:
they were more likely to support his policies --
**********************************************
and
27% said:
they were less likely.
************************
With Democrats controlling Congress,
******************************************
Americans show substantially "more support" for the Democratic Party on
the issue of Iraq.
***
Just more than half --
51% -- said:
*****
they have "more confidence"
in the Iraq policies of "the Democrats"
in Congress, while
***
only 34% said:
*********
they have "more confidence in Bush's"
Iraq policies.
***
The "public's increasing dissatisfaction" with the war:
***
may be "encouraging lawmakers"
from "both parties" to strengthen their opposition to the president's
war strategy.
***
Democratic lawmakers have said they are exploring ways to:
***
limit or restrict funding for the war efforts
**********************************************
to force the president to change his strategy.
**********************************************
(Watch Congress hit back on Bush's Iraq plan)
***
Leading GOP senator: Morally, militarily wrong
******
While appearing on Capitol Hill Thursday, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice faced tough questions from senators, many of whom
expressed doubts from both Democrats and Republicans that:
****
the increase in troop strength would help in the sectarian violence
that has torn Iraq apart. (Watch Rice, senators engage in heated
exchanges over Iraq)
****
Several "leading GOP senators" have also come out against Bush's "New
Way Forward" -- some in blistering terms.
***
Sen. Chuck Hagel,
********************
an increasingly outspoken critic of the administration, called it:
****
"the most dangerous foreign policy blunder
**********************************************
in this country since Vietnam"
********************************
and promised to oppose it.
***
"To ask our young men and women to
"sacrifice their lives" to be put in the middle of a civil war is
wrong,"
***
Hagel told Rice during a
"Foreign Relations Committee" hearing.
***
"It's, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong.
**********************************************
It's tactically, strategically, militarily wrong."
**********************************************
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/12/poll.iraq.plan/index.html
JACKEL
Subject: PSYCHIATRISTS DIAGNOSIS OF BUSH-"PSYCHOLOGICALLY DISABLED"
------
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml
>
-----
Bush and the Psychology
****************************
"of Incompetent Decisions"
******************************
By John P. Briggs, MD, and J.P. Briggs II, PhD
**********************************************truthou
t | Guest ContributorsThursday 18 January 2007
President George W. Bush prides himself on "making tough decisions."
***
But many are:
"sensing something seriously troubling,
"even psychologically unbalanced",
***************************************
about the president as "a decision-maker."
*********************************************
They are right.
***************
Because of a psychological dynamic swirling around: "deeply hidden
feelings of inadequacy,"
******************************************
the president:
***
"has been driven" to make increasingly "incompetent and risky
decisions."
*************************************
This dynamic makes the "psychological stakes" for him now "unimaginably
high."
**
The "words":
"success" and "failure" have seized his rhetoric like metaphors for his
psyche's survival.
***
The president's swirling dynamic lies
"hidden in plain sight" in his personal history.
**
>From the time he was a boy until his religious awakening in his early
40s,
Bush had "every reason to feel"
he was a failure."
******************
**
His continued,
"almost obsessive attempts"
through the years to:
***
"emulate his father",
****
"obtain his approval", and
***
"escape from his influence"
***
are extensively recorded.
***
His biography is peppered with remarks and "behavior that allude to
this inner struggle."
****
In an exuberant moment during his second campaign for Texas governor,
Bush told a reporter,
****
"It's hard to believe, but ...
I don't have time to worry about
"being George Bush's son."
--
"Maybe it's a result of being confident." I'm not sure how "the
psychoanalysts will analyze it", but I'm not worried about it. I'm
really not.
***
"I'm a free guy."
****
A psychoanalyst would note that:
he is revealing here that:
***
he has been worrying about
being his father's son quite a lot.
****
"Resentment" naturally contaminated Bush's efforts to "prove himself to
his father" and "receive his father's approval."
***
The contradictory mix showed up in
"his compulsion to re-fight his father's war against Iraq", but
***
this time "winning the duel" some thought "his father failed to win
with Saddam."
***
He could at once:
emulate his father,
show his contempt for him, and
redeem him.
****
But beneath this son-father struggle lies: a far more significant issue
for Bush -
"a question about his own":
*****************************
competence,
adequacy and
autonomy as a human being.
****
We have seen "this inner question surface repeatedly", and "we" have
largely conspired with him to deny it.
****
On September 11, 2001,
****************************
we saw (and suppressed) the image of him "sitting stunned for seven
minutes"
in a crowd of school children after learning that the second plane had
hit the Twin Towers, and
**
then the "lack of image of him when
he vanished" from public view for the
rest of the day.
****
Instead, "we bought the cover-up image
three days after the attack", of
***
the strong leader, grabbing the bullhorn in New York City and issuing
bellicose statements.
****
In 2004, "we saw and denied"
the "insecurity displayed" when:
***
the "president refused to face"
the 9/11 Commission "alone" and
"needed" Vice President Cheney to go with him.
***
In 2003,
"we saw and suppressed the dark side"
of the "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier landing, in which:
****
a man who "had ducked out" on
his generation's war and dribbled away his service in the Texas Air
National Guard
***
"dressed up like Top Gun" and
****************************
"pretended" that
he was a "combat pilot" like his father.
*******************************************
Asked by a reporter:
"if he would accept responsibility
for "any mistakes",
Bush answered,:
****
"I hope.. I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm
confident I have.
***
"I just haven't - you just "put me"
under the spot here, and maybe I'm not quick - as quick on my feet as I
should be
"in coming up with one."
***
What we heard, and yet didn't hear,
"was a confession of his feelings of inadequacy" and
***
"an arrogant denial" of
those feelings, all at once.
**
In early 2006,
"when his father moved behind the scenes" to "replace" Secretary of
Defense,
Donald Rumsfeld and the son responded,
****
"I'm the decider and I decide what's best" -
*********************************************
and when he "clenched his fist"
"at a question "about his father's influence", proclaiming,:
***
"I'm the Commander in Chief" -
*********************************
we glimpsed what was going on.
************************************
"To cover up and defend himself"
"against his feelings" of:
"his inadequacy and incompetence",
***************************************
Bush developed:
"a number of psychological defenses."
****
In his school years, "he played the clown."
***
(His ability to joke about his verbal slip-ups is an endearing adult
application of this defense to public life.)
****
"His heavy drinking" was:
***************************
a classic way to:
"anesthetize feelings of inadequacy."
***
Indeed, drinking typically makes
"the alcoholic grandiose", which
has led some commentators to argue that:
****
"Bush has the "dry drunk" syndrome,"
where the individual has stopped drinking but "retains the brittle
psychology of the alcoholic."
***
Other defenses now play especially powerful roles to protect the
president against
"his internal feelings of insufficiency."
***
The Christian Defense
**************************
Bush has carefully let it be known that:
***
"he believes the decisions he makes
*****************************************
"in office "are directed by God."
*********************************
***
His famous claim to make decisions by "gut" ("I'm a gut player," he
told Bob Woodward) equates with his claim of the:
***
"spiritual inspiration he receives through prayer," (his own and the
prayers of others.)
***
Whatever else it is,
"this equation of:
his "own choices" with "God's will"
has unparalleled advantages."
***
It "creates the perfect defense"
against "any doubts"
he or anyone else might have that:
***
"he can't make the right decision."
*****
The "need to engage in analysis"
*************************************
and explore alternatives to
get there "comes off the table."
***
Instead, he has: "his gut; he has "his God".
*********************************************
Being "born again" also allows the president to present himself as:
having "relegated to the "past",
****
all those "previously inadequate behaviors" of his younger days:
****
the poor academic performance,
****
the drinking,
****
the failed businesses.
****
He's a "new man",
********************
"no longer incompetent" but
"now supremely competent"
******************************
as a result of his faith.
*************************
When Woodward asked Bush:
if he had consulted his father
before invading Iraq,
he replied,:
****
"He is the wrong father"
***************************
to appeal to "in terms of strength."
There is a higher father that I appeal to.
*******
How wonderfully that appeal must seem to resolve the internal conflict
about adequacy we have described above.
****
The Bully Defense
********************
Bush's mother, Barbara
(sarcastic, mean, disciplinarian,
always with an acid-tongued retort),
****
is "probably the model" for:
"another major defense" Bush deploys to defend himself against feelings
of inadequacy.
****
A friend at the time described her as
"sort of the leader bully."
**************************
**
That "bullies are insecure people"
*************************************
"is well known" and "fairly obvious."
***
A "bully covers insecurity" with
"bluster and intimidation" so that:
**************************
"others won't find an opening
to see how weak he feels."
****
Much of the world outside the US
**************************************
"considers Bush a bully."
*************************
"You're either with us or against us"
is a bully's threat that anyone can recognize.
***
The "Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes" is a bully's doctrine.
***
For "his intimates and those closer to home",
****
Bush appears to be what is called:
"an emotional bully."
***********************
An "emotional bully gains control" using:
*********************************************
sarcasm, teasing, mocking, name calling, threatening, ignoring, lying,
or angering the other and forcing him to back down.
***
"Bush administration insider accounts"
describe "this sort of behavior from the president."
***
He's "well known for his dismissive remarks."
***
His penchant for "giving nicknames to everyone": has its dark, bully's
side. Naming people is
**********************************************
"a way to control them."
************************
**
In a report by Gail Sheehy in 2000,
recalled recently by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, we get a
glimpse of how "Bush's pervasive fear of failure" (his absolute refusal
to consider "failure as an option") and "his bully defense go
together."
*****
Sheehy interviewed friends from:
his teenage years and college years.
****
In basketball or tennis games he would:
***
insist points be played over
because he wasn't ready;
***
he "would force opponents" who had
beaten him "to continue playing"
until he beat them.
***
At Yale, "he would interrupt" his fellow students' studying for exams
(helping them fail)
***
to compete in "a popular board game",
"The Game of Global Domination,"
*************************************
at which, "he was the player" noted for: "taking the most risks",
"being the most aggressive."
******
It's likely that "speculations about" :
****
Vice President Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld and
Condoleezza Rice
***
functioning as: "Bush's puppet-masters"
are 180 (or at least 160) "degrees off."
****
Bush is the president;
he gets his way, and they know it.
****
Chances are:
"they have learned to channel his "gut" and "give him policy advice
that matches it."
****
They may even imagine,
they are steering him clear
about the ways that:
"he" has bullied them,
***
and elicited in them:
"The Stockholm Syndrome," in which:
hostages come to identify with and
even defend the very person
who is threatening them.
****
This is the "same dynamic evident" in the "behavior of battered
spouses" and
"members of gangs."
****
"Ron Suskind described the small group" around the president:
***
"A disdain for contemplation or deliberation,
****
an embrace of decisiveness -
***
a sometimes bullying impatience with
doubters and even friendly questioners."
****
"Biographical reports" tell us that:
*************************************
Bush's parents taught him:
"to keep his inner feelings to himself."
****
As psychiatrist, Justin A. Frank
**********************************
noted in: "Bush on the Couch",
**********************************
this results in:
a "self-protective indifference"
********************************
to "the pain of others."
*************************
This "is another aspect of his bully defense", "projecting his inner
pain" onto others."
*******************************************
Bush's "remarkable drive" for:
***
the "power to torture terrorist suspects" and "his reported glorying in
Texas executions" during his terms as governor:
****
"testify to:... "his lack of compassion",
***************************************
despite his recent statement of qualms about seeing Saddam Hussein drop
through the trap.
****
The Man of Splits and Oppositions
***************************************
Being in the world, for all of us, involves: the challenge to somehow
integrate the opposites of our nature and to select our way through the
many opposing choices presented us in life.
****
"The bully polarizes" the:
natural ambivalence (the internal opposition) anyone feels about
whether he is strong or weak, safe or vulnerable.
****
A person who:
"needs to feel invulnerable" and
"completely adequate all the time", or
****
who "always feels helpless and inadequate",
****
has polarized these emotions
and "leads a deformed life."
*****************************
The "degree of internal polarization"
*****************************************
in President Bush "appears to be serious" -
*********************************************
and widespread.
*****************
Commentators have made lists of
"the president's polarities":
******
(1) the "proclaimed uniter" who
"is a relentless divider",
***
(2) the habit of "saying one thing and doing another," as Vermont
Senator Jim Jeffords put it.
******
The list is long and growing.
*******************************
It should include:
**
(3) the oppositions that show up in
his "famous Bushisms", such as:
***
"There "is no doubt in my mind" that
we should allow "the world worst leaders" to:
****
hold America hostage,
to threaten our peace,
to threaten our friends and allies
with the world's worst weapons.
****
They [the terrorists] never stop thinking of ways to harm our country
and our people - and "neither do we."
*****
To a psychiatrist,
******************
these "are not" mere malapropisms and
"mistakes in speech."
****
They suggest "ambivalence"
oscillating violently between poles.
****
They suggest:
a "desperate uncertainty about everything" that the president
reflexively;
"seeks to hide" by taking:
****
absolutist, rigid positions about "victory," "success," "mission
accomplished," "stay the course," "compassion," "tax cuts," "no child
left behind," and a host of other issues.
***
The Presidential Defense
*****************************
Once Bush took the bullhorn at ground zero, he found perhaps the
ultimate defense for "his secret fears of inadequacy".
****
As he told Bob Woodward, in "Bush at War",
****
"I'm the commander - see,
I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain "why I say things".
******************
"That's the "interesting thing"
about "being the president."
***
"Maybe somebody needs to explain to me:
--
"why they say something", but
"I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
**********************************************
As commander in chief, "as a war president",
**********************************************
he could assemble his
"other psychological defenses" around him.
****
He could:
"split the world into good and evil" and "the country would follow."
****
"His internal oppositions" could be:
projected without much resistance from the populace or his adversaries.
***
He could be:
the gut-led, divinely inspired "Decider," to save the country.
****
He could:
"project own internal fears" of
being "discovered as a fraud" into
a threat "out there" waiting to happen.
****
He could:
surround himself "with loyalists"
whom he "could emotionally bully",
***
"creating a new family" that:
would "admire him" and
that "he could control."
****
Meanwhile the ambiguities of political decisions that "can always be
rationalized"
offer a safe haven, such as:
***
Until history judges me
(and that's a long way off, maybe never) "I can't be definitively seen
as incompetent."
***
But as much as the presidency is
"a perfect defense" for
"disguising incompetence",
it's also "the perfect trap."
***
It "accelerates the positive feedback loop" that was set in motion when
he:
"changed his heart" around age 40
(committing himself to God) and
presumably put his failures, and
his feelings of failure behind him.
***
In recent weeks, anyone following the news must have intuitively sensed
from watching and hearing the president that:
***
"he would reject"
*****************
the Iraq Study Group's report,
co-authored by a person "he must have felt" was "the emissary of his
father" [James Baker]
come to tell him that "he had failed again."
***
"He chose escalation",
***********************
"the one solution"
most knowledgeable people
"agree cannot succeed",
**************************
in order to:
"keep alive the fiction" that:
success still lies in the future.
*******************************
**
The dynamic is:
*******************
"becoming obvious to almost everybody.
*********************************************
But "how much is Bush aware" of this psychological dynamic and of "the
secret he's keeping?
Not aware enough. That's the problem.
*******************************************
**
Psychotherapists use the term "unconscious,"
**********************************************
but it isn't quite an accurate descriptor. We are aware of feelings,
sensations and scripts that occur when one of our unseen psychic
mechanisms is triggered.
***
So, when an interviewer asked about the generals who demanded Rumsfeld
be removed, and
---
"the president knew his father"
had been working behind the scenes
to replace Rumsfeld,
***
the question would not have triggered the conscious thought:
***
there goes dad again
trying to make me feel incompetent.
***
Instead, the president may have felt:
"a hollow sensation" or "a flush of anger", "an urge to form a clownish
grin"
to cover his watery feelings, and
****
a script that would come out of his mouth as "I'm the decider." Beneath
that would be the "inadequacy and cover-up dynamic" outlined here.
****
"A president's psychology" and
"his inner secrets" are his or her own business,
"except in "one important area."
**********************************
That is the area covered by the question,:
**********************************************
"Does the "psychology of this individual"
********************************************
"interfere with his or her ability"
***********************************
to make sound decisions in
***************************
the best interest of the nation?"
***********************************
"Recent history" has certainly been witness to "presidents with
psychodynamics" that have damaged their historical legacies.
***
Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon come to mind.
****
But, "in neither case" was the:
"very ability to make sound decisions compromised"
***
"to the extent we believe it is with this president.
*********************************************
A Failed Process
*******************
"Many accounts of the president" suggest that:
***
"his decision-making process is a failed one";
**********************************************
in an important sense, "it is no process at all."
**********************************************
Ambivalent feelings are normal at certain stages of decision-making,
and the ability to tolerate ambivalence has been shown to be the
hallmark of creative thinkers.
***
The "inability to tolerate uncertainty" because you think that "may
imply incapacity"
brings decision-making to an end.
**************************************
Thus, instead of:
"focusing on the process needed"
"to arrive at a decision,"
*****
"Bush marshals his defenses"
in order "not to feel incompetent."
***
That doesn't leave much room for
"exploring the alternatives required"
of competent decision-making.
***
"Not interested in discussion or detail"
*****************************************
(where the devil often lies),
"he seeks something minimal",
*********************************
just enough so he can:
let the decision "come" to him;
********************************
it's his "gut" (read "God")
that will provide the answer.
*****************************
But these "gut feelings" are the
very feelings associated with his
"deep sense of inadequacy" and
"his defenses against those feelings."
***
So "while he brags" that
"he makes the "tough decisions,"
**
psychologically, he's defending himself against the very feelings of
uncertainty that are the necessary concomitant to making tough
decisions.
***
His tough decision-making "is a sham."
*******************************************
In the recent maneuvering toward the
"new strategy" in Iraq, we have witnessed
****
"a great pretense of normal decision-making."
***
But the president "clearly made up his mind" almost as soon as the
"surge alternative" appeared, and
***
apparently "moved to cow others", including:
***
his new secretary of defense Robert Gates (his father's man) in the
process.
***
"Success" is the only alternative for him.
***
"Failure" and
"disintegration of Iraq"
"is unthinkable"
because:
***
it would be "synonymous" with:
his "own internal disintegration."
**********************************
**
As his decisions go awry,
he exudes a troubling, uncanny aura of certitude (though some find it
reassuring).
**
He seems to expect to feel despised and alone (and probably has always
felt that),
as "he has always secretly expected to fail.
**********************************************
"That expectation of failure" leads to:
*****************************************
sloppy, risky, incompetent decisions,
**
which in turn compel him to swerve
from his fears of incompetence.
***
At this point,
*************
the president seems to have:
entered a place in his psyche where
"he is discounting all external criticism" and
"unpopularity", and
***
"fixing stubbornly on "his illusion" of vindication,
**********************************************
because he's still "The Decider," who can "just keep deciding until he
gets to success.
**********************************************
It's hard not to feel something heroic in this position - but it's a
recipe for bad,
if not catastrophic, decisions.
********************************
Psychologically, President Bush has:
"received support for so long" because:
**
many have thought of him as "one of us."
********************************************
Most of us feel inadequate in some way,
and watching him:
"we can feel his inadequacies" and
"sense his uncertainties",
***
so we admire him for "pulling it off."
***
His model tells us:,
********************
"If you "act like" you're confident and competent, then you are."
***
"We are the culture" that:
values the power of positive thinking and seeks assertiveness training.
***
"We believe that the right attitude"
can sometimes "be more important"
than brains or hard work.
***
He's bullied us, too.
*********************
We don't dare to really confront the scale of "his incompetent
behavior", because:
***
then "we would have to face"
what it means to have such an:
***
incompetent and psychologically disabled
**********************************************
decision-maker as our president.
***********************************
It raises everyone's uncertainty.
And that is, in fact, happening now.
----------
John P. Briggs, MD, is retired from over 40 years of private practice
in psychotherapy in Westchester County, New York.
****
He was on the faculty in psychiatry at the Columbia Presbyterian
Medical Center in New York City for 23 years and
***
was a long-time member of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis.
***
He trained at the William Alanson White Institute in New York.
***
J.P. Briggs II, PhD, is a Distinguished CSU professor at Western
Connecticut State University and is the senior editor of the
intellectual journal The Connecticut Review.
***
He is author and co-author of books on creativity and chaos, including:
"Fire in the Crucible" (St. Martin's Press);
---
"Fractals, the Patterns of Chaos"
(Simon and Schuster); and
---
"Seven Life Lessons of Chaos"
(HarperCollins), among others.
---
"He is currently at work" with
---
Philadelphia psychologist. John Amoroso
on a book about the power of ambivalence in the creative process.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
Print This Story E-mail This Story
© : t r u t h o u t 2006
http://www.truthout.org
JACKEL
Subject: "BUSH ON THE COUCH"- BOOK WRITTEN BY A PSYCHIATRIST IN 2004.
***
(just part of the book)
****
http://hnn.us/articles/7106.html
>
-------
9-13-04
Bush on the Couch
By Justin Frank
***
Dr. Frank is the author of:
"Bush on the Couch:
Inside the Mind of the President (2004).
***
He is a Washington, D.C.–based psychoanalyst and professor of
psychiatry at George Washington University Medical School.
****
If one of my patients:
"frequently said one thing and did another,"
**********************************************
I would want to know why.
****
If I found that:
"he often used words that
hid their true meaning", and
***
"affected a persona that obscured the nature of his actions", I would
grow more concerned.
***
If he presented an:
"inflexible worldview"
**********************
characterized by an oversimplified distinction "between right and
wrong",
"good and evil,"
*****************
"allies and enemies,"
***
I would question "his ability to grasp reality."
**********************************************
And if "his actions"
revealed an unacknowledged,
even "sadistic indifference to human suffering", wrapped in "pious
claims of compassion",
I would worry about the safety of the people
**********************************************
whose lives he touched.
**************************
***
For the last three years, I have observed with increasing alarm the
inconsistencies and denials of such an individual. But he is not one of
my patients.
****
He is our President.
**********************
"He wants to remain our President"
for "four more years", and
he intends to do so "on his own terms."
***
On August 27, the eve of the Republican Convention, Bush said to New
York Times reporters Sanger and Bumiller that:
***
"he would resist going on the couch to
"rethink decisions."
***
Since the Swift Boat controversy hit center stage in mid-August; both
the ads and Bush's refusal to take responsibility for them ;
****
we again see his reluctance to
examine his conscience.
***
Instead he remains mired in his
"long-standing pattern of denial and blame."
***
Responsibility is something this president flees at all costs. "It is a
behavior pattern" that began long before Bush became president,
governor, or even a college student.
***
It even began before Bush had become an alcoholic (he finally stopped
drinking at age forty, with the help of his religion),
though his response to criticism
is typical of "untreated alcoholics."
***
Bush was "the first born child" to a family that had long and moneyed
traditions on both sides. ***
"When he was three and a half",
***********************************
his sister, Robin was born.
****************************
It has been said that the nursery rhyme, Humpty Dumpty, was written
with the first-born child in mind.
***
It seems to capture perfectly the irrevocable trauma felt with the
second child is born: Nothing can put the first-born back together
again. Of course, first-born offspring find different ways to manage
this insult.
***
Some can be suspicious and overly competitive;
***
others can be overtly nice while covertly furious;
***
still others always keep an eye on the second child, making sure he
doesn't get too much.
***
First-born children keep careful track of how much food mother gives to
their siblings.
***
But if the second-born dies, as Robin did,
**********************************************
"when George was seven",
*****************************
then an "entirely new and complex dynamic" is set in motion.
***
The first-born often has to disown his destructive fantasies and banish
them into his unconscious. But such fantasies threaten his mental
equilibrium and he has to do something with them.
***
One solution is "to project them outward", thereby experiencing people
around him
as destructive or a source of danger.
***
By the time Robin died Bush already had
"a mother who was emotionally elsewhere."
**********************************************
***
"Children resent it when the mother is absent," and Bush's resentment
would have grown stronger in the face of his mother's grief after
Robin's death.
***
If George's feelings were never addressed; and it is clear from
numerous family accounts that "the parents didn't have a funeral" and
**************************************
"never talked to George about the loss";
*******************************************
"his natural animosity toward his sister" would have remained
unresolved.
***
He would have been left with a host of "forbidden feelings" that were
too threatening to acknowledge, only furthering the process of having
to disavow these unwanted aspects of himself.
***
"He was deprived of the opportunity"
to learn to mourn, to heal.
****************************
In that deprivation "lays the kernel"
of what has by now become;
***
Bush's "knee-jerk reaction of denying
responsibility" for anything that goes wrong. He can't allow it "to be
his fault."
****
It is true that "blame and denial" are arguably as typical of
politicians as of alcoholics, though the latter are generally more
likely to involve family members in the process.
***
But blame is also a reminder of
"one's destructive impulse". The individual who hasn't resolved his
anxieties surrounding that impulse is particularly motivated to avoid
confronting those anxieties, which he can accomplish by:
***
"shifting responsibility to someone else", "or denying it outright."
Drinkers turn to alcohol to suppress anxiety.
***
"The untreated alcoholic", who has simply stopped drinking "treats
anxiety as an enemy", and with good reason:
***
He is often "more challenged by anxiety" because he has lost his
time-tested means of numbing its sting. He knows that: "anxiety"... is
a "threat to his abstinence."
***
He fears anything that might lead him back to the bottle, but his years
of drinking get in the way of learning other methods to manage
uncomfortable feelings.
***
Bush manages his anxiety through
"his inflexible daily routines";
the famously short meetings,
sacrosanct exercise schedule,
"daily Bible readings", and
limited office hours.
***
"All public appearances are controlled and staged," even the ones that
appear to be spontaneous. "They have to be."
***
But when routines fail, denial kicks in as the treatment of choice to
manage the potential "development of internal chaos."
***
The "habit of placing blame" and
"denying responsibility" is so prevalent in George W. Bush's personal
history that it is apparently "triggered by even the mildest threat".
****
When Jay Leno, on the eve of Bush's DUI revelation (just a week before
the 2000 election), asked him:
"if he'd ever done anything he was ashamed of, he replied,
***
"I didn't", and
proceeded to tell a humiliating story of his brother Marvin urinating
in the family steam iron.
***
Fast forward to the Swift Boat ads, taking a brief stop at:
***
"his denial that he knew Ken Lay (Kenny who?) of Enron who was:
***
"in fact "a friend" and
"major contributor to his campaigns";
***
then to his "blaming 9-11" for
"the failing economy" when
the market actually began to crash "after" he announced "his tax cut
plans";
***
then to his "inability to admit to any mistake" he made after 9-11
***
(in the April 2004 press conference he couldn't bring himself to accept
even a modicum of responsibility for either:
***
"the intelligence failures "before 9-11" or
***
"for the war in Iraq),
***
to "his denial in May of "knowing"
Iraqi information source "Chalabi",
***
despite "having invited" him
to sit just behind the First Lady
at his 2004 State of the Union Address.
***
Putting it all together, we see "a pattern" that I call the KWD; "the
Kenny Who Defense".
***
He employs it whenever and wherever he can, "whenever he feels
threatened."
***
All his disavowed destructiveness coalesces and "requires management"
whenever anybody challenges him.
****
He becomes instantly wary:
"Questions" mobilize his anxiety and
invite that exaggerated degree of rigidity he uses for self-protection.
***
It is not a matter of intelligence per se, but "a matter of paralysis
when confronted"
*******************************************
with any question "that requires thinking."
********************************************
***
When "there is nobody in particular to blame" "he stumbles anyway", as
he did at the
Unity Conference on August 6 when
***
"asked to discuss the sovereignty of the Native American tribes."
***
Mark Trahant, of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, noted that:
***
children study:
city, county, state and federal government but that Indian government
is not part of that structure.
***
In noting Bush's unique experience as
governor and president, he asked about
***
"Bush's understanding of sovereignty" and
***
"how to think about tribal conflicts"
in the twenty-first century.
***
Bush hesitated, and then said,
****
"Sovereignty means [pause]
***
that you're a sovereign;
***
that you've been given sovereignty and
can be viewed as a sovereign entity.
***
Therefore the relationship between Government and tribes is one between
sovereign entities."
***
"His relationship to his father"
makes all the more sense in light of the anxieties I have described.
***
First, his father cast a giant shadow:
***
he was a good student,
a fine athlete,
a war hero,
a successful businessman.
***
One grows up in awe of such a father and given this particular son's
need, already to disown his own feelings of destructiveness, he imbues
his father; partly by:
***
"projecting his own aggression onto the father"
***
as a man of enormous power,
"making him more of a threat."
***
And young George W. had few of his father's qualities with which to
defend himself.
****
Being a cheerleader and a big fraternity drinker are just not the same
thing.
***
This situation can make a son feel
rage, frustration, and shame.
***
One way Bush managed his feelings was through: his humor,
his sarcasm (not unlike his mother), and his need to be in charge of
any undertaking.
***
At times, being in charge meant
"mocking his father's power"
****
(being stick-ball commissioner",
while his father had been an All-American first baseman is a good
example).
***
One particular power that George Sr. did not express, however, was:
***
"the important paternal responsibility"
to "help a son separate from his mother."
***
I doubt the success of that endeavor with George Jr., as:
***
"his father was absent" for most of Bush's childhood. And when he was
present, George Sr. was absently reading or distant.
***
This "particular son", is "driven by the need" to:
***
"retaliate against his father" and
"against a world full of enemies."
***
He does so in a variety of ways, though the underlying motives are the
same. He tells Bob Woodward that:
***
he needn't consult his father
"before invading Iraq" because he:
**
"consults a stronger higher father" .
***
He regularly introduces Vice President Cheney as:
***
the "greatest vice president in history," without mentioning that:
***
"his father was VP for eight years".
***
He "dismantles international coalitions" once valued by his father;
*****************************
"He practices" what "his father called":
***
"voodoo economics" by
implementing "massive tax cuts for the rich", maintaining that:
"deficit spending will revive the economy"; and
***
at the "Republican Convention in New York",
***
he "doesn't make a place for his own father";
**********************************************
an actual ex-president "to speak."
***
Each event taken on its face value is "but an incident". When they are
linked together:
"they reveal a distinct pattern."
**********************************
"His drive to "manage anxiety" is paramount.
***
That "requires him to shift responsibility" whenever possible.
**
He can consciously deny blaming his father for:
***
having failed him in his time of greatest need as a child,
***
in helping him both:
"stand up to his mother" and
"to let go of his need", to be her cheerleader rescuing her from her
unspoken grief.
****
But unconsciously, the blame persists, "crippling his ability to
think."
********************************
***
He remains a cheerleader, "not a leader."
********************************************
The "inability to take responsibility"
makes Bush genuinely "unable to lead":
******************************************
"he can bully others" and
"seem to act decisively", but
"he retreats" from threatened confrontation.
***
(He says: "bring em on"; only when embedded "behind the Secret Service"
thousands of miles away from the battle).
***
His "need to remain in control"
makes him "unable to think things through" in order "to lead from
strength."
***
His is "a stage-managed strength",
something we saw all too clearly during the week of the Republican
Convention.
+++
JACKEL
NOTE: THE "UNBINDING RESOLUTION DOES "ONLY ONE THING"..GETS ALL OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL POLITICIANS "ON THE RECORD" OF BEING "FOR OR AGAINST THE
IRAQ WAR", WHICH WE AMERICANS, CERTAINLY WANT DONE, I.E. WE "MUST BE
ABLE" TO KNOW WHO WE WANT TO STAY "IN OFFICE" AND THOSE WE WANT
REPLACED.
---
Subject: 4 OF THE 7 CONGRESSIONAL BILLS VS IRAQ WAR
***
Subject:Senators Seek Support Against
Iraq Surge--1-21-07
**
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012207K.shtml
>
-----
Senators Seek Support Against Iraq Surge
**********************************************
By Hope Yen
The Associated Press
Sunday 21 January 2007
**
"Two leading Senate Democrats" sought to build support Sunday for a
bipartisan resolution "opposing President Bush's war strategy in Iraq",
cautioning that division over whether it goes far enough could spell
defeat.
**
"The worst thing we can do is to vote on something critical of the
current policy
and lose it,"
said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.,
*********************************
who chairs the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
****************************************
**
"The public doesn't support his policy", "a majority of Congress"
doesn't support his policy."
***
"If we lose it, the president will use the "defeat of a resolution as
support" of
his public policy," Levin said.
***
The new Democratic-led Congress heads
this week toward its first vote on the war, with
*********************************************
the "Senate Foreign Relations Committee" beginning debate Wednesday on
*************************************
"a resolution condemning Bush's proposal" to send 21,500 more troops to
Baghdad and Anbar province. A vote could come as early as that same
day.
***
(1) The "proposed nonbinding resolution",
**********************************************
"which is largely symbolic" and
*****************************
"would have "no affect on money for troops," states that:
***
"it is not in the national interest" of the United States to deepen its
military involvement in Iraq, particularly "by escalating" the
United States military force presence in Iraq."
**
It has generated some division among Democrats who want to go farther
"by cutting funding for new troops",
moderates in both parties who want
"softer language" and
Republican leaders who
"have vowed to filibuster."
***
On Sunday,
Levin and
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.,
"who sponsored the resolution"
***
along with Republicans:
***************************
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and
Olympia Snowe of Maine,
***
"called their proposal a first step" that would send a "powerful
message" that
Bush must change course.
******************************
**
"Other congressional steps", such as:
***
"limiting federal appropriations for the war", "could come later"..
"if":
***
Bush were to continue pushing forward with additional troops "in
defiance of the resolution", they said.
***
Biden, who
chairs the
"Senate Foreign Relations Committee," downplayed the notion that:
**
support could splinter over:
**
"how far lawmakers should go"
***********************************
"to restrain the president's power to wage war."
**********************************************
**
He said he expected the "half-dozen" competing proposals "to oppose the
war"
each would get an airing.
***
"I don't think there's any muddled message here," Biden said.
***
"They'll all get a chance to be voted on,
********************************************
with some discussion."
***
The proposals to limit the war vary.
**************************************
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and
****************************
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.,
************************************
say "they want to cut funding for new troops" to prevent the
deployments.
***
(2) Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.,
************************************
"has a proposal" that would "cap troops"
*******************************************
at existing levels.
***
(3) Republican, Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon
************************************
said he was wary of the term "escalating" in the resolution and was
working with
***
Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and
**********************************
Ben Nelson, D-Neb., on a:
**********************
"constructive, nonpartisan resolution" that:
***
"expresses the opposition of the Senate" to the surge."
***
Collins and Nelson, alongside
*********************
Sen. John Warner, R-Va.,
****************************
were expected to announce the details Monday.
***
(4) And the fiscally conservative,
"Blue Dog Democrats" say:
*******************************
"they would introduce legislation this week" calling for:
***
"greater accountability on how Iraq war
funds are spent."
***
Bush, meanwhile, was:
"expected to address the Iraq war"
in his "State of the Union address Tuesday"
***
and "renew his calls to work together"
with Democrats on a bipartisan way forward.
***
Earlier that day, [1-23-07]
the "Senate Armed Services Committee"
will also hear from:
***
Lt. Gen. David Petraeus,
****************************
a former division commander in Iraq,
who was tapped by Bush "to replace"
Gen. George Casey as the
"top American commander in Iraq."
**************************************
**
On Sunday, Biden said:
"despite the competing proposals",
there was "overwhelming bipartisan
***************************************
support in Congress "against the war."
*******************************************
**
He said:
"Vice President Dick Cheney"
"was absolutely wrong" in suggesting that: a resolution against the war
would "embolden our enemy."
**
"Every single person out there that is of any consequence,
***
knows the vice president doesn't know what
**********************************************
he's talking about. I can't be more blunt than
*******************
that," Biden said.
"He is yet to be right one single time on Iraq."
**********************************************
***
Hagel suggested there may be
"more Republican support" than is generally known for seeking a vote in
Congress
"toward ending the war in Iraq."
***********************************
**
"It is wrong" to put American troops in the middle of "a sectarian
civil war," he said.
***
"Are we not to register our sense of
where we are going in this country?"
**
"Let every member of the Senate"
express themselves," he said, saying:
they owe that to the American public.
******************************************
"We have anarchy in Iraq," he said.
"It's getting worse."
**
Biden and Levin spoke on "Fox News Sunday," and Hagel was on CBS' "Face
the Nation."
--------
Associated Press writer Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
>
---
JACKEL
---
Subject: WHAT GEORGE BUSH SR. DIDN'T DO WITH IRAQ
>
IT IS VERY INTERESTING THAT BUSH SENIOR REFUSED TO INVADE IRAQ BASED ON
IT'S "CULTURE" AND THAT IT WAS SITTING IN THE "MIDDLE" OF THE EAST,
SURROUNDED BY COUNTRIES WITH SIMILAR CULTURES.
-----
NOTE THE DATE OF THIS ARTICLE!
***
HERE IS AN ARTICLE THAT CLEARLY SHOWS THE "PAST HISTORY" OF THE U.K. RE
IRAQ, AS WELL AS POPPA BUSH.
-----
Subject: Rep. John Murtha:
A 1917 History
**************
Lesson
******
---
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060901/cm_huffpost/028534 >
----
TEXT COPY-9-01-06
---
Rep. John Murtha: A 1917 History Lesson
Rep. John Murtha
Fri Sep 1, 3:42 PM ET
----
I find it "hypocritical and ironic" that:
***************************************
Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush,
*********************************************
in their latest speeches to "spin the war in Iraq",
>
"both" commented that:
---
"many still "have not" learned history lessons,"
**********************************************
as they drew "inflammatory parallels"
between "Nazism" and "today's war in Iraq"
*****************************************
designed only to "provoke unreasonable fear" in the hearts of
Americans.
----
Clearly "it was the ignoring of history"
***************************************
that got President Bush and his
"ideological policymakers"
into the "quagmire that now exists in Iraq."
******************************************
----
As history dictated,
it was absolutely foolish to believe that by occupying Iraq,
---
the United States would transform the country into a beacon of
"American style democratic ideals."
---
The British failed
******************
in its occupation attempts during the early 1900s.
---
You only have to press rewind to hear the now haunting yet familiar
words of:
>
a British Commander in Baghdad in 1917 say,:
**********************************************
---
"Our armies do not come in to your cities and
**********************************************
lands as "conquerors or enemies",
**************************************
but "as liberators." *******************
---
After "a decade of fighting with the population"
**********************************************
they had "forcibly liberated,"
********************************
---
"the British were finally expelled"
************************************
from what is today Iraq "by a population who resented"
********
foreign occupation
******************
and control.
************
---
President, George Herbert Walker Bush
*********************************************
"was obviously more astute than his son" when it came to the learning
of History lessons.
---
During the first Gulf War,
***************************
he rejected the urging of many
**********************************
to march into Baghdad,
*************************
fully understanding the complexities and pitfalls of such an act.
----
President GW Bush should have spent a little more time under the
tutelage of his much more insightful father.
---
JACKEL
THE AM. MEDIA, BUT IT WAS 1-18-02, FOUR YEARS AGO, YET THE REPUBS
"REFUSED" TO INVESTIGATE THIS.
>
WILL THE DEMOCRATS? I DOUBT IT SINCE THEY ARE VOWING "NOT" TO IMPEACH
BUSH...WHY?
>
----
Subject: BUSH FAMILY & -BIN LADEN CONNECTIONS--1-18-02 "BEFORE-9-11" RE
OIL/GAS PIPELINE DEAL.
-----
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BUSH REGIME "WANTED" FULL ACCESS TO AFGHANISTAN IN
ORDER TO ALLOW U.S. OIL CORPS. TO BUILD AN OIL PIPELINE THROUGH THAT
COUNTRY.
---
IT IS ALSO WELL KNOWN "NOW"...THAT BUSH "WAS WITH THE TALIBAN" RIGHT UP
**********************************************
TO AUGUST 2001.
**********************
***
BUT THE AMERICAN MEDIA DIDN'T
THE PEOPLE THAT G.W. BUSH
***************************************
"MADE A "DECLARATION OF WAR"
****************************************
AGAINST AFGHAN & THE TALIBAN AND
******************************************
THREATENED THEM WITH BOMBING ATTACKS, "IF" THEY DIDN'T AGREE TO THIS
"DEAL". (SOURCE TO BE POSTED)
*************
THE TALIBAN/BIN LADEN REFUSED, AND
9-11 TOOK PLACE...AN ATTACK THAT "ANYONE COULD SEE WOULD TAKE PLACE" IF
SUCH A THREAT WAS MADE
ON THEM, I.E. THE ATTACKS ON THE AFRICAN EMBASSIES, ETC. WHEN SIMILIAR
THREATS WERE MADE TO
BIN LADEN.
--
THE OBVIOUS "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" BETWEEN THE BUSH FAMILY AND OIL IS
WELL KNOWN, YET NOT CONGRESS OR ANY AMERICAN MEDIA DID A THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION INTO THIS, BUT OTHER REPORTERS DID.
***
REMEMBER, THE SAUDIS THAT WERE WITH BUSH ON 9-11 AND WERE RUSHED OUT OF
THE COUNTRY?
---
Subject: AFGHANISTAN-BUSH
SR.-CARLYLE-ENRON-O'NEILL- TALIBAN-BIN LADEN
---
Subject: t r u t h o u t - Hell to Pay-Part III-
Let There be Light
*********************
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.20A.Hell.2.Pay.htm
----
TEXT COPY: 1-18-02
---
Let There Be Light
**************************
by William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | 01.18.02
---
"We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the Secret sits in the middle and knows."
- Robert Frost
---
It has been 130 days since September 11th.
**********************************************
We have heard many debates, accusations, and arguments about
***
the "genesis of the attacks."
---
Every major news agency, and every talking head with a whisper of
breath in their lungs, has weighed in.
---
We have been told how we should respond. We have been told how we
should feel.
We have been told how we can help.
----
In all that time, however, something
" essential has been missing."
----
We have yet to be told:
how such a thing was "allowed to happen" in the first place.
---
It is a curious phenomenon. Whenever anything occurs in this country,
be it a shark attack or the disappearance of a Capitol Hill intern, the
media drumbeat has always played the same tune: Why? Why? Why did this
happen?
---
This Greek chorus has "fallen silent" in the weeks since the Towers
came down. Rather than question the genesis of our woe, we have been
afforded endless observations about how we have and should react.
******
There is "no looking back."
There "are no answers."
**************************
---
Thousands of Americans died on September 11th, and thousands of Afghan
civilians have joined them in the dust in the days since.
---
Millions, nay, billions worldwide have been affected. American soldiers
stand in peril to defend our freedom, or so we are told.
---
Yet we are afforded no answers, no understanding, no succor.
---
"All we have are threads of data" flapping in the winds of battle and
response.
We deserve better.
*********************
---
The time has come to take those threads and weave them together as best
we can.
---
It cannot be denied that the attacks of September 11th represent:
*****
"the most spectacular Intelligence failure" in the history of the
nation.
---
"The planning required"
*************************
to pull off such an audacious attack likely:
***
"was years in the making",
****************************
formulated by people all across the planet.
---
Somehow, "these people" managed to:
---
"locate and exploit a security loophole" left by the mighty FBI, CIA
and NSA, and flew four deadly bombs laden with fuel and humanity right
through it.
----
There are "two possible explanations"
for this astounding lapse.
---
The first is that:,
****************
despite all the funding they are provided by our tax dollars,
***
despite all the human and technological resources at their disposal,
these agencies failed utterly to glean even a whiff of menace.
---
If this proves to be the case, every individual employed by these
agencies should be fired with prejudice. The buildings that house them
should be razed to the ground, and the rubble burned. The earth upon
which they sat should be salted, so nothing will ever grow there again.
---
If this proves to be the case, these agencies should be torn down brick
by brick and built anew for the sake of our safety.
***
"They let it happen through negligence", ergo they should cease to
exist, and:
---
a new cadre should be brought in
"who can be trusted" to defend the interests and security of this
country.
***
These axioms are being applied in Afghanistan; they should be applied
right here at home.
---
The other possibility is far more sinister,
********************************************
and smacks of all the bleak realities we have become far too familiar
and comfortable with.
---
The other possibility is that:
********************************
the September 11th attacks happened because:
---
powerful men were pursuing an agenda of
**********************************************
self-interest,
*************
in defiance of prudence and security, and their very presence in the
equation created the opening for the attack.
----
It has been widely reported that 13 of the 19 terrorists who
commandeered the aircraft on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia, and
---
that some 80% of all Al Qaeda recruits come from that oil-rich nation.
-----
It stands to reason, therefore, that:
*****
"American Intelligence agencies"
would have a vested interest in paying a great deal of attention to
Saudi Arabia.
---
Somehow, however, these terrorists managed "to elude notice" until they
appeared in the blue New York sky.
---
American security concerns overseas fall primarily within the bailiwick
of the
"Central Intelligence Agency."
---
This agency was run in the 1970s by none other than "George Herbert
Walker Bush", father of the sitting Commander in Chief and a former
President himself.
---
Bush Sr. ranks among the most venerated members of the Old Guard from
the Nixon and Reagan days, and
***
"commands the loyalty of government officials past and present."
----
Because of his long years in politics, Bush Sr. also enjoys a vast
array of business connections.
****
This is common knowledge, available in
any updated high school history textbook.
----
"Since his departure" from the political scene, however, the activities
of Bush Sr. have not been paid much attention by the national media.
***
Supporters of the former President would be pleased to know that he has
done quite well for himself.
---
He has, in the days since his defeat at the hands of William Jefferson
Clinton,
***
secured a "position on the advisory board" of an organization called
the Carlyle Group.
**********************************************
---
The Carlyle Group is:
***********************
a multi-national,
multi-billion dollar
"private investment firm",
****
managed by former members of the Reagan and Bush administrations, and
is involved in everything from soda bottling to "pharmaceuticals
manufacture."
---
It is here that Bush Sr., whose contacts with
**********************************************
Saudi Arabia have been legend since
******************************************
"the forming of the Gulf War coalition," comes into play.
---
As early as January of 2000,
********************************
Bush Sr. was courting the favor of Saudi crown
**********************************************
prince, Abdullah "in the name of Carlyle,"
********************************************
which was working with the
"telecommunications giant SBC"
to gain control of a large share of the
"Saudi phone system."
---
He has, over the years, done similar outreach work for "Carlyle's oil
interests", because:
*********************************
the petroleum/energy business "is central"
**********************************************
to the Carlyle Group's financial strength.
********************************************
----
It has long been true that:
the business of America, is business,
"to the detriment" of many other important factors.
----
Given the connections between:
************************************
"the former President" and "head of CIA",
---
"a major energy business player", and
---
"a nation that contains oil and terrorists" in equal measure,
---
"questions about conflict of interest"
**************************************
must be raised.
******************
---
"The American petroleum industry"
"relies upon the stability of Saudi Arabia" to "keep their oil flowing"
in the proper fashion.
----
Because "the business of America is business,"
**********************************************
it is not too far a leap to conclude that:
---
the "business of the:
"American Intelligence community;
**************************************
"is also business, deliberately so".
*************************************
***
Public questions "about" and "investigations into":
---
Saudi Arabia's "hosting of terrorists",
like Osama bin Laden, "whose family"
calls that nation home",
***
would certainly make it difficult for the American petroleum industry
to work comfortably with the "Saudi regime."
----
Add to this "the fact" that:
***
the CIA, whose job it would be:
*********
"to investigate terrorist connections in Saudi Arabia",
-----
claims as "its former head, Bush Sr.,"
who "has a vested financial interest" in healthy and unobstructed
U.S.-Saudi relations.
**********************************************
----
The result of this line of inquiry is chilling.
**********************************************
"Could the CIA have been dissuaded"
from fully investigating the
"roots of terrorism in Saudi Arabia"
because such investigations would have "conflicted with the interests
of entities like the Carlyle Group?"
---
If this "was not the case",
****
the explanation must be chalked up to
"simple incompetence."
---
Considering the complexity of what transpired on September 11th, the
"simple answer "is not reliable."
----
The sins of the father may well have been visited upon the son.
---
George W. Bush's affinity for the energy industry is well-known, and
****
"his personal financial involvement" in
"a number of oil businesses"
"before his political career"
is part of the record.
---
"His administration is riddled with dozens" of high-ranking appointees
who:
----
"held a large amount of stock"
in the now-defunct Enron corporation.
***
Many of these people are also
"former Enron employees."
***
Enron, a giant in the "energy" industry, contributed millions to Bush's
political aspirations.
----
The "company was heavily involved"
with Vice President Cheney, himself an
*******************************
"energy industry veteran" from the
"Halliburton Petroleum Corporation",
in the "creation of a national energy policy"
*********************************************
behind closed, locked doors.
********************************
----
Enron's dazzling financial implosion
"on December 2nd, 2001",
*****************************
"has led to a number of":
"pressing investigations" into
the circumstances behind the collapse.
----
More than a few questions about the financial and political connections
between Enron's chairman, Kenneth Lay, and
George W. Bush have been raised.
----
The intense scrutiny has shaken loose
"two emails sent by Lay"
to his employees in August of last year.
****
In them, Lay waxes "optimistic" about
the strength and stability of his company, and exhorts his employees to
"buy into the company's stock program."
----
Most observers view this as:
"the gasping lies of a drowning criminal," desperate to keep his
operation from flying apart under the burden of his and his associates'
shoddy business practices.
---
When held up against recently revealed
information, however,
***
Mr. Lay's messages must be considered in "a different light."
----
A book recently published in France titled
***
'Osama bin Laden: The Hidden Truth'
*****************************************
by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasique has put some serious
questions on the table for consideration.
----
In 1998, American oil company, Unocal's
*********************************************
"attempt to build a pipeline" from Turkmenistan "through Afghanistan"
to Pakistan,
***************************************
in order to exploit the vast Turkmenistan natural gas fields,
was foiled by:
***************
Osama bin Laden's attack on
*********************************
American embassies in Africa.
*********************************
****
The Clinton administration
*****************************
"forbade any company"
*************************
from dealing with the Taliban,
********************************
"protectors of bin Laden,"
***************************
who "were in control of Afghanistan" at the time.
**********************************************
-----
Upon his arrival in Washington D.C. in 2000,
**********************************************
"Bush revived negotiations with the Taliban"
**********************************************
"to see this pipeline through."
*******************************
---
High-level talks between:
***************************
Washington and Kabul
*************************
continued through "August of 2001"
****************************************
to this very purpose.
---
The Bush administration "was trying to":
*******************************************
"get the Taliban on board" with
**********************************
the pipeline idea," and
*******************
-----
"believed they could depend" upon the regime to be stable enough "to
see it built."
----
The rationale for these actions is
*************************************
"simplicity itself":
---
"Bush's (political) campaign" was funded by"
**********************************************
the energy industry, and
**********************
"negotiations like this"... were their payoff."
********************************************
---
The "business of America"... "is business."
**********************************************
---
Problems arise when one considers the fact that:
-----
the "chief bin Laden hunter" in America,
********************************************
former (FBI) Deputy Director,
********************************
John O'Neill,
*****************
"quit his post in protest" some
*************************
"two weeks before"
*********************
the September 11th attacks.
---
"O'Neill had been "the lead investigator" in "several previous bin
Laden-controlled attacks", and
----
was "considered to be the most knowledgeable" man in America" about:
----
the terrorist mastermind's activities and capabilities.
----
He quit in frustration, stating that:
************************************
"his efforts at capturing bin Laden" had
********************************************
"been "thwarted by oil interests" in America,"
**********************************************
and "by a desire by powerful people"
****************************************
to protect America's relationship with Saudi
**********************************************
Arabia.
********
---
After leaving the FBI, O'Neill took a job at head of security at the
World Trade Center, and died in the September 11th attack.
***
The irony of this is agonizing.
----
O'Neill knew that:
***
"bin Laden called "Afghanistan home".
*****************************************
Was he kept from pursuing the terrorist there "by an administration"
that:
---
"wanted to protect its relationship with the Taliban" in order to see
the pipeline through?
----
Did his "departure create a security gap" in America that allowed the
attacks to take place?
---
Conversely, did America's dalliance
****************************************
"with the Taliban "incite bin Laden to attack?"
**********************************************
---
"It is well documented" that:
******************************
"his terrorist career began" with:
***********************************
"the arrival of American troops onto Saudi soil",
**********************************************
a land "he considered sacred."
---
Was he motivated to attack again when
*******************************************
"his new home" [Afghan] seemed ready to
************************************
allow the Crusaders in?
**************************
---
Finally, does this "pipeline deal"
shine a light onto:
****
the emailed optimism of Kenneth Lay?
---
There is no question that:
"Enron was Bush's favorite company."
***************************************
---
If the pipeline was to happen, it is easy to imagine that Enron would
get the contract.
----
Lay would have known this.
"His last email was sent on August 27th",
**********************************************
about the "same time" as
*****************************
the last U.S./Taliban meeting.
**********************************
--
If a deal was near at hand, and if he knew that his company was about
to get a plum government contract, he had every reason to be optimistic
about the future.
---
Is this "why Arthur Andersen" was:
**************************************
ordered to shred documents?
*******************************
---
Did those documents detail the preparations for the pipeline, thus
demonstrating beyond doubt that: "Bush was dealing with the Taliban?"
---
Were the consequences of releasing these documents more damaging than
the consequences of destroying them because of this?
---
It will be a long hot season before we know the half of it.
----
One thing, however, is certain.
"Not long from today",
we will stand in observance.
***
Before we know it,
********************
one year will have passed since the
attacks of September 11th, 2001. We will light candles, unfurl
wind-tattered flags, sing patriotic songs, and remember the dead.
----
In that year we will have mourned for those lost, and mourned the
passing of:
"an age of innocence in America."
---
The oceans that separate us, the armies that guard us, the weapons that
make others fear us, "protected us, not at all" on September 11th. ----
The security we felt before that day is gone forever.
----
We deserve to know why.
*****************************
---
Print This Story E-mail This Story
© : t r u t h o u t 2001
http://www.truthout.org
JACKEL
Subject: BUSH-TALIBAN-OIL-& 9-11
---
NOTE THE DATE OF THIS ARTICLE:1-17-02 ---
NOTE: THE TITLE-"HELL TO PAY"!
---
AFTER 9-11, BUSH BOMBED AFGHANISTAN UNDER THE GUISE "THAT THE TALIBAN
REFUSED TO TURN OVER BIN LADEN, BUT BUSH DIDN'T GET HIM, BUT THE OIL
PIPELINE WAS BUILT, WITH U.S.
SOLDIERS GUARDING IT. YET THE MEDIA
REFUSED TO TELL THE AMERICANS; EVEN NOW!
------
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.18A.Hell.2.Pay.htm
>
----
TEXT COPY: 1-17-02
------------
Hell to Pay
**************
by William Rivers Pitt
----
"Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a
fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
- Samuel Johnson
-----
Some time "just before January 7th, 2002", an asteroid capable of
pulverizing a good-sized nation flashed through the void, passing
perilously close to Earth. Had it struck our planet, the impact would
have had global consequences. The energy of the strike would have been
equivalent to the explosion of a number of large atomic weapons. From
the media perspective, it would have been the biggest story since the
extinction of the dinosaurs.
---
At some point in the next six months, a small, darkened corner of
George
W. Bush's consciousness will wish the thing had hit us.
----
The apocalypse he and his fundamentalist buddies have been waiting for
would have been at hand, and a number of potentially "calamitous
questions" about to be put to his administration would have been
avoided.
----
Sadly for him, the planet spins on. Beneath the unpierced stratosphere,
the electronic beams of news agencies like CNN and the Associated Press
have begun to spread like a widow's web from city to city and house to
house. Carried on this invisible wind are rumors of:
----
doom,
negligence
and greed.
---
Each and every one of these rumors lead
**********************************************
inexorably back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
**********************************************
which will soon be issuing significant numbers of visitor passes to
lawyers if the pattern holds much longer.
---
Whichever part of the nation that never heard of the "energy giant
Enron Corporation" has recently been introduced to the company in
odious context.
---
The story thus far is nothing less than
astounding:
----
Enron, a company valued in the billions on Wall Street, suddenly filed
for the largest
bankruptcy claim in the history of the known universe.
---
4,000 employees were abruptly shown the door "after having been barred"
from dumping the company stock, meant to fund their retirement, while
it was worth something.
---
Meanwhile, "Enron executives in the know" "were able to dump the
stock", back when it was the gold standard on the Street, for a cool $1
billion.
---
Apparently, Enron was ailing for quite a long time. The aforementioned
executives were able to maintain the mirage of financial viability by
stuffing the debt into what are called
'off-balance-sheet partnerships.'
---
In essence, each of the executives built personal banking bunkers and
hid what has been revealed to be:
"staggering Enron debts within them,"
keeping the fact that the company was
hemorrhaging money off the publicly displayed balance sheets.
-----
This maintained the company's credit
rating, and allowed it to continue doing business.
---
This went on for "four years", which means several things. It means:
----
most of the Enron executives were aware of and/or actively
participating in this highly "criminal and irresponsible activity."
---
It means the stockholders, including 4,000 loyal Enron employees, were
"lied to."
----
It probably means that the executives knew the stock value was doomed
when they bailed out and cashed in several months ago.
---
It means "they let their employees lose" the retirement funds they
believed were growing within their Enron stock portfolios.
---
It means a lot of people got screwed by a pack of sharp operators who
didn't give a damn about anyone but themselves.
---
All this could simply be chalked up as yet another story of corporate
greed run amok, until the umbilical:
----
"political and financial connections"
******************************************
between Bush and Enron are illuminated.
**********************************************
---
Enron's capo, Kenneth Lay,
******************************
was perhaps "the best financial friend"
George W. Bush has ever known.
----
Lay and a number of Enron employees essentially: "bankrolled" Bush's
2000 Presidential campaign, and going so far as to lend Bush an Enron
corporate jet for trips between whistle stops.
-----
"Before Bush" got White House stars in his eyes, "he worked very
closely with Enron"
on "energy policy in Texas."
----
This close connection led to:
----
the Bush administration's hiring of a
number of influential individuals within Enron's orbit for important
government positions:
---
- Thomas E. White,
***********************
Bush's Secretary of the Army,
was once Vice-Chairman of Enron Energy Service, and held millions in
Enron stock;
---
- Presidential Advisor, Karl Rove
*************************************
owned as much as $250,000 in Enron
stock;
---
- Economic adviser, Larry Lindsay
****************************************
leapt straight from Enron to his
current White House job;
---
- Federal Trade Representative,
Robert B. Zoellick
**********************
did the same;
---
- SEC Chairman, Harvey Pitts
**********************************
was hand-picked by Kenneth Lay for the
position, due to his notorious aversion to governmental regulation of
any kind.
---
There are some 31 Bush administration officials
**********************************************
who had a line item for Enron in their stock portfolio, including
Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.
******************************************
---
It is fair to say that the woebegone corporation held, and continues to
hold, enormous influence over the day-to-day machinations "of Federal
government policy."
***********************************
----
One wonders if Bush's recent
"gutting of the Clean Air Act",
a decision designed to improve the fortunes of companies like Enron,
was the
brainchild of people with deep connections to the energy industry.
---
The "trail of influence left by Enron" leads also to the scabrous heart
ventricles of "Vice President Dick Cheney",
*********************************
"who admitted recently to "6 separate meetings" with Enron executives
while formulating the "Bush administration's energy policy."
---
Cheney,
*********
a former executive of
the Halliburton Petroleum interest, was
"in charge of creating this policy."
----
For reasons soon to be exposed by subpoena, "Cheney refused" to detail
the specifics of the creation of this policy, which included the
multiple Enron meetings.
---
The General Accounting Office was preparing to sue Cheney to reveal
this information when the September 11th attacks took place.
---
Those subpoenas may be dusted off and mailed within a month.
---
In the meantime, the Justice Department is "preparing a serious
criminal investigation into the collapse of Enron."
---
The Democratically-controlled Senate is planning hearings on the matter
as well.
---
Columnist Robert Scheer has referred to the Bush administration's
involvement in the Enron debacle as "Whitewater in spades."
----
One wonders if "Watergate" would be a more appropriate comparison.
---
"Bush's own dealings "within the energy industry carry a disturbingly
familiar echo to the Enron situation:
---
once upon a time, he was a high-ranking officer of a petroleum interest
called "Harken Oil."
**********************************************
---
On June 22, 1990, Bush sold his Harken stock and made $848,560, earning
him a 200% profit. ************************************
---
One week later,
*****************
Harken announced a $23.2 million loss
**********************************************
in quarterly earnings and its stock dropped sharply, losing 60 percent
of its value over the next six months.
---
Bush made a bundle while the other investors lost millions.
---
"Harken was Enron in miniature", and
************************************
might have served "as a warning" to the American people "if the press"
had chosen
to pay any attention to it "during the 2000 Presidential campaign."
---
There is a school of thought, espoused primarily by Republicans, that
any investigation into potentially dishonorable or illegal actions by
the Bush administration:
"is tantamount to treason."
****************************
---
"We are at war", undeclared though it may be, and "Bush must be free to
prosecute this war" vigorously, so as "to defend our freedom" and bring
the murderers of American civilians
"to justice."
---
If reports recently aired on CNN have any credence, however, Bush and
his people may well have to answer for actions that make the Enron
catastrophe look like a jaywalking offense, actions that led directly
to the incredible carnage in New York and Washington, D.C.
---
In 1998, during the Clinton administration, the
**********************************************
U.S.-based energy concern "Unocal" canceled plans to exploit massive
natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan.
----
They had planned to run a pipeline from
Turkmenistan to Pakistan, where the natural gas could have been
processed for Asian and Western energy markets.
---
"The idea was scuttled" after Clinton ordered
**********************************************
the "cruise missile bombing of Afghanistan"
**********************************************
in response to a terrorist attack upon
******************************************
U.S. embassies in Africa which were
*****************************************
planned and executed by Osama bin Laden.
**********************************************
---
The pipeline would have "had to pass through Afghanistan", and "Unocal"
was given the message in Technicolor "by Clinton's people" that:
----
"Taliban-controlled Afghanistan" was
"not" to be given any sort of financial boon.
----
Apparently, the Bush administration found no moral dilemma in dealing
with the Taliban to get to the gas.
---
Immediately upon "their arrival in Washington", [2001] a vigorous
courtship of the Taliban was
********************************************
undertaken by Bush's people.
********************************
---
In fact, if former U.N. weapons inspector
*********************************************
Richard Butler is to be believed,
***********************************
the "Bush administration had a vested interest"
**********************************************
in strengthening and stabilizing the Taliban
**********************************************
regime, because a "stable regime" would
********************************************
"compel investors" to revive the Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline
deal.
---
The "Taliban", demon of the moment, was
**********************************************
the Bush administration's idea of a 'stable'
**********************************************
government.
***************
Stable enough, anyway,
to see "the pipeline through."
*******************************
---
"The connections between:
*******************************
"Bush and the Taliban"
*************************
became so close that "the Taliban went so far as to hire" "an expert on
U.S. public relations"
named Laila Helms, so as to smooth the way
**********************
between the two regimes.
---
"Meetings between the two nations" continued at a high level,
----
"the last of which occurred in August (2001),"
**********************************************
scant "weeks before" the
****************************
September 11th attacks.
**************************
---
All of these actions were taken to
"exploit the vast energy reserves"
************************************
in Turkmenistan for the benefit of:
*************************************
American energy corporations.
**********************************
---
The cozy relationship
between Bush and the Taliban
**********************************************
"frustrated the investigative efforts"
**************************************
of:
---
"former Deputy Director of the FBI John O'Neill.
**********************************************
O'Neill was the FBI's chief bin Laden hunter,
**********************************************
"in charge of the investigations" into
****************************************
the bin Laden-connected bombings of the
**********************************************
(1) World Trade Center in 1993,
---
(2) the destruction of an American troop barracks in Saudi Arabia in
1996,
---
(3) the African embassy bombings in 1998, and ---
(4) the attack upon the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.
---
O'Neill quit the FBI in protest two weeks before
**********************************************
the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. [9-11]
---
He did so "because" his investigation was
*********************************************
hindered by the Bush administration's
*****************************************
"connections to the Taliban", and
***********************************
by "the interests of American petroleum
********************************************
companies.
**************
---
O'Neill was quoted as stating,
*********************************
"The main obstacles to "investigating"
*****************************************
Islamic terrorism" were:
**************************
---
"U.S. oil corporate interests", and
*******************************
the role played by Saudi Arabia in it."
*****************************************
----
After leaving the FBI, O'Neill took a position as "head of security for
the World Trade Center." He died on September 11th, 2001,
***************************************
trying to save people trapped by the attack, when the towers came down
on top of him.
The irony in this, simply, is horrifying.
----
In essence, "the Federal agent" who
"knew more about bin Laden" than any living American:
----
"was kept from investigating terrorist threats against this country".
---
He was hindered because:
----
the Bush administration was "desperate" to
**********************************************
cultivate "the favor of the Taliban", who held
**********************************************
terrorist mastermind, Osama bin Laden
********************************************
in great esteem, so as to:
"gain access" to lucrative natural gas
deposits in Turkmenistan.
---
If these allegations prove true, Bush and his friends:
---
allowed this affinity to hamstring investigations that could have:
----
"thwarted bin Laden's September plans."
---
If these allegations prove true, everything since
**********************************************September11th
has been a "massive cover-up"
**********************************************
operation in which American soldiers and
**********************************************
thousands of Afghan civilians have died.
*********************************************
---
If these allegations prove true,
"the Bush administration has:
the blood of thousands of American civilians
**********************************************
on its hands.
**************
---
If these allegations carry even the faintest whiff of credibility:,
----
George W. Bush and members of his administration:
----
"stand in taint of high treason and murder."
**********************************************
---
On November 7th, 2000,
***************************
a clear majority of Americans came to the conclusion that:
---
George W. Bush was unfit to govern this nation.
**********************************************
For a variety of dark and controversial reasons, that conclusion was
thrown over. Sometime soon, if the media's electronic web continues to
carry these sordid stories of corruption, greed and death,
----
the American people will come to fully understand the consequences of
that failed
election.
----
It is one thing to:
"coddle and court a corrupt energy company"
**********************************************
for political and financial gain.
********************************
---
It is quite another to coddle and court:
******************************************
(1) a murderous terrorist-supporting regime,
**********************************************
---
(2) hindering anti-terrorism investigations
*********************************************
in the process,
*****************
----
(3) for the purpose of exploiting valuable natural
**********************************************
resources.
***********
---
The former cost a number of people their retirement funds.
---
The latter has cost thousands of people their lives.
---
One is criminal.
*****************
The other is abominable.
---
George W. Bush is deeply implicated in both.
**********************************************
There will be hell to pay.
***************************
http://www.willpitt.com/WillPitt.htm
JACKEL
IN WAR?
---
NOTE: THIS HAPPENED ON THE DAY BUSH MADE HIS "STATE OF THE UNION"
SPEECH
STATING HE WANTS 92,000 MORE TROOPS.
------
Subject:Four Americans in Iraq Crash Shot in Head--1-24-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012407B.shtml
>
----
Four Americans in Iraq Crash Shot in Head
**********************************************
By Qassim Abdul-Zahra
The Associated Press
Wednesday 24 January 2007
---
Four of the five Americans killed when a "U.S. security company's
helicopter" crashed in a dangerous Sunni neighborhood in central
Baghdad were shot execution style in the back of the head, Iraqi and
U.S. officials said Wednesday.
---
A "senior Iraqi military official" said:
----
a machine gunner downed the helicopter,
**********************************************
but "a U.S. military official"
*****************************
in Washington said:
---
there were "no indications" that
************************************
the aircraft, owned by Blackwater USA,
had been shot out of the sky.
********************************
---
In Washington, a U.S. defense official said four of the five killed
were shot in the back of the head but did not know whether they were
still alive when they were shot. The U.S. official spoke on condition
of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
----
The Iraqi official, who also declined to be identified because details
had not been made public, said the four were shot in the back of the
head while they were on the ground.
----
It also "was not clear" whether gunfire actually brought the small
helicopter down or caused the craft to drop toward the ground, where it
became entangled in electrical wires, the U.S. official said.
----
The helicopter was virtually destroyed and "after investigating the
site,":
U.S. forces had been planning to blow up it up
**********************************************
to keep people from scavenging the parts, the official said.
----
Blackwater USA confirmed that five Americans employed by the North
Carolina-based company as security professionals were killed, but
provided no identities or any details.
---
On Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad offered condolences for
the five Americans killed.
----
"We had a very bad day yesterday," Khalilzad told reporters during a
round-table discussion at the embassy in the heavily fortified Green
Zone in Baghdad. "We lost five fine men."
----
He said he had traveled with the men who were killed and had gone to
the morgue to view the bodies.
----
Khalilzad did not give more details, saying "the crash was still under
investigation" and it was difficult to know exactly what happened
because of "the fog of war."
*****************************
----
"Another American official" in Baghdad, who spoke on condition of
anonymity, said three Blackwater helicopters were involved.
----
"One had landed for an unknown reason"
----
and "one" of the Blackwater employees
"was shot at that point", he said.
***************************
---
That helicopter apparently "was able to take off" ---- but "a second
one then crashed" in the same area, he added:
----
"without explaining the involvement
of the third helicopter."
----
The New York Times, citing unnamed American officials, reported that
the helicopter's four-man crew was killed along with a gunner on a
second Blackwater helicopter.
----
The Qatar-based Al-Jazeera television said:
---
"the 1920 Revolution Brigades insurgent group" "claimed responsibility"
for shooting down the helicopter and showed a video taken by a cell
phone of a mass of still-smoldering twisted metal that it said was the
wreckage of the chopper.
----
Another Sunni insurgent group,
"the Ansar al-Sunnah Army",
"also claimed responsibility" and
----
posted identity cards of men who were on the helicopter on a Web site,
including at least two that bore the name of Arthur Laguna, who was
later identified by his mother as among those killed.
----
Laguna was a 52-year-old pilot for Blackwater who previously served in
the Army and the California National Guard, his mother, Lydia Laguna,
of Rio Linda, Calif., told the AP. She said she received a call from
her other son, also a Blackwater pilot in Baghdad, notifying her of
Arthur's death.
----
Witnesses in the Fadhil neighborhood
told the AP that:
---
"they saw the helicopter go down"
"after" gunmen on the ground opened fire.
**********************************************
---
Accounts varied, but "all were consistent" that:
---
at least "one person operating the aircraft had been shot" and badly
hurt "before the crash."
----
The helicopter was believed to have been "escorting a VIP ground
convoy" as it headed away from the heavily fortified Green Zone.
----
A report in the Washington Post,
also citing unnamed U.S. officials, said:
----
"one of the Blackwater victims was killed as "he traveled with the
convoy on the ground."
----
"Blackwater USA" provides security for
"State Department officials in Iraq",
trains military units from around the world, and "works for corporate
clients."
-----
"These untimely deaths are a reminder of the extraordinary
circumstances under which our professionals voluntarily serve to bring
freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people," the Blackwater statement
said.
----
Katy Helvenston, mother of Scott Helvenston, a Blackwater employee who
died in March 2004, said Tuesday's crash "just breaks my heart."
----
"I'm so sick of these kids dying," she said.
-----
Helvenston was killed, along with
Jerko "Jerry" Zovko, Wesley J.K. Batalona, and Michael R. Teague,
----
when a "frenzied mob of insurgents ambushed" a supply convoy they were
escorting through Fallujah.
----
The insurgents burned and mutilated the guards and strung two of the
bodies from a bridge. The gruesome scene was filmed and broadcast
worldwide, leading the U.S. military to launch a three-week siege of
Fallujah.
----
"Before Tuesday's crash",
****************************
at least "22 employees" of
Blackwater Security Consulting or
Blackwater USA:
----
had died in Iraq as a result of war related violence, according to the
Web site: "iCasualties.org", which tracks foreign troop fatalities in
Iraq. Of those, 20 were Americans, and two were Polish.
----
The crash of the small surveillance helicopter, believed to be a
version of the
"Hughes Defender" that was developed during the Vietnam War,
----
was the second associated with the
U.S. war effort in Iraq in four days.
----
A U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter
"went down Saturday" northeast of Baghdad, killing all 12 service
members on board.
********************************************
----
The American military in Baghdad:
----
"has refused to confirm a report"
by a Pentagon official that debris at the crash site indicated:
----
"the helicopter was shot out of the air by a surface-to-air missile."
----
Relatively few U.S. aircraft have been shot down during the war despite
hundreds, perhaps thousands of flights above Iraq. Helicopters
typically fly fast and low over populated areas, making it extremely
difficult for militant fighters to draw a bead with shoulder-fired
missiles.
----
U.S. fighter jets normally travel at very high altitudes and usually
can be heard screaming through the skies.
----
Civilian aircraft that serve Baghdad International Airport use
avoidance techniques that included landing in a steep, circular descent
from nearly straight overhead the runways. Takeoffs are achieved with
the same technique until passenger jets are out of missile range.
---
The Blackwater aircraft was:
"at least the 14th helicopter to go down" since the war began in March
2003.
----
The worst incident occurred Jan. 26, 2005, when a U.S. transport
helicopter crashed in a sandstorm in western Iraq, killing 30 Marines
and a U.S. sailor.
----
According to insurance claims on file at the Department of Labor:,
----
770 civilian contractors have been killed in Iraq
**********************************************
since the war began in March 2003, through December 31, 2006.
----
Additionally, 7,761 civilian contractors "have been injured" in the
same period, according to claims on file.
=====
JACKEL
----
Subject: IRAQI PARLIAMENT IS IN SHAMBLES-MANY DON'T SHOW UP FOR
MEETINGS.
>
WHILE THIS ARTICLE DOESN'T SAY THAT IRAQI'S WANT TROOPS OUT OF THEIR
COUNTRY, (I WILL POST THOSE), THIS ARTICLE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE
SO-CALLED " BUSH-DEMOCRATIC IRAQ GOVERNMENT" IS "NOT WORKING" BECAUSE
THE MEMBERS DON'T SHOW UP AND THEY "NEED A MAJORITY" TO VOTE FOR THE
THINGS THEY WANT DONE.
---
IT IS ALSO CLEAR, THAT THOSE GOVT. OFFICIALS WHO DO SHOW UP "COULD
CHANGE THEIR "MEETING PLACE" SOMEWHERE "OTHER THAN IN BAGHDAD" WHERE IT
"IS SAFER",
>
THEY APPARENTLY WON'T DO THAT EITHER.
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012407B.shtml
>
----
Iraq Parliament Finds a Quorum Hard to Come By
----
By Damien Cave
The New York Times
Wednesday 24 January 2007
*****
Baghdad - Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the speaker of Parliament, read a roll
call of the "275 elected members" with
"a goal of shaming the no-shows."
*****
Ayad Allawi,
the former prime minister- Absent,
living in Amman and London.
*****
Adnan Pachachi,
the octogenarian statesman.- Also gone,
in Abu Dhabi.
******
Others who failed to appear Monday included:
*****
Saleh Mutlak, a senior Sunni legislator;
*****
several Shiites and Kurds; and
****
Ayad al-Samaraei,
chairman of the finance committee,
whose absence led Mr. Mashhadani to ask:
****
"When will he be back? After we approve the budget?"
*****
It was a joke barbed with outrage.
****
Parliament "in recent months"
has been at a standstill.
***********************
****
Nearly every session "since November"
has been adjourned because "as few as 65"
**********************************************
members made it to work, even as they
"and the absentees":
earned salaries and benefits worth about
**********************************************
$120,000.
***********
****
"Part of the problem is security",
but Iraqi officials also said:
----
they feared that:
"members were losing confidence in the institution" and "in the
country's fragile democracy."
----
As chaos has deepened,
*****************************
"Parliament's relevance" has gradually receded.
**********************************************
------
Deals on important legislation,
***********************************
"most recently the oil law",
*****************************
now take place largely "out of public view,"
**********************************************
with Parliament - when it meets - "rubber-stamping the final
decisions."
****************************************
----
As a result, officials said:,
------
"vital legislation" involving:
*****************************
the budget,
provincial elections and
amendments to the Constitution
-----
remain "trapped in a legislative process" that processes nearly
nothing.
------
American officials long hoped that:
----
"Parliament could help foster dialogue"
*******************************************
between Iraq's "increasingly fractured"
"ethnic and religious groups",
but that has not happened, either.
*************************************
"Goaded by American leaders",
frustrated and "desperate to prove" that:
----
Iraq can govern itself,
"senior Iraqi officials have clearly had enough."
**********************************************
Mr. Mashhadani said:
Parliament would soon start fining members $400 for every missed
session and
replace the absentees if they fail to attend a minimum amount of the
time.
------
Some of Iraq's more seasoned leaders say:
------
"attendance has been undermined"
by a widening sense of disillusionment about "Parliament's ability to
improve Iraqis' daily life." -----
The country's dominant issue, "security", is almost exclusively the:
---
"policy realm of the American military" and "the office of the prime
minister."
-----
Every bombing, like the one on Monday,
which killed 88 people at a downtown market, suggests to some that:
----
"Parliament's laws are irrelevant"
************************************
in the face of sprawling chaos and
"the government's inability to stop it."
****************************************
"People are totally disenchanted,"
Mr. Pachachi said in a telephone interview from Abu Dhabi.
----
"There has been "no improvement"
in the security situation. The government seems to be incapable of
doing anything despite all the promises."
-----
Though "the Constitution grants Iraq's"
only elected body:
----
"wide powers to pass laws" and investigate,
----
"sectarian divisions" and the need for a two-thirds majority in some
cases have often led to deadlock.
----
"Sunni and Shiite power brokers"
have "blocked efforts" to scrutinize violence "connected to their own
sects."
**********************************
"Parliament is the heart of the political process," Mr. Mashhadani said
in an interview at his office, offering more hope than reality. "It is
the center of everything. If the heart is not working, it all fails."
-----
Monday's attendance actually:
"surpassed the 50 percent plus one"
needed to pass laws.
----
It "was the first quorum in months",
caused in part by:
---
"the return of 30 members loyal to:
"the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr",
whose end to a two-month boycott created a public relations blitz that:
"helped attract 189 members."
*********************************
----
But the scene in the convention center auditorium where Parliament
meets only underscored the rarity of the gathering. It seemed at times
like a reunion.
----
At one point, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who is: "head of the:
"Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution" in Iraq and
---
a "Shiite rival of Mr. Sadr",
arrived late - after being marked absent. He spent the first five
minutes waving and nodding at colleagues, some of whom he apparently
had not seen in months.
-----
Parliamentary officials:
"refused to provide attendance lists"
for every session, fearing retribution. They said "all sects and
regions" had members
"who often did not come."
----
Each representative, "earns about":
"$10,000" a month in salary and benefits", including "money for
guards".
----
Yet on Monday, members from Baghdad neighborhoods to small towns in the
hinterland
-----
- Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Christians and Turkmen -
---
"were all" on the "list of no-shows"
that Mr. Mashhadani read aloud.
----
The "largest group of absentees" consisted of:
----
"unknown figures elected"
as part of "the party lists" that
"governed how most people voted"
in the December 2005 election.
----
Party leaders in Baghdad said:
---
they had urged their members to attend but emphasized that for many,
"Parliament had "become a hardship post."
**********************************************
----
Representatives who travel from afar
"stay at the Rashid Hotel in the Green Zone," across a road, two
checkpoints and several pat-downs from the 1970s-era convention center.
It is not luxurious. It is barely safe. The food is mediocre.
-----
In short, many said, the job is not what members thought they had
signed up for.
----
"Most of them were here for the game",
for prestige, for the money,"
----
said Muhammad al-Ahmedawi,
a Shiite member of the "Fadhila Party".
----
"It's upsetting and disappointing. We want the members to come, to
pursue the interests of their constituents, especially in this
sensitive time."
----
Mr. Ahmedawi said:
"politicians who had "larger shares of power" "before the elections":
************************
seemed to view Parliament "as a demotion" best ignored.
**************
---
Mr. Allawi, for example,
who "did not return calls to his London aides" requesting an
interview,:
---
"has been rallying support" in
Amman and London
"among exiles who have fled Iraq's violence."
----
Of the 25 members of "his bloc,"
**********************************
"only six attended" the session on Monday.
----
Mr. Pachachi,
who is in his mid-80s, said:
----
he left Iraq a few months ago because his wife needed open-heart
surgery and he did not trust that she would be well cared for in one of
Baghdad's decrepit hospitals. He said he hoped to return in a few
weeks, admitting that "one has to be there - you can't be a member of
the Parliament and live abroad."
----
But he said:
"the dangers involved with being
"a public figure in Iraq" had made it
much more difficult to participate in government.
----
He has 40 guards to protect him when he comes to Iraq, he said, and the
salary from Parliament pays for only 20.
----
"I have protection", and unfortunately the protection is not sufficient
for anyone anymore," he said.
--
"The level of violence has become
**************************************
unmanageable."
*****************
----
Other Iraqi politicians "take a harder line."
---
Adnan Dulaimi,
a member of the "largest Sunni bloc"
in Parliament, put it simply,
----
"If there are some members who
think there is no benefit to attending,
then they should resign."
----
Mr. Mashhadani seems to be shaping
a slightly softer approach that mixes
persuasion with punishment.
----
Like Prime Minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki,
---
he has met repeatedly with party leaders, pushing them to ensure the
attendance of their members.
----
During an interview in his office, lined with baroque cushioned chairs
with gold trim, he also acknowledged that:
---
"more money" should be set aside for members' security, but only if
members show up to pass a budget.
----
He said "the shaming of the absentees"
at the public session, a first, was the first step. He said the fines
and threat of replacement would also help.
----
There is, of course, only one problem.
*****************************************
For the proposals to be put in place,
"a majority of members in Parliament"
"have to be present to pass them."
JACKEL
---
IT'S PAST TIME THAT CHENEY GETS SLAPPED DOWN & SENT TO JAIL.
---
Subject: PROSECUTOR: CHENEY DEEPLY INVOLVED IN CIA LEAK CASE-1-23-07
---
NOTE: THERE ARE A LOT OF LINKS TO MORE INFO IN HIS ARTICLE. CLICK ON
THIS URL TO GET THEM.
-----
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16770023/
>
----
Prosecutor says Libby destroyed Cheney memo
----
Fitzgerald says VP told his former top aide about CIA agent's identity
----
NBC VIDEO
姫rosecutor: Cheney deeply involved
--
Jan. 23: Prosecutors revealed that Vice President Cheney was much more
deeply involved in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Wilson's identity than
previously known.
---
WASHINGTON - Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald used "his opening
statement" in
the CIA leak trial Tuesday to allege that:
---
Vice President, Dick Cheney's chief of staff "lied and destroyed a
note"
showing Cheney's early involvement.
******************************************
--
Fitzgerald said:
---
Cheney told his chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby, in 2003 that "Wilson's
wife worked for the CIA" and Libby spread that information to
reporters.
---
When that information got out,
it triggered a federal investigation.
---
"But when the FBI and grand jury asked
"about what the defendant did,"
Fitzgerald said, "he made up a story."
******************************************
----
Fitzgerald alleged that:
----
Libby, in September 2003, "destroyed" a Cheney note "just before"
Libby's first FBI interview when he said:
----
"he learned about Wilson from reporters, not the vice president."
----
I. Lewis "Libby is charged with perjury" "and obstruction." He told
investigators he was surprised to learn:
---
Wilson's wife's identity from:
NBC News reporter Tim Russert.
----
But Fitzgerald told jurors that:
"was clearly a lie" because Libby had already been discussing the
matter inside and outside of the White House.
----
"You can't learn something on Thursday that you're giving out on
Monday," Fitzgerald said.
----
Libby says he didn't lie but was simply bogged down by national
security issues and
"couldn't remember details" of what he told reporters about CIA officer
Valerie Plame.
----
Fitzgerald believes:
"Libby feared political embarrassment" and "worried he might lose his
job" for
"discussing classified information"
with reporters.
----
President Bush "originally" threatened
"to fire anyone" who disclosed such information so, Fitzgerald says:
"Libby had a reason to lie."
----
Too preoccupied to forget?
******************************
Fitzgerald told jurors Tuesday that:
"the trial isn't about the war" but that the case will be set against
the backdrop of the first months of the invasion.
----
He is expected to tell jurors that the
"White House was preoccupied with discrediting Wilson's criticisms", so
it's unlikely Libby forgot that effort.
----
NBC VIDEO
百ignificant Cheney role?
---
Jan. 23: Judging by the prosecutor's opening arguments, Vice President
Dick Cheney's role in the CIA leak case could be significant. NBC News
analyst Jonathan Alter reports.
MSNBC
----
"Libby plans to testify and tell jurors": he had many other issues on
his mind at the time, such as terrorist threats and emerging nuclear
programs overseas.
----
Attorneys say they "expect Cheney to testify
**********************************************
"for the defense."
******************
----
Historians say:
"that would be a first for a sitting vice president."
----
Libby's attorneys had hoped:
U.S. District Judge, Reggie Walton
would tell jurors that:
"memory does not function like a tape recorder" and
----
"a person is less likely to remember information if he is paying
attention to several things at once."
----
But Walton has refused to help defense attorneys make that point and on
Tuesday "rejected a request" to allow defense attorneys "to call a
memory expert to testify at trial.
----
Related content
******************
Read the initial questions to the jury (pdf)
----
NBC News: How the CIA leak case began
---
Motive to be alleged
**********************
Fitzgerald is also expected to explain something that's not in the
indictment but
"is key to the case: what he sees as the motive."
----
FACT FILE: LIBBY TRIAL SO FAR
A daily synopsis of the I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby perjury and
obstruction trial.
弼an. 22, 2007
弼an. 19, 2007
弼an. 18, 2007
弼an. 17, 2007
弼an. 16, 2007
----
Jan. 22, 2007
----
A jury was seated consisting of nine women and three men, including an
art historian, an investment banker, an attorney, a retired postal
employee, a retired math teacher, and
----
a former reporter for the Washington Post who once had the Post's Bob
Woodward as his editor and was a neighbor of NBC's Tim Russert - both
of whom are to be witnesses in the case.
---
The jury also includes four critics of the Bush administration's Iraq
policies.
---
Three women and one man were seated as alternates.
---
Tuesday, Judge Walton will deliver detailed instructions to the jury,
then Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will spend 90 minutes on
opening remarks followed by Libby's defense attorney, Ted Wells, who
will use some audio and visual props to bolster his case.
----
Depending on how long Wells takes, the jury may hear their first
witness Tuesday as well.
Joel Seidman, NBC News
----
Defense attorneys deny he had a motive and plan to say so to jurors.
----
"Libby wasn't charged with the leak" and wasn't the source for
syndicated columnist Robert Novak's article outing Plame.
----
Why, they ask, would Libby lie?
***********************************
If Fitzgerald is to make his case, he'll need to answer that question
in a way that convinces jurors. In court last week, Fitzgerald briefly
touched on his explanation.
----
He said:
Libby feared political embarrassment and worried he might lose his job
for discussing classified information with reporters. President Bush
originally threatened to fire anyone who disclosed such information so,
even though Libby wasn't Novak's source, Fitzgerald said Libby had a
reason to lie.
---
FACT FILE---POSSIBLE LIBBY TRIAL WITNESSES
----
"Attorneys are not required to submit witness lists" but many possible
witnesses have been named in court documents.
----
PROSECUTION
*******************
弼ohn (Jack) Eckenrode
紐obert Grenier
筆arc Grossman
匹raig Schmall
弼udith Miller
柊ri Fleischer
疋avid Addington
匹athie Martin
稗ill Harlow
謬im Russert
筆att Cooper
百tephen Hadley
膝eorge Tenet
----
DEFENSE
************
肘. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
疋ick Cheney
***************
匹olin Powell
紐eporters
紐obert Novak
稗ob Woodward
紐ichard Armitage
弼oseph Wilson
----
The former lead FBI agent in charge of the CIA/Leak investigation. He
first interviewed Libby and sat in on the White House interviews of
both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Both were not under oath
when they spoke to prosecutors.
----
Long juror process
*********************
The jury of nine women and three men will spend more than a month
listening to conflicting statements from members of the Bush
administration and journalists, trying to sort out the truth.
----
Libby's defense attorneys,
William Jeffress and
Theodore Wells,
----
spent days trying to weed critics of the Bush administration out of the
jury pool. In a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans more than
9-to-1, that wasn't easy.
----
The final panel contains four people who criticized or doubted the
administration's war policies.
---
MSNBC's David Shuster and The Associated Press contributed to this
report.
---
INTERACTIVE: WHO'S WHO
匹lick to see who the players are in the CIA leak investigation ｩ 2007
MSNBC.com
JACKEL
Subject: THE CON-ARTIST-U.S. ATTY.GEN.-GONZALES-1-20-07
URL TO ORIGINAL-AT BOTTOM.
-----
NOTE: IT HAS BEEN GONZALES WHO HAS DRAFTED THE MANY ILLEGAL AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, THAT THE REPUBLICANS THEN SPONSORED, AND BUSH
SIGNED INTO LAW..... MAKING THE U.S.A. "A FASCIST NATION".
**********************************************
---
ALMOST "ALL OF THESE FASCIST LAWS" NOW HAVE TO BE TAKEN TO THE SUPREME
COURT TO GET THEM REMOVED AND MANY HAVE, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WHILE
BUSH IS IN OFFICE,
---
HE IS "USING THESE LAWS" AS JUSTIFICATION FOR "HIS SELF-SERVING, ABUSE
OF POWER" AND HAS ACTUALLY SAID "THEY [BUSH REGIME] HAVE THE "RIGHT TO
INTERPRET THE LAW", I.E. TO
SAY WHAT "THEY WANT IT TO SAY", I.E.
BUSH'S "SIGNING STATEMENTS".
---
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE "SHOULD KNOW" THAT THERE ARE "MANY CONGRESS PEOPLE
"WHO ARE LAWYERS", WHO "KNEW" THESE BILLS, THAT WERE GOING TO BECOME
LAW, WERE BLATANTLY ILLEGAL AND/OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL, YET VOTED IN
"LOCK-STEP" AND PASSED THEM.
---
THE "REAL LESSON HERE IS:
************************************
NEVER ASSUME THAT YOUR CONGRESS PERSON IS "PROTECTING YOU".
---
TO DO THAT, AMERICANS "MUST" HAVE A WELL-ORGANIZED "CITIZEN'S
ORGANIZATION" IN EACH STATE THAT:
---
RESEARCHES "EVERYTHING THAT THEIR STATE POLITICIANS AND CONGRESS DOES",
THEN NOTIFY THE PEOPLE AND
RECALL/REMOVE THEM ASAP WHEN THEY ARE BLATANTLY VIOLATING THEIR "OATH
OF OFFICE", WHICH LAW YOU MAKE
PERFECTLY CLEAR, WHAT IS A VIOLATION.
--
IN THIS WORLD OF COMPUTERS AND WEBSITES, THIS "CAN BE DONE NOW" & THERE
ARE MANY RETIRED ATTYS & JUDGES WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO HELP US.
---
Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus
******************************************
Report; Posted on: 2007-01-20 17:23:40
----
"Applying Gonzales's reasoning":,
************************************
one could argue that:
----
the First Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to
worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully
---
By Robert Parry
----
In one of the "most chilling public statements" ever made by a U.S.
Attorney General,
---
Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S.
**********************************************
Constitution grants habeas corpus rights
*********************************************
of a fair trial to every American.
***********************************
---
Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary
Committee "hearing on Jan. 18 [2007],
----
Gonzales argued that:
************************
"the Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights";
----
"it merely says "when" the so-called
"Great Writ can be suspended."
---
"There "is no expressed grant of habeas"
*********************************************
in the Constitution;
*********************
---
"there's a prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.
----
Gonzales's remark left:
Specter, the committee's ranking Republican, stammering.
---
"Wait a minute," Specter interjected.
"The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of
rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas
corpus unless there's a rebellion or invasion?"
----
Gonzales continued,
----
"The "Constitution doesn't say":
**********************************
every individual in the United States or citizen
---
"is hereby granted" or
"assured the right"
*******************
of habeas corpus.
----
It doesn't say that. It simply says:
---
"the right" shall not be suspended"
************************************
except in cases of rebellion or invasion.
----
"You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,"
Specter said.
----
While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it,
----
"his logic is troubling" because:
***********************************
it would suggest that many other
"fundamental rights" that Americans hold dear "also don't exist"
because:
*****************************
the Constitution often
"spells out those rights" "in the negative."
*******************************************
---
For instance,:
*************
the First Amendment declares that:
***************************************
"Congress shall "make no law"
**********************************
respecting:
***********
"an establishment of religion",
---
or "prohibiting the free exercise" thereof;
----
or "abridging the freedom of speech",
---
or "of the press",
---
or "the right" of the people peaceably to assemble", and
----
to "petition the Government"
for a redress of grievances."
-----
Applying Gonzales's reasoning,
**********************************
one could argue that:
---
the "First Amendment "doesn't explicitly say"
**********************************************
"Americans have the right" to:
********************************
worship as they choose,
---
speak as they wish or
----
assemble peacefully.
----
The amendment simply "bars the government",
**********************************************
i.e. Congress, "from passing laws" that
would impinge on "these rights."
**********************************
---
Similarly, Article I, Section 9,
********************************
of the Constitution states that:
*********************************
"the privilege" of:
*******************
the "Writ of Habeas Corpus"
"shall not be suspended",
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion "the public Safety may
require it."
*************************************
----
The "clear meaning of the clause",
as interpreted for more than two centuries, is that:
----
the Founders recognized the long-established English law principle of
habeas corpus,
"which guarantees people the right"
**************************************
of "due process", such as:
"formal charges and a fair trial."
-------
Source: consortiumnews.com
• Printed from National Vanguard
( http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=11361 )
>
National Vanguard • Box 5145 • Charlottesville • VA 22905 • USA
NationalVanguard.org
JACKEL
---
ONLY CONGRESS CAN STOP OUR TREASURY FROM BEING ROBBED BY THE BUSH
REGIME, WHO HAVE "INTENTIONALLY" LIED TO US IN ORDER TO "USE OUR
MILITARY AND TREASURE TO FUND "THEIR CORRUPT GAME' OF GETTING CONTROL
OF ALL OF THE WORLD'S OIL".
--
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, CONGRESS IS "ALLOWING IT" BY TELLING US "WE WILL
FUND "OUR TROOPS".
--
ALL AMERICANS "MUST" CONTACT THEIR CONGRESS PEOPLE AND "TELL THEM YOU
WANT "OUR TROOPS HOME NOW" OR THEY CAN FIND ANOTHER JOB, BECAUSE WE,
THE PEOPLE WILL STOP PAYING OUR TAXES AND RECALL THEM, FOR VIOLATING
THEIR OATH OF OFFICE.
---
WE, THE PEOPLE "HAVE THE SAME OPTIONS" AS THE FOUNDERS HAD, WHEN WE
KICKED OUT THE "FIRST KING GEORGE" AND REBELLED AGAINST TAXES, I.E. "NO
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" AND OUR CONGRESS IS "STILL NOT"
REPRESENTING US, WHEN THEY REFUSE TO IMPEACH BUSH AND BRING OUR TROOPS
HOME.
---
Subject: BUSH & NEO-CONS & OIL CORPS WILL DRAIN U.S. TREASURY TO GET TO
THE OIL
>
Subject:Military Plans Troops Build-Up in Afghanistan--1-25-07
----
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012507J.shtml
>
----
US Plans Big Spending Boost for Afghanistan
**********************************************
Agence France-Presse
Thursday 25 January 2007
----
The United States is planning a
"sharp increase in spending on security" and reconstruction in
Afghanistan" to:
---
counter an "anticipated offensive"
by Taliban forces this spring,
the Washington Post has reported.
---
The White House will ask Congress for
"seven to eight billion dollars on top of"
********************************************
already budgeted funds for Afghanistan
in its upcoming budget proposal,
the Post said, citing unnamed officials of the administration of
President George W. Bush.
----
The "military is also extending by four months"
**********************************************
the Afghanistan tours of 3,500 troops
*******************************************
of the 10th Mountain Division to keep up the strength of US forces.
---
The move comes "after" the administration conducted a: sweeping "review
of US policy in Afghanistan", starting from the middle of 2006,
as violence across the country rose sharply.
**********************************************
---
It also comes as US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice:
---
"plans to discuss "coalition troop strength"
*********************************************
in Afghanistan with European allies at a meeting Friday in Brussels of
NATO foreign ministers.
----
A senior administration official told the Post that Rice wants to:
---
"show European governments" that:
the US is not trying to abandon the Afghanistan
**********************************************
effort to NATO partners while Washington focuses on the Iraq war.
----
The Europeans have:
************************
"serious questions across the board"
*****************************************
about the US commitment to the Afghanistan fight, the official said.
---
"The alliance has some 33,000 troops"
******************************************
fighting the Taliban, some "10 percent less"
**********************************************
than NATO members have promised.
---
On Wednesday,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State,
Kurt Volker said:
---
"Rice would press her counterparts"
for a "more vigorous effort" both to fight the Taliban, which is
expected to launch a new offensive this spring, and to bolster
reconstruction efforts.
----
"We want to have "our own offensive" and it "should be civilian and
military",
---
it should be "broad gauged",
---
it should be "reconstruction, development",
---
it should be "counter-narcotics" and
---
it should be "security and military as well," he said.
----
The first
*********
Afghan,
Pakistan and
NATO
---
"intelligence sharing centre" is due to open formally in Kabul in a
drive to:
*******************
"improve coordination" in the protracted fight against the Taliban and
"other extremists."
**********************************************
---
The "joint intelligence and operation centre" is "staffed by 6
intelligence agents" from "each" of the Afghan, Pakistan and
NATO-led International Security Assistance
**********************************************
Force (ISAF) militaries -
**************************
all fighting the "resurgent Taliban."
*************************************
"The centre will allow:
"the sharing of information and reports" to be able to better
coordinate military operations,"
---
Afghan defence ministry spokesman,
General Mohammad Zahir Azimi told AFP.
----
"Now how useful and significant it will be - "we will wait for the
results."
Lots has been discussed in the past, lots of commissions and meetings
were formed. We will wait and "see if this will be useful," he said.
---
Commanders of the "three militaries"
already "meet every two months"
in a "Tripartite Commission."
----
The intelligence centre's establishment comes amid: "growing tension"
between:
******************************
Afghanistan and
Pakistan
---
"over the Taliban-led insurgency",
which "has grown steadily stronger"
since its launch after the hardliners' rout from government in 2001.
---
Afghanistan has been joined by:
************************************
Western sources in saying:
---
"elements in Pakistan", including
*************************************
in its "Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency,"
**********************************************
"are backing the insurgency",
*******************************
which was its bloodiest last year with:
4,000 dead - "most of them rebel fighters."
**********************************************
----
President, Pervez Musharraf [Pakistan]
has angrily rejected the accusations.
---
"I take extremely strong exception to anybody (accusing) ... any
government agency of Pakistan of:
---
"cooperating with these extremist forces" and "sending them into
Afghanistan,"
Musharraf said Wednesday.
---
ISAF spokesman,
Brigadier Richard Nugee
said this month:
---
the "new centre" was an "extremely significant step forward" against
the extremists,
who also carry out attacks in the Pakistan border areas.
---
Nugee said that the Afghan and Pakistan militaries would be brought
"much closer together" by sharing intelligence information.
JACKEL
Subject: BUSH'S WAR ON THE WORLD.
----AND Bush's War on the U.S. Republic-1-25-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012507L.shtml
---
Bush's War on the Republic
************************************
By Robert Parry
Consortium News
-----
>From the beginning of the "war on terror,"
**********************************************
George W. Bush has lied to the American
**********************************************
people about:
***************
the goals, motivation and
even "the identity of the enemy" -
---
"a propaganda exercise" that continued through his 2007 State of the
Union Address and that
"is sounding the death knell for the Republic."
*********************************************
Since 2001, "rather than":
focusing on the al-Qaeda Sunni fundamentalist terrorists behind the
9/11 attacks, Bush has "expanded the conflict" exponentially:
---
- tossing in "unrelated enemies" such as:
---
Iraq's secular dictator Saddam Hussein,
----
Shiite-led Iran,
---
Syria and
----
Islamic militants opposed to Israel,
like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
----
In effect, Bush has transformed what began as "a definable military
objective":
---
- the defeat of "terrorist groups"
with global reach"
----
- into "an endless war"
***************************
against what "he regards as evil,"
************************************
a conflict so vague that it is claiming
as collateral damage America's
"unalienable rights" and
----
the Founders' checks and balances
on "the powers of the Executive."
----
In Bush's State of the Union speech
on Jan. 23, there could be heard:
"a requiem for the Republic."
*******************************
"The evil" that inspired and rejoiced
in 9/11 "is still at work "in the world."
---
"And so long as that's the case",
************************************
"America is still a nation at war,"
****************************************
Bush told Congress.
---
But "that "evil" will always be"
***********************************
"at work in the world,"
**************************
---
so America will always be "a nation at war"
**********************************************
and thus, "under Bush's theories" of:
"unlimited Commander-in-Chief powers",
---
the American Republic will be
"banished permanently."
----
Bluntly put, Bush and his
"neoconservative legal advisers"
don't believe in the "unalienable rights" "guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution,"
-----
including ones as fundamental as the habeas corpus "right" to a fair
trial and
---
"protections against warrantless"
searches and seizures. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's
"Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus."]
----
The Bush administration may make grudging concessions in these areas
when:
"faced with determined opposition in the courts or from the public",
---
but "they hold these liberties" to be
"subordinate" to:
Bush's "plenary" - or unlimited - powers as Commander in Chief.
---
Beyond this disdain for fundamental American liberties, "Bush has
contempt" for any meaningful public debate.
----
Though "he talks about" compromise and consultation,
----
"his view" of "national unity" is:
***********************************
to have everyone shut up and
get in line behind him, "the Decider."
----
Since the 9/11 attacks, Bush has overseen a "bare-knuckled political
strategy" of
"bullying anyone who disagrees with him" and marginalizing their
voices.
----
>From the Dixie Chicks
----
to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson,
------
from France
----
to United Nations weapons inspectors,
----
those who have dared to cross the President "have faced ridicule and
reprisals."
---
These ugly attacks have become so much a part of the American political
landscape that:
---
"the news media treats them as unexceptional," as if it's normal for a
President to coordinate with powerful media allies "to silence
dissent."
----
For instance, there "was no media outcry" in April 2003 when Bush gave
a wink and
a nod to "a retaliatory boycott" against the three-woman Dixie Chicks
band because the lead singer, Natalie Maines, had criticized the
President.
----
"They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because "some people"
don't want to buy their records when they speak out," Bush said.
"Freedom is a two-way street."
**********************************
So, instead of encouraging a full-and-free debate about an issue "as
important as war" and peace, Bush made clear that:
----
"he saw nothing wrong" with
"his followers" punishing Americans
"who disagree with him."
---
"Democrat Party"
********************
While Bush may have softened his
"belligerent style" slightly since the Republican defeat in the
November 2006 elections,
----
he still couldn't muster enough politeness to refer to the "Democratic"
Party in his State of the Union.
----
For years, "tough-talking Republicans"
have made it a point of insult to drop the "-ic" and use "Democrat" as
the adjective.
---
This phrasing has become:
"a mark of the swaggering Republicans"
who have dominated this era of U.S. politics.
---
It's the partisan equivalent of:
"willfully mispronouncing" the
foreign-sounding name of a disliked neighbor.
----
So, even as Bush was supposedly trying to be gracious to House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, he couldn't stop himself from congratulating the
"Democrat majority."
----
More significantly, however,
"Bush continues to demean the Constitution."
----
Despite "having sworn" to:
preserve, defend and "uphold the Constitution" as "his pre-eminent
duty",
---
Bush keeps insisting that:
"the highest obligation of government" is to keep the people safe.
----
He repeated that mantra in
his State of the Union.
----
"For all of us in this room,
"there is no higher responsibility"
than to protect the people of this country from danger," he said.
----
In other words, Bush believes security - or at least, "his view of
security"
- trumps everything,
"including constitutional rights."
----
But that concept turns upside down,
more than two centuries of U.S. history and tradition. Instead of
Patrick Henry's exhortation of "give me liberty or give me death,"
---
the Bush dictum could be summed up as
"just make sure I'm safe driving to the mall."
----
Bush apparently "sees the American people" as a "pudgy bunch of
consumers"
as soft in the head as in their bellies.
----
In the State of the Union, the President "didn't hesitate, to again,
"lay out his distortion" of the
"threat the nation faces."
---
To "heighten the fears of Americans",
he again,:
"misrepresented the goals",
"capabilities" and
even the identities of the enemy.
-----
He blurred diverse and even antagonistic Muslim Sunni and Shiite
groups, shoving them under the umbrella of
"the Islamist radical movement."
----
"The Shia and Sunni extremists are
"different faces of the same totalitarian threat," Bush said.
---
"Whatever slogans they chant,
when "they" slaughter the innocent"
***************************************
"they" have the same wicked purposes.
"They" want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and
gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale."
----
But this depiction is a continuation of Bush's tendency to "misstate
the key question" of "what's motivating Islamic militancy."
***************************************
---
In September 2001, Bush claimed that:
"the motive behind the 9/11 attacks" and other manifestations of
anti-Americanism "in the Middle East" was that:
----
Islamic extremists "hate our freedoms."
----
Now, he says:
they want to "kill":
********************
Americans,
democracy and
anything else that gets in their way.
----
However, "this distortion" of:
what drives the swelling anti-Americanism in the Middle East:
---
"is not only wrong, it's dangerous".
**************************************
It "guarantees" an:
**********************
expensive, bloody and "endless war".
*****************************************
It also could:
"ensure eventual defeat for
"legitimate U.S. interests in the region."
*******************************************
----
Diverse Motives
******************
"The truth is" that:
---
the motives of Islamic militants are
much more complicated and diverse
than Bush wants the American people to know.
----
In Iraq,
********
"Sunni insurgents":
are killing Americans because the
"United States invaded their country" and handed the reins of power
over to
"rival Shiites",
---------------
while "Shiites":
*****************
"are using "death squads" to
"consolidate their authority" by killing Sunnis.
----
Along the Mediterranean,
"other Islamic militants" have:
------
fought "against Israeli occupation" of Palestinian territory and
Lebanese land.
----
Some "Middle Eastern militants":
**************************************
"are resentful of U.S.-backed autocrats" like those governing Egypt and
Saudi Arabia;
----
"many object to the corruption" that
"has surrounded the region's oil wealth";
**********************************************
others "want a return" to more
"traditional Islamic religious values;
----
some actually favor democratic elections because: "they expect to win"
and
want to unseat corrupt pro-American leaders.
**********************************************
---
In the "Palestinian territories",
********************************
"Hamas did win an election."
----
In Lebanon,
**************
"Hezbollah is a powerful political force."
---
In Iran,
********
radical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gained office through: "a
limited democratic process."
----
Even al-Qaeda
*****************
"has far more "limited objectives"
than Bush has claimed. Despite Bush's oft-stated assertion that -
---
if the United States retreats -
al-Qaeda will form a caliphate
----
stretching from Spain to Indonesia,
"no credible analyst believes that."
*************************************
---
"Intercepted al-Qaeda documents"
----
actually reveal "leaders fretting"
about "how fragile their position in Iraq" would be if the United
States withdrew.
*******************************************
---
According to one captured letter,
"Atiyah,"
*********
a senior aide to Osama bin Laden,
---
stressed "the need to exploit"
"the continued American presence"
***************************************
so al-Qaeda can put down roots in Iraq.
---
"Indeed, "prolonging the war is in our interest,"
**********************************************
Atiyah wrote.
---
[For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Al-Qaeda's Fragile Foothold."]
----
Yet, even as "Bush's Iraq War strategy"
"plays into the hands of al-Qaeda",
----
the President told Congress and the
American people that:
---
"he intends to confront"
**************************
radical "Shiite movements" in the region
---
with determination "equal to that"
----
"aimed at Sunni extremists."
Bush said:
---
"In recent times, it has also become clear that
---
"we face an escalating danger" from:
Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also:
"determined to dominate the Middle East."
---
Many are known to:
"take direction from the regime in Iran", which is funding and arming
terrorists like "Hezbollah - a group second only to al-Qaeda" in the
American lives it has taken."
----
But "Bush left out the history"
"about those American deaths."
---
He was referring primarily to:
---
the 241 U.S. soldiers who died in 1983
when a suicide bomber destroyed the
Marine barracks in Beirut,
---
"after" the Reagan administration had "intervened in Lebanon and taken
sides"
in the civil war.
----
By definition:,
****************
"terrorism is a violent attack on civilians"
*********************************************
"to achieve "a political end."
******************************
---
Hezbollah's attack in 1983,
******************************
therefore, "was not an act of terrorism", as lamentable as the military
deaths were. [ the "target" was military troops, not civilians]
---
Bush, however, "blurs the point"
by "associating the bombing with al-Qaeda's" 9/11 attacks on civilian
targets inside
the United States.
----
Although "the U.S. and Israeli governments"
---
"list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization", the European Union does
not.
*********************************
----
While some of its actions, such as its missile attacks on Israel in
summer 2006,
"could be categorized as terrorism"
because of the loss of civilian life,
Hezbollah also is:
"a broad-based political and social movement."
----
Guaranteeing Defeat
************************
Lumping:
---
Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Iraqi insurgents and others:
---
"together with al-Qaeda"
underscores the risks - and almost certain futility - of Bush's
expanding "war on terror."
----
With "anti-Americanism" across the Middle
**********************************************
East often "registering in the 90 percentiles",
**********************************************
---
"Bush's strategy" is:
more likely "to accelerate Islamic"
extremism than put a brake on it.
----
Bush also finds himself caught:
---
"in a contradiction" between"his rhetorical-- "embrace of Middle East
"democracy" and
---
"his reliance on "moderate" -
i.e. "autocratic-regimes" that:
--
"engage in political repression" and
"have defied popular sentiment
"to cooperate with Bush".
---
At one point in his State of the Union speech, Bush:
---
"denounced extremists" who:
seek to "overthrow moderate governments"
---
but returned to his lofty rhetoric about democracy and freedom as
"vital components in defeating the extremists."
---
"To prevail,:
"we must remove the conditions" that
"inspire blind hatred," Bush said.
---
"What every terrorist fears most is:
"human freedom". …
---
The "great question of our day" is:
--
"whether America" will help men and women in the Middle East "to build
free societies"
and share in the rights of all humanity.
---
And I say, "for the sake of our own security", we must."
**********
---
Though a surefire applause line,
Bush's "praise of liberty" represents possibly the "most insidious lie"
from his "war on terror."
************************
---
As "U.S. intelligence is well aware",
---
"free democratic elections in countries" such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia
would "represent a disaster for U.S. foreign policy"
by likely:
---
"putting into power Islamic militants",
like the Muslim Brotherhood.
----
As was obvious during Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip to the
Middle East,
---
the U.S. diplomatic position is precariously "dependent on": kings,
princes and despots
---
who favor "regional stability" for reasons "of their own
self-interest."
----
Bush's exhortations about human freedom therefore are: "galling to many
in the world"
---
who "see Bush, himself" as:
---
"the world's most notorious autocrat",
---
violating international law at his personal whim and
---
overriding the constitutional liberties of Americans at home.
---
"Bush is the personification" of:
**********************************
what "recent polls of global opinion"
have registered as:
---
a leading complaint about America - hypocrisy,
**********************************************
espousing concepts of liberty while
denying even basic human rights to suspects swept up in the "war on
terror."
---
There is also "no end in sight,"
*******************************
Bush made clear.
---
"The war on terror "we fight today"
--
"is a generational struggle" that:
--
will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to
others,"
Bush told Congress.
---
"And that's why it's important to work together "so our nation can see
this great effort through."
**********************************************
---
But the "bottom line" for Bush's "war on terror" is that:
---
it won't just cost countless lives and hundreds of billions of dollars;
---
it also is doomed to fail,
at least as presently constituted.
---
If it lasts much longer, it is certain, too, to deliver a death blow to
the noble American Republic.
---------
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege:
Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at
secrecyandprivilege.com.
His 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project
Truth.'
JACKEL
---
alt.impeach.bush
Re: BUSH & NEOCON'S PLAN--WWIII--KENNEDY'S BILL TO STOP "WAR
RESOLUTION".
JACKEL <jackel...@webtv.net>
Subject: KENNEDY'S BILL TO STOP "WAR RESOLUTION OF 2002"
>
Subject:Kennedy to Introduce Bill to Stop Troop Surge--1-09-07
>
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010907B.shtml
>
For background, see:
http://truthout.org/pdf/ARM07064_xml1.pdf
>
Stopping the Surge
*********************
By Scot Lehigh
The Boston Globe
Tuesday 09 January 2007
>
Ted Kennedy thinks George W. Bush is dead wrong on a troop surge for
Iraq - and while some other Democrats have reacted diffidently, he is
determined to force the issue.
>
Today the Massachusetts senator
will introduce legislation to prevent
*************************************
the president from increasing US troop levels in Iraq "without specific
authorization from Congress.
**********************************************
>
And in a speech at the National Press Club one day before the president
outlines his new Iraq plans to the nation, Kennedy will take aim at the
idea of sending more troops.
>
"In the election, the American people made it very clear they wanted a
change in direction," Kennedy said in an interview yesterday.
>
"The president has been going in the wrong direction -
and we are going to do everything we can to
**********************************************
get accountability."
********************
>
Congress has to act now, Kennedy stresses, because if lawmakers wait,
they could be put in the position of voting to cut off funding for
additional troops after the administration has already sent them to
Iraq
- a difficult vote for any elected official to take.
If that happens, "they will have effectively won the day," Kennedy
said.
>
"They will have gotten what they are looking for."
>
Thus Kennedy says he will press for a vote on his legislation "at the
earliest possible
time."
>
Kennedy's "bill wouldn't cut off funding for troops already in Iraq";
>
rather, it would prohibit the administration from "using federal funds
to increase US troops" beyond the levels there on Jan. 1 of this year
without specific congressional approval.
>
It's time for Congress to reassert itself,
******************************************
declares Kennedy, who argues that:
>
the October 2002 resolution that gave Bush
**********************************************
authority to go to war should now be
*****************************************
considered expired.
**********************
>
Certainly the case the administration made on its way to war -
>
that Iraq was well on its way to a nuclear bomb,
>
that it possessed
other weapons of mass destruction,
>
that there were operational ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda -
>
have been proven stunningly wrong.
****************************************
>
Further, Kennedy says,:
>
"military experts who know Iraq"
don't think that sending more troops is the answer.
>
The senator cites recent statements by:
>
General George Casey,
senior US commander in Iraq,
>
Centcom chief John Abizaid, and
>
Colin Powell,
the former secretary of state and
>
former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
>
In November, Abizaid told Congress that:
>
"the consensus among military commanders in Iraq" was that:
>
sending more troops wouldn't "add considerably to our ability to
achieve success" there.
>
Casey, too, has been wary, saying that:
the longer the United States stays in Iraq, the longer it will be
before the Iraq government works for reconciliation with the Sunnis and
deals with the militias.
>
Powell, now in private life, has offered similar anti-surge arguments.
>
The administration has recently said that:
>
"new generals" will oversee the Iraq war effort as it goes forward.
>
In his speech, Bush will no doubt present his plan as a way to stem the
violence in Baghdad and give the Iraq government time to succeed.
>
Yet the real question is this:
******************************
>
Can 20,000 more troops help:
>
mold a functioning nation out of three disparate groups,
two of whom increasingly see themselves as parties to sectarian war,
and
>
the third of which - the Kurds - already has a mostly autonomous
region?
>
The answer is pretty obviously no.
**************************************
>
Rather, a surge just delays confronting the harsh realities of Iraq.
>
And that's why the carte blanche that Congress has granted this
administration shouldn't continue.
>
Kennedy's legislation faces an uphill battle, of course.
>
Even if it passes, the bill would certainly draw a presidential veto,
which means:
>
"it would need two-thirds majorities"
***************************************
in "both branches" of Congress to become law.
**********************************************
>
At the very least, however,
"the legislation would:
************************
"force federal lawmakers"
****************************
to confront the issue of a troop surge", and
*****************************************
declare whether they support or oppose it.
**********************************************
>
That would certainly be uncomfortable for Republicans and probably lead
to some gnashing of teeth among Democrats as well.
>
But Kennedy says he won't be deterred by the reaction: "I am going to
offer it no matter what."
******************************************
>
The senator hopes the measure will catalyze a broader debate about a
war he has opposed, vocally and presciently, from the very beginning.
>
"I think the American people are
************************************
way ahead of the Congress,
******************************
way ahead of the Senate,"
****************************
Kennedy says.
>
"This will give an opportunity for them to rally,
**********************************************
and hopefully they will."
*************************
--------
>
Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is leh...@globe.com.
JACKEL
top
military advisers and even his "Top Director of the 16 agencies
Intelligence Dept i.e. Negroponte, read this and connect ALL the dots.
---
Subject:Bush's Rush to Armageddon -1-08-07
----
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807R.shtml
>
http://www.truthout.org
----
Bush's Rush to Armageddon
----
By Robert Parry
Consortium News
---
George W. Bush has purged senior military and intelligence officials
who
were obstacles to a wider war in the Middle East, broadening his
options
for both escalating the conflict inside Iraq and expanding the fighting
to Iran and Syria with Israel's help.
----
On Jan. 4, Bush ousted the top two commanders in the Middle East,
---
Generals John Abizaid and George Casey,
"who had opposed a military escalation in Iraq", and
---
removed Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who had
stood
by intelligence estimates downplaying the near-term threat from Iran's
nuclear program.
---
Most Washington observers have treated Bush's shake-up as either
routine
or part of his desire for a new team to handle his planned "surge" of
U.S. troops in Iraq.
---
But intelligence sources say the personnel changes also fit with a
scenario for
"attacking Iran's nuclear facilities" and "seeking violent regime
change
in Syria."
---
Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon as the new chief of Central
Command for the Middle East despite the fact that Fallon, a former Navy
fighter pilot and currently head of the Pacific Command, will oversee
two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
---
The choice of Fallon makes more sense if Bush foresees a bigger role
for
two aircraft carrier groups now poised off Iran's coastline, such as
support for possible Israeli air strikes against Iran's nuclear targets
or as a deterrent against any overt Iranian retaliation.
---
Though not considered a Middle East expert, Fallon has moved in
neoconservative circles, for instance, attending a 2001 awards ceremony
at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a think tank
dedicated to explaining "the link between American defense policy and
the security of Israel."
---
Bush's personnel changes also come as Israel is reported stepping up
preparations for air strikes, possibly including tactical nuclear
bombs,
to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, such as the reactor at Anton,
south of Tehran, where enriched uranium is produced.
---
The Sunday Times of London reported on Jan. 7 that "two Israeli air
squadrons are training" for the mission and "if things go according to
plan, a pilot will first launch a conventional laser-guided bomb to
blow
a shaft down through the layers of hardened concrete [at Natanz]. Other
pilots will then be ready to drop low-yield "one kiloton nuclear
weapons" into the hole."
---
The Sunday Times wrote that Israel also would hit two other facilities
-
at Isfahan and Arak - with conventional bombs. But the possible use of
a
nuclear bomb at Natanz would represent the first nuclear attack since
the United States destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan at the end
of World War II six decades ago.
---
While some observers believe Israel may be leaking details of its plans
as a way to frighten Iran into accepting international controls on its
nuclear program, other sources indicate that Israel and the Bush
administration are seriously preparing for this wider Middle Eastern
war.
---
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has called the possibility of an
Iranian nuclear bomb an "existential threat" to Israel.
---
After the Sunday Times article appeared, an Israeli government
spokesman
denied that Israel has drawn up secret plans to bomb Iranian nuclear
facilities. For its part, Iran claims it only wants a nuclear program
for producing energy.
---
Negroponte's Heresy
*************************
Whatever Iran's intent, Negroponte has said "U.S. intelligence does not
believe" Iran could produce a nuclear weapon until next decade.
---
Negroponte's assessment in April 2006 infuriated neoconservative
hardliners who wanted a worst-case scenario on Iran's nuclear
capabilities, much as they pressed for an alarmist view on Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in 2003.
---
Unlike former CIA Director George Tenet, who bent to Bush's political
needs on Iraq, Negroponte stood behind the position of intelligence
analysts who cited Iran's limited progress in refining uranium.
---
"Our assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian weapon are still a
number of years off, and probably into the next decade," Negroponte
said
in an interview with NBC News.
---
Expressing a similarly tempered view in a speech at the National Press
Club, Negroponte said, "I think it's important that this issue be kept
in perspective."
--
"Some neocons complained that Negroponte was betraying the President."
---
Frank J. Gaffney Jr., a leading figure in the neoconservative Project
for the New American Century, called for Negroponte's firing because of
the Iran assessment and his "abysmal personnel decisions" in hiring
senior intelligence analysts who were skeptics about Bush's Iraqi WMD
claims.
---
In an article for Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times, Gaffney
attacked Negroponte for giving top analytical jobs to Thomas Fingar,
who
had served as assistant secretary of state for intelligence and
research, and Kenneth Brill, who was U.S. ambassador to the
International Atomic Energy Agency, which debunked some of the U.S. and
British claims about Iraq seeking uranium ore from Africa.
---
Fingar's Office of Intelligence and Research had led the dissent
against
the Iraq WMD case, especially over what turned out to be Bush's false
claims that Iraq was developing a nuclear bomb.
---
"Given this background, is it any wonder that Messrs. Negroponte,
Fingar
and Brill ... gave us the spectacle of absurdly declaring the Iranian
regime to be years away from having nuclear weapons?" wrote Gaffney,
who
was a senior Pentagon official during the Reagan administration.
---
Gaffney also accused Negroponte of giving promotions to "government
officials in sensitive positions who actively subvert the President's
policies," an apparent reference to Fingar and Brill. The neocons have
long resented U.S. intelligence assessments that conflict with their
policy prescriptions. [See Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]
---
In his personnel shakeup, Bush shifted Negroponte from his
Cabinet-level
position as DNI to a sub-Cabinet post as deputy to Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice.
---
To replace Negroponte, Bush nominated Navy retired Vice Admiral John
McConnell, who is viewed by intelligence professionals as a low-profile
technocrat, not a strong independent figure.
---
A Freer Hand
***************
Negroponte's departure should give Bush a freer hand if he decides to
support attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. Bush's neocon advisers
fear that if Bush doesn't act decisively in his remaining two years in
office, his successor may lack the political will to launch a
"preemptive strike against Iran."
---
Bush reportedly has been weighing his military options for bombing
Iran's nuclear facilities since early 2006. But he has encountered
resistance from the top U.S. military brass, much as he has with his
plans to escalate U.S. troop levels in Iraq.
---
As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker, a
number of senior U.S. military officers were troubled by administration
war planners who believed "bunker-busting" tactical nuclear weapons,
known as B61-11s, were the only way to destroy Iran's nuclear
facilities
buried deep underground.
---
A former senior intelligence official told Hersh that the White House
refused to remove the nuclear option from the plans despite objections
from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Whenever anybody tries to get it out,
they're shouted down," the ex-official said. [New Yorker, April 17,
2006]
---
By late April 2006, however, the Joint Chiefs finally got the White
House to agree that using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's
uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, less than 200 miles south of
Tehran,
was politically unacceptable, Hersh reported.
---
"Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were dead serious about the
nuclear planning," one former senior intelligence official said. [New
Yorker, July 10, 2006]
---
But one way to get around the opposition of the Joint Chiefs would be
to
delegate the bombing operation to the Israelis. Given Israel's powerful
lobbying operation in Washington and its strong ties to leading
Democrats, an Israeli-led attack might be more politically palatable
with the Congress.
---
Attacks on Iran and Syria also would fit with Bush's desire to counter
the growing Shiite influence across the Middle East, which was given an
unintended boost by Bush's ouster of the Sunni-dominated government of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
---
The original neocon plan for the Iraq invasion
**********************************************
was "to use Iraq as a base" to force regime
**********************************************
change in Syria and Iran,
****************************
thus dealing strong blows to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the
Palestinian territories.
---
This regional transformation supposedly would have protected Israel's
northern border and strengthened Israel's hand in dictating final peace
terms to the Palestinians.
---
But the U.S. invasion of Iraq backfired, descending into a sectarian
civil war with Iraq's pro-Iranian Shiite majority gaining the upper
hand.
---
In effect, by ousting Saddam Hussein, Bush had eliminated the principal
buffer who had been holding the line against the radical Shiites in
Iran
since 1979. By tipping the strategic balance to the Shiites, Bush also
unnerved the Sunni monarchy of Saudi Arabia.
---
A Nightmare
**************
By 2006, the dream of a U.S.-orchestrated transformation of the Middle
East had turned into a nightmare of rising Shiite radicalism.
---
To address this unanticipated development, Bush began pondering how
best
to throttle Shiite expansionism.
---
In summer 2006, Washington Post foreign policy analyst Robin Wright
wrote that U.S. officials told her that "for the United States, the
broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and
Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to
change the strategic playing field in the Middle East." [Washington
Post, July 16, 2006]
---
Bush's advisers also blamed the governments of Syria and Iran for
supporting anti-U.S. fighters in Iraq.
---
Yet lacking the military and political capacity to expand the conflict
beyond Iraq, the Bush administration turned to Israel and its new Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert.
---
By summer 2006, Israeli sources were describing Bush's interest in
finding a pretext to take Syria and Iran down a notch.
---
That opening came when border tensions with Hamas in Gaza and with
Hezbollah in Lebanon led to the capture of three Israeli soldiers and a
rapid Israeli escalation of the conflict into an air-and-ground
campaign
against Lebanon.
---
Bush and his neoconservative advisers saw the Israeli-Lebanese conflict
as an opening to expand the fighting into Syria and achieve the
long-sought "regime change" in Damascus, Israeli sources said.
---
One Israeli source told me that Bush's interest in spreading the war to
Syria was considered "nuts" by some senior Israeli officials, although
Prime Minister Olmert generally shared Bush's hard-line strategy
against
Islamic militants. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Bush Wants Wider War."]
---
In an article on July 30, 2006 the Jerusalem Post also hinted at Bush's
suggestion of a wider war into Syria. "Defense officials told the Post
.. that they were receiving indications from the US that America would
be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria," the newspaper reported.
---
In August 2006, the Inter-Press Service added more details, reporting
that the message was passed to Israel by Bush's deputy national
security
adviser Elliott Abrams, who had been a central figure in the
Iran-Contra
scandal of the 1980s.
---
"In a meeting with a very senior Israeli official, Abrams indicated
that:
"Washington would have no objection if Israel chose to extend the war"
beyond to its other northern neighbor, leaving the interlocutor in no
doubt that the intended target was Syria," a source told the
Inter-Press
Service.
---
In December 2006, Meyray Wurmser, a leading U.S. neoconservative whose
spouse is a Middle East adviser to Vice President Cheney, "confirmed
that neocons inside and outside the Bush administration" had hoped
Israel would attack Syria as a means of undermining the insurgents in
Iraq.
----
"If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended,"
Wurmser said in an interview with Yitzhak Benhorin of the Ynet Web
site.
---
"A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against
the
real enemy, the one backing Hezbollah.... If Israel had hit Syria, it
would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened
it and (changed) the strategic map in the Middle East."
---
But the Israeli summer offensives in Gaza and Lebanon fell short of
Olmert's objectives, instead generating international condemnation of
Tel Aviv for the large numbers of civilian casualties from Israel's
bombing raids.
---
Wounded Leaders
*********************
Now, as two politically wounded leaders, Bush and Olmert share an
interest in trying to salvage some success out of their military
setbacks. So, they are looking at possible moves that are much more
dramatic than minor adjustments to the status quo.
---
Democrats and some Republicans are questioning why Bush wants to send
20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq and offer Iraqis some jobs programs,
when similar tactics have been tried unsuccessfully in the past.
---
Indeed, one source familiar with high-level thinking in Washington and
Tel Aviv said an unstated reason for Bush's troop "surge" is to bolster
the defenses of Baghdad's Green Zone if a possible Israeli attack on
Iran prompts an uprising among Iraqi Shiites.
---
The two U.S. aircraft carrier strike forces off Iran's coast could
provide further deterrence against Iranian retaliation. But the
conflict
would almost certainly spread anyway.
---
Likely Hezbollah missile strikes against Israel would offer another
pretext for Israel to invade Syria and finally oust Hezbollah's allies
in Damascus, as the U.S. neocons had hope would happen in summer 2006,
the source said.
---
In the neoconservative vision, this wider war would offer perhaps a
last
chance at achieving the "regional transformation" that has been at the
heart of Bush's strategy of "democratizing" the Middle East through
violence if necessary.
---
However, few Middle East experts believe that Bush really would want
the
results of truly democratic elections in the region because Islamic
militants would almost surely win resoundingly amid the
anti-Americanism
that has grown even more intense since the hanging of Saddam Hussein in
late December.
---
An Israeli assault on Iran could put the region's remaining
pro-American
dictators in jeopardy, too.
---
In Pakistan, for instance, Islamic militants with ties to al-Qaeda have
been gaining strength and might try to overthrow Gen. Pervez Musharraf,
conceivably giving Islamic terrorists control of Pakistan's nuclear
arsenal.
---
For some U.S. foreign policy experts, this potential for disaster from
a
U.S.-backed Israeli air strike on Iran is so terrifying that they
ultimately don't believe Bush and Olmert would dare implement such the
plan.
---
But Bush's actions in the past two months - reaffirming his
determination to achieve "victory" in Iraq - suggest that he wants
nothing of the "graceful exit" that might come from a de-escalation of
the war.
---
Losing Faith
**************
Bush has dug in his heels even as some senior administration officials
have lost faith in his strategy.
---
On Nov. 6, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent Bush a memo
suggesting
a "major adjustment" in Iraq War policy that would include "an
accelerated drawdown of U.S. bases" from 55 to five by July 2007 with
remaining U.S. forces only committed to Iraqi areas that request them.
---
"Unless they [the local Iraqi governments] cooperate fully, U.S. forces
would leave their province," Rumsfeld wrote.
---
Proposing an option similar to a plan enunciated by Democratic Rep.
John
Murtha, Rumsfeld suggested that the commanders "withdraw U.S. forces
from vulnerable positions - cities, patrolling, etc. - and move U.S.
forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within
Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need
assistance."
---
And in what could be read as an implicit criticism of Bush's lofty
rhetoric about transforming Iraq and the Middle East, Rumsfeld said the
administration should "recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S.
goals (how we talk about them) - go minimalist." [NYT, Dec. 3, 2006]
---
On Nov. 8, two days after the memo and one day after American voters
elected Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Bush fired
Rumsfeld.
---
The firing was widely interpreted as a sign that Bush was ready to
moderate his position on Iraq, but the evidence now suggests that Bush
got rid of Rumsfeld for going wobbly on the war. --- On Dec. 6, when
longtime Bush family counselor James Baker issued a report by the
bipartisan Iraq Study Group "urging a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq,"
Bush wasted little time in slapping it down.
---
Instead, Bush talked about waging a long war against Islamic "radicals
and extremists," an escalation from his original post-9/11 goal of
defeating "terrorists with global reach."
---
At his news conference on Dec. 20, Bush cast this wider struggle
against
Islamists as a
"test of American manhood" and perseverance by demonstrating to the
enemy that:
"they can't run us out of the Middle East, that they can't intimidate
America."
---
Bush suggested, too, that painful decisions lay ahead in the New Year.
---
"I'm not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in
Iraq, except that it's going to require difficult choices and
additional
"sacrifices", because the enemy is merciless and violent," Bush said.
---
Rather than scale back his neoconservative dream of transforming the
Middle East, Bush argued for an expanded U.S. military "to wage this
long war."
---
"We must make sure that our military has the capability "to stay in the
fight for a long period of time," Bush said.
---
"I'm not predicting any particular theater, but I am predicting that
it's going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to finally
triumph over the ideology of hate....
---
"We're in the beginning of a conflict between competing ideologies - a
conflict that will determine whether or not your children can live in a
peace. A failure in the Middle East, for example, or failure in Iraq,
or
isolationism, will condemn a generation of young Americans to permanent
threat from overseas."
---
Escalation
***********
Since then, Bush has floated the idea of a troop "surge" and replaced
commanders who disagreed with him.
---
"Bush also removed U.S. Ambassador to Iraq" Zalmay Khalilzad, a Sunni
Muslim generally considered a voice for moderation in U.S. policy who
privately objected to Bush's decision to press ahead with the hanging
of
Saddam Hussein.
---
There are even indications of tension between Bush and Cheney, who like
his old friend Rumsfeld, appears to have grown disillusioned with the
war.
---
In a little-noticed comment on Jan. 4,
Sen. Joseph Biden, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, said Cheney and Rumsfeld "are really smart guys who made a
very, very, very, very bad bet, and it blew up in their faces. Now,
what
do they do with it? I think they have concluded they can't fix it, so
how do you keep it stitched together without it completely unraveling?"
[Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2007]
---
But Bush does not appear to share that goal of limiting the damage.
Instead, he is looking for ways to "double-down" his gamble in Iraq by
joining with Olmert - and possibly outgoing British Prime Minister Tony
Blair - in expanding the conflict.
---
Since the Nov. 7 congressional elections, "the three leaders" have
conducted a round-robin of meetings that on the surface seem to have
little purpose.
---
Olmert met privately with Bush on Nov. 13; Blair visited the White
House
on Dec. 7; and Blair conferred with Olmert in Israel on Dec. 18.
---
Sources say the three leaders are frantically seeking options for
turning around their political fortunes as they face harsh judgments
from history for their bloody and risky adventures in the Middle East.
---
But there is also a clock ticking. Blair, who now stands to go down in
the annals of British history as "Bush's poodle," is nearing the end of
his tenure, having agreed under pressure from his Labour Party to step
down in spring 2007.
---
So, if the Bush-Blair-Olmert triumvirate has any hope of accomplishing
the neoconservative remaking of the Middle East, time is running out.
---
Something dramatic must happen soon.
**********************************************
That something looks like it may include a rush
**********************************************
to Armageddon.
******************
---
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek.
---
His latest book,
Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty From Watergate to Iraq,
can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com.
---
His 1999 book,
--
Skewer
ON IN THE BUSH REGIME, BUT..MOST OF THE "BUSH REGIME'S PLAN" COMES
STRAIGHT OUT OF "HITLER'S REGIME PLAN".
>
AS IN HITLER'S TIME, THE "CITIZENS OF GERMANY" SAID NOTHING, UNTIL OF
COURSE, THE WORLD BOMBED THE HELL OUT OF IT. THE "MAJORITY OF AMERICANS
ARE NO DIFFERENT", SO HISTORY WILL IN DEED REPEAT ITSELF..BUSH, THE
NEOCONS, AND CONGRESS (WHICH IS NOT EVEN ADDRESSING THIS) IS "COUNTING
ON AMERICANS TO "SHUT UP" AND "SUBMIT TO THE PLAN".
>
---
Subject: PROTESTER'S NAMES BEING COLLECTED IN DOD COMPUTERS
Protester Names Found in DoD
Database
---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR200...
>
------
ACLU Is Questioning Entries in
Defense Dept. System
---
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 17, 2007; Page A08
---
A Defense Department database devoted to gathering information on
"potential threats" to military facilities and personnel,
----
"known as Talon",
*******************
had 13,000 entries as of a year ago --
including 2,821 reports "involving American
**********************************************
citizens,"
*********
according to an "internal Pentagon memo" to be released today by the
American Civil Liberties Union.
---
The Pentagon memo says an examination of the system led to:
---
"the deletion of"
*****************
1,131 reports involving Americans,
**************************************
---
186 of which dealt with "anti-military protests"
**********************************************
or demonstrations in the U.S."
*********************************
***
This really has been a remarkable occurrence, said Del. William J.
Howell,
who is leading the GOP effort despite
past objections to tax increases.
(Steve Helber -- Associated Press)
Titled "Review of the TALON Reporting System," the four-page memo
produced in February 2006 summarizes some interim results from:
----
an "inquiry ordered by" then-
Defense Secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld
*********************************************
"after disclosure in December 2005" that the system had collected and
circulated data on anti-military protests and other peaceful
demonstrations.
----
The released memo,
(one of a series of Talon documents)
made public over the past year by the ACLU under a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit,
said that:
----
the deleted reports "did not meet" a 2003 Defense Department
requirement that:
---
they "have some foreign terrorist connection"
**********************************************
or relate to what was believed to be
"a force protection threat."
----
The number of deleted reports far exceeds the estimate provided to The
Washington Post just over a year ago by senior officials of
"Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), "
*********************************************
the "Defense Department agency" that "manages the Talon program."
----
At that time, then-CIFA Director, David A. Burtt II said:
----
the review had disclosed that only 1 percent of the then 12,500 Talon
reports appeared to be problematic.
----
The ACLU said in its own report that past disclosures about Talon
"cried out for congressional oversight yet Congress was silent."
----
It said the new memo indicated there "may be even more disturbing"
information to discover and declared "it is time for Congress to act."
----
The ACLU noted the memo showed that Talon reports had "a much wider
circulation" than previously disclosed, with about:
----
28 organizations and
************************
3,589 individuals
******************
"authorized to":
submit reports or
have access to the database.
---
The organizations with access include various:
**********************************************
military agencies as well as
state,
federal and
local law
enforcement officials.
---
In early 2006,
****************
Burtt also said CIFA had "not" devised
a formal way to notify its users when it "decided to delete a Talon
report"
"on American citizens."
----
The newly released memo says that:
a software enhancement was being initiated to "permit users" to:
******************
edit and delete entries from the
database and that it was scheduled for completion in April 2006.
-----
A Pentagon spokesman said:
---
there are 7,700 reports in the Talon
****************************************
database. Some involve U.S. citizens, but the spokesman "declined to
say how many".
----
Over the past year the program has instituted multiple layers of review
for screening which reports should go into the database, the spokesman
said.
---
CIFA has begun a process for analysts to review materials to make sure
they fit the program's criteria before being uploaded and made
available to Talon users.
---
CIFA was established in 2002 in the
*********************************
aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, originally to
coordinate the counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations of
the various branches and agencies of the Defense Department.
---
It has grown rapidly over the past four years, but not without
problems.
----
Along with discovery of the Talon data collection,
----
"CIFA was linked to the lobbying" and "earmarking activities" that:
----
led to the conviction of former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham
(R-Calif.).
---
Burtt and his top deputy retired in August 2006, and federal
investigators are still looking at CIFA contracting activities.
----
Last week, the New York Times disclosed that
---
CIFA had been using "national security letters" to "gather financial
data on U.S. citizens,"
**********************************************
but a Pentagon spokesman said yesterday
that such information was for
"particular investigations" and
not made part of the Talon database.
----
Talon was started in May 2003 to capture raw, non-validated information
about suspicious activity or potential terrorist threats to military
personnel or facilities at home and abroad.
---
2007 The Washington Post Company
Skewer
COURSE, HE CONTINUES TO MAKE PUBLIC...STATEMENTS THAT "QUALIFY AS AN
"IMMINENT THREAT" TO ANOTHER COUNTRY, I.E. "A DECLARATION OF WAR".
--
THIS HAS BEEN "INTENTIONAL" IN ORDER TO "PROVOKE" THE COUNTRIES INTO
MAKING AN ATTACK ON OUR SOLDIERS OR NATION, JUST LIKE ANY "STREET PUNK"
WOULD DO.
--
BUT, BUSH IS THE PSYCHOPATHIC PRESIDENT THAT THE U.S.A. HAS AND
CONGRESS REFUSES TO IMPEACH HIM.
--
BOTTOM-LINE:
***********
BUSH & THE NEO-CONS HAVE CREATED A WORLD-WIDE HATE FOR AMERICANS AND
EITHER "HAVE ORGANIZED" TO ATTACK THE U.S.A. OR "HAVE ATTACKED THE
U.S.A." THERE WILL BE "NO END TO THESE ATTACKS UNLESS THE "BUSH REGIME"
IS FORCIBLY REMOVED AND THE MORONS WHO SUPPORT HIM, ARE TOTALLY
IGNORED.
---
Subject:Independent Online Edition > World Politics--BUSH- DECLARATION
OF WAR
----
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2145136.ece
>
----
Bush's Tough Tactics Area Declaration of War on Iran
By Anne Penketh
The Independent UK
Friday 12 January 2007
American forces stormed Iranian government offices in northern Iraq,
"hours after" President George Bush:
>
issued a warning to Tehran that was described as a "declaration of
war".
*******************************************
The soldiers detained six people,
"including diplomats", according to the Iranians, and seized documents
and computers in the pre-dawn raid which "was condemned by Iran."
>
A leading UK-based Iran specialist, Ali Ansari, said:
>
the incident was an "extreme provocation".
**********************************************
Dr Ansari said that:
*********************
Mr Bush's speech on "future Iraq strategy" amounted to "a declaration
of war" on Iran.
**********************************************
"The risk is a wider war.
***************************
Because of the underlying tensions,
we are transferring from a 'cold war'
into a 'hot war'," he said.
In his speech, the "President accused"
Iran and Syria of:
>
providing "material support" for attacks on US
**********************************************
troops, and
********
vowed to stop the "flow of support" from across the border.
>
"We will seek out and "destroy the networks"
**********************************************
providing advanced weaponry and
training to our enemies in Iraq," he said.
>
Dr Ansari argued that:
the Bush administration "had decided"
*******************************************
to confront Iran at a time when "public opinion"
**********************************************
has been "focused on the conflicts in Iraq,"
**********************************************
Afghanistan and Somalia.
*****************************
"There's been "a shift of emphasis"
**************************************
"without anyone noticing," he said.
**************************
"Moderate" Sunni Arab states who feel "threatened by the rise of Shia
Iran,"
thanks to its influence in Iraq and
its refusal to curb its nuclear programme, "could be expected to back
the Bush approach", he said.
>
The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is "due to visit": Egypt,
Jordan and Saudi Arabia "this week."
Until now, the Bush administration had been content to deal with the
perceived Iranian threat diplomatically.
>
The United Nations adopted sanctions against
**********************************************
Tehran on 23 December.[2006]
************************************
However, the "economic measures"
adopted by the UN "have failed" to
convince Iran to halt its uranium-enrichment programme which could lead
to production of a nuclear weapon.
>
"The US is calling on allied states"
**************************************
to "adopt tougher unilateral sanctions."
******************************************
President Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon to replace General John
Abizaid as head of Central Command for Iraq and Afghanistan last week
"in a sign that change could be afoot."
*****************************************
>
This week, Mr Bush ordered
"a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf", "along with its support
ships",
which could be used to contain Iran.
****************************************
The US Treasury named
****************************
"Iran's Bank Sepah" as:
**********************
"a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction"
**********************************************
on Tuesday,
*************
banned US companies or citizens
*************************************
"from doing business with it" and
"blocked any of its assets" that
come under American jurisdiction.
>
But if the US is preparing to confront Iran militarily - [which some
"top military officials in Israel"
**********************************************
are reportedly recommending] -
*********************************
the Bush administration will find itself "involved in conflicts on four
fronts."
***************************************
In Somalia,
************
US special forces have been pounding "suspected al-Qa'ida suspects"
since early
on Monday, in a continuing operation that "risks pulling the Americans
back into a conflict in a failed state."
>
US forces are also active in
"southern Afghanistan"
**************************
in the hunt for the al-Qa'ida leader, Osama bin Laden, and his top
associates.
>
Al-Qa'ida has reactivated its Taliban allies who have become bolder in
their attacks on coalition forces.
>
In Iraq,
********
US troops are losing soldiers on an almost daily basis to the bombs of
Sunni and Shia insurgents.
>
The Shia-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: was warned
by Ms Rice yesterday that
********************************************
"his days were numbered" unless he was
*****************************
able to take on "Shia militias"
who are his allies in government.
*************************************
>
Ms Rice followed up President Bush's tough words on Iran by saying:
>
"The President made very clear last night that:
>
we know Iran is engaged in activities
*****************************************
endangering our troops... and that
**************************
"we're going to pursue those"
********************************
who may be involved in those activities."
>
Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman,
***************************************
Mohammad Ali Hosseini,
***************************
"protested against the raid by US forces" in Arbil, saying on Iranian
state-run radio that:
>
it targeted a "diplomatic mission" since the
***********************************
"presence of Iranian staffers in Irbil was legal".
>
Ironically, Iran had been contained by
******************************************
Saddam Hussein, until his overthrow
*****************************************
"by the Americans in 2003."
*******************************
>
Obsessed by a threat from "Persian hordes", Saddam maintained ambiguity
about his weapons of mass destruction:
---
"so Iran would believe" that it had reason to fear
**********************************************
its western neighbour.
>
So have the Americans made a
"strategic mistake" by refusing to engage with Iran?
>
"There's no doubt that nothing good
**************************************** will come of this," said Dr
Ansari.
******************
Skewer
CLEARLY "THE PEOPLE" FEEL THEY ARE BEING IGNORED.
--
Subject:NEWSWEEK Poll: Bush Hits New Low - 1-27-07
---
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16840614/site/newsweek/
>
-----
A Sorry State
**************
Following his State of the Union address, President Bush's approval
rating hits a new low in the NEWSWEEK poll, as Sen. Hillary Clinton
enjoys an early lead among the field of likely candidates in the '08
race.
Khue Bui for Newsweek
---
Only 42 percent think Bush's domestic-policy proposals will be
seriously considered by the Congress
----
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
---
Jan. 27, 2007 - President George W. Bush concluded his annual State of
the Union address this week with the words:
---
"the State of our Union is strong .
************************************
Our cause in the world is right . and
*********************************
tonight that cause goes on."
--
Maybe so, but the state of the
Bush administration is at its worst yet, according to the latest
NEWSWEEK poll.
---
The president's "approval ratings" are
at their lowest point in the poll's history- 30 percent-
***********
and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish:
---
the "Bush presidency were simply over",
a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats (86 percent), and
---
is shared by a clear majority (59 percent) of independents and
---
even "one in five" (21 percent) Republicans.
---
(49 percent) of all registered voters would rather see a Democrat
elected president in 2008, compared to just 28 percent who'd prefer
the GOP to remain in the White House.
----
Public fatigue over the war in the Iraq is not reflected solely in the
president's numbers, however.
---
"Congress is criticized by nearly two-thirds
**********************************************
(64 percent) of Americans" for:
---
"not being assertive enough" in
---
"challenging the Bush administration's
conduct of the war."
---
Even a third (31 percent) of rank-and-file Republicans say:
---
the previous Congress, controlled by their party,
---
"didn't do enough" to challenge the administration on the war.
----
RELATED ARTICLE
----OPEN URL
The New Numbers: Inside the Poll
---
Still, the new poll, which examined the "preferences of registered
Democrats"
for their party's presidential nomination in 2008,
---
shows that Sen. Hillary Clinton,
"an initial supporter of the war",
---
has a 20-point lead over junior Sen. Barack Obama (55 percent to 35
percent) and
---
a 34-point lead over former Sen. John Edwards (63 percent to 29
percent).
---
Obama has a marginal seven-point lead over Edwards (46 percent to 39
percent).
---
On the other side of the aisle,
---
former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain are
closely matched
--
at this point among Republicans:
---
the mayor is preferred over the Arizona
Senator by a statistically insignificant margin of 48 percent to 44
percent.
---
When each GOP frontrunner is matched up against former Massachusetts
Governor,
Mitt Romney, it is no contest.
---
Giuliani beats Romney by 55 points and McCain outpolls him by 50.
---
With about half (48 percent) of voters nationwide saying their opinion
of Bush will be at least "somewhat important" in determining who gets
their vote in '08,
---
the two Democratic frontrunners have
"narrow leads" over their potential opponents.
---
In a mock election,
Clinton tops McCain by six points (50-44 percent) and
---
barely edges out Giuliani by three (49-46 percent).
---
Obama's lead over both McCain and Giuliani is by the exact same
margins (48-42 percent against the former and 47-44 percent against
the latter).
---
The races are tighter with Edwards as the Democratic candidate: the
former vice presidential candidate edges out McCain by four points
(48-44 percent) and is in a statistical dead heat with Giuliani (46-47
percent).
---
With Bush widely viewed as an:
"ineffectual "lame duck" (by 71 percent of all Americans),
---
over half (53 percent) of the poll's respondents now say:
--
"they believe history" will see him as a "below-average president",
*****************************
up three points from last May.
---
The first time this question was asked, in October 2003, as many
people thought Bush would go down in history as an above average
president as thought we would be regarded as below average (29 to 26
percent).
---
"Only 22 percent" of those polled
"think Bush's decisions about Iraq" and
other major policy "are influenced" mainly "by the facts";
---
"67 percent say the president's decisions" "are influenced more by his
personal beliefs."
---
This perhaps explains why only about half (49 percent) of adult
Americans even bothered to watch or listen to any of the State of the
Union speech as it happened.
---
Of those, less than half (42 percent) think his energy, health care
and other domestic policy proposals are likely to be seriously
considered by the new Democratic-controlled Congress.
---
Overall, "61 percent are unsatisfied"
****************************************
with the way things are going in America;
---
just 30 percent are satisfied.
---
The NEWSWEEK poll, conducted Jan. 24-25, has a margin of error of plus
or minus 4 percentage points. In conducting the poll, Princeton Survey
Research Associates International interviewed 1,003 adults aged 18 and
older.
---
? 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
? 2007 MSNBC.com
Skewer
Subject: YOUR CONGRESS-OK'D THIS "LOCK-STEPPED SEC. OF DEFENSE"-
GATES-1-26-07
---
Subject:Pentagon chief blasts anti-Iraq resolution - 1-26-07
---
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16829400/
>
----
Gates: Anti-Iraq resolution helps enemy
*******************************************
At "first" Pentagon press conference,
he also talks of "speeding deployment"
---
Yuri Gripas / Reuters
---
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates speaks to the media Friday at the
Pentagon.
---
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary,
Robert Gates said Friday that:
--
a "congressional resolution":
********************************
"opposing President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq" amounts to:
--
undercutting U.S. commanders in a way that "emboldens the enemy."
***************************
He also said:
"the Pentagon was now studying"
whether "it could accelerate the deployment" of the "five additional
Army brigades"
that it has announced will be sent to Baghdad "between now and May" to
bolster security in the capital.
At his first Pentagon news conference since taking office, Gates "was
asked his reaction"
to the debate in Congress over the effect of such "a nonbinding
resolution."
"It's pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that:
---
the general going out to take command of the arena "shouldn't have the
resources"
he thinks he needs to be successful
---
certainly emboldens the enemy and
our adversaries," he said.
---
Gates talked to reporters as:
--
Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill prepared for:
--
"the start of debate next week" on:
---
the "resolution of opposition" to Bush's decision to send an
additional 21,500 U.S. forces into battle in wartorn Iraq.
---
Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid said Friday that:
---
"a quick test vote" would likely be taken if Republicans try to delay
or block the move.
---
Danger of 'flagging'
*********************
Gates was referring to:
---
Army Lt. Gen., David Petraeus,
**********************************
who "was confirmed by the full Senate"
on Friday "to replace Gen. George Casey" as the "top American
commander in Iraq."
----
Petraeus has said:
********************
"he needs all 21,500 extra troops" that Bush has ordered to Iraq in
order to:
"quell the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad."
---
"I think it's hard to measure that with any precision, but it seems
pretty straightforward that:
---
"any indication of flagging will in the United States gives
encouragement to those folks," Gates said,
---
referring to the "anti-government forces in Baghdad."
---
He added that:
"he was certain this was not the intent of those who support the
congressional resolution.
"But that's the effect," he said.
---
Petraeus told the:
"Senate Armed Services Committee"
at his confirmation hearing last week that:
---
"he wanted the 21,500 additional troops
in Iraq as quickly as possible."
---
Gates said Friday that:
"they had discussed this further and that the Pentagon would see if
there "are ways of speeding up at least some of the brigades."
---
"There some simply logistical constraints that make it difficult to do
a lot" of acceleration, he said. "But I have asked people to look at
it and see to what extent they could be - or some portion of it -
accelerated."
---
Until now,
********
"the Pentagon had envisioned:
"sending a brigade a month"
over the next five months.
---
Senate pressure
*****************
The resolution Gates talked about:
--
"was approved by" the:
"Senate Foreign Relations Committee" Wednesday on a near party-line
vote of 12-9,
**********************************************
"a day after" Bush implored lawmakers
(in his State of the Union address)
to give "his revised war strategy"
a chance to work.
---
"Several Republicans" have lined up
---
"behind an alternative proposal" that is "also critical of Bush's
plans" to deploy an additional 21,500 troop, but in softer terms.
---
Some Democrats have called for:
--
an effort "to merge the two proposals",
hoping for a large, "bipartisan vote"
"putting the Senate on record"
as critical of the administration's plans.
---
But "key Republicans" have said:
they are not interested in compromise talks.
**********************************************
Click for related content-OPEN ABOVE URL
--
Bush: 'I'm the decision-maker' on Iraq troops
---
Soldiers killed in Karbala were first abducted
---
Senate OKs Bush choice to head troops in Iraq
---
In remarks on the Senate floor, Reid, D-Nev., said:
---
Democrats were "moving forward to:
"demand a new direction in Iraq". ...
We hope the Republican leadership will join with us "to thoroughly
debate this issue" ...
our troops and the American people
deserve no less."
---
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky,
"the Republican leader", said:
--
GOP lawmakers may submit one or
"more alternatives" to the Democratic-backed legislation.
---
He said that:
"next week he hoped to be able to "sit down and structure the process
by which those will be considered in the Senate."
---
Under Senate rules:,
*********************
"a minority" can try to prevent legislation from coming to the floor."
---
McConnell did not say he would do so,
but Reid said if he did, the Senate would vote on whether to go ahead
anyway.
---
Democrats would need 60 votes to prevail,
**********************************************
but are unlikely to do so,
given that Republicans control 49 seats
in the 100-member Senate.
-----
? 2007 MSNBC.com
JACKEL
I.E. HE STARTED HIS REIN OF 'INTENTIONALLY PROVOKING" 3 NATIONS BY
CALLING THEM, "THE AXIS OF EVIL" HOPING THEY WOULD RESPOND WITH
"THREATS" SO HE COULD JUSTIFY BOMBING THEM.
>
INSTEAD, BUSH & THE U.S. ARE "JUSTIFIABLY SEEN AS THE "THREAT TO THE
WORLD", JUST AS HITLER DID WITH "HIS LIES AND PROPAGANDA".
>
-------
Subject: BUSH'S "SURGE IN IRAQ" INVOLVES SHIPS & MISSILES- RUSE FOR
WAR ON IRAN?
-------
http://www.truthout.
org/docs_2006/011207L.shtml
>
---
The US-Iran-Iraq-Israeli-Syrian War
***************************************����
Robert Parry
Consortium News
Friday 12 January 2007
-----����
At a not-for-quotation pre-speech briefing on Jan. 10, George W. Bush
and his top national security aides:
---
"unnerved network anchors and other senior news executives" with
suggestions that:
>
a "major confrontation with Iran is looming."
---����
Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush's nationwide
address, NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said
>
"there's a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that
Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a "major issue" - in
the country and the world - in a very acute way."
---����
Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House
emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing as Bush
stepped into the meeting to speak passionately about why he is
determined to prevail in the Middle East.
----����
"The President's inference was this:
>
that an entire region would blow up from the inside, the core being
Iraq, from the inside out,"
Williams said, paraphrasing Bush.
---����
Despite the already high cost of the Iraq War, Bush also defended his
decision to invade Iraq and to eliminate Saddam Hussein by arguing
that otherwise:
>
"he and Iran would be in a race to acquire a nuclear bomb and if we
didn't stop him, Iran would be going to Pakistan or to China and
things would be much worse," Russert said.
---����
If Russert's account is correct, there could be questions raised
about:
---
"whether Bush has "lost touch with reality" and may be slipping back
into:
>
"the false pre-invasion intelligence claims" >
about Hussein threatening the United States with "a mushroom cloud."
---����
U.S. weapons inspectors concluded in 2004 that Hussein had long ago
abandoned his nuclear weapons program.
>
Many experts agreed that continued international sanctions would have
prevented its resumption for the foreseeable future.
---����
Indeed, some observers believe Bush's invasion of Iraq has:
>
proved counterproductive "by spurring Iran and other countries to
speed up their development of nuclear and other unconventional
weapons" in hopes of keeping the United States at bay.
---����
The countries on Bush's "axis of evil" hit list saw that Iraq's WMD
disarmament and acceptance of United Nations inspections didn't stop
the U.S.-led invasion.
---����
Not only have possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a
result, but U.S. forces killed Hussein's two sons and turned the
deposed dictator over to his enemies so he could hanged like a common
criminal on Dec. 30.
---����
So there can be "little incentive for Iranian or North Korean leaders"
to
>
follow the Iraq model of disarmament and inspections.
---
Further, the explosion of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world has
increased risks to
>
the pro-U.S. dictatorship in nuclear-armed Pakistan,
>
where Islamic militants with close ties to al-Qaeda are reported to be
gaining strength.
---����
While avoiding any overt criticism of Bush's comments about an:
>
"imaginary Iraqi-Iranian arms race, Russert suggested that the news
executives found the remarks perplexing.
---����
"That's the way he sees the world,"
>
Russert explained.
>
"His rationale, he believes, for going into Iraq still was one that
was sound."
---����
MSNBC's Chris Matthews then interjected,:
>
"And it could be the rationale for going into Iran at some point."
---����
Russert paused for a few seconds before responding,
>
"It's going to be very interesting to watch that issue and we have to
cover it very, very carefully and very exhaustively."
---����
Reasons for Alarm
********************>����
In his prime-time speech, "Bush injected other reasons to anticipate a
wider war."
---
He used language that suggested:
---
U.S. or allied
***************
forces might:
*************
"launch attacks
***************
"inside" Iran and
******************
Syria" to:
**********
>
"disrupt the attacks on our forces" in Iraq."
>
"We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria," Bush
said.
>
"And we will:
>
"seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and
training to our enemies in Iraq."
---����
Bush announced other steps that could be interpreted as:
---
"building a military infrastructure for a "regional war" or
>
at least for "air strikes" against Iranian nuclear facilities.
>
---����
"I recently ordered the deployment of an
**********************************************
"additional carrier strike group" to the region,"
**********************************************
Bush said.
---
"We will expand intelligence sharing and "deploy Patriot air defense
systems" >
to reassure our friends and allies." >
Though most news accounts of Bush's speech focused on his decision to
send about 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq - on top of the
132,000 already there -
>
Bush's comments about "his regional strategy" could ultimately prove
"more significant."
---����
Militarily, "a second aircraft carrier" strike force would do little
to interdict arms smuggling across the Iran-Iraq border.
---
Similarly, "Patriot anti-missile batteries" would be of no use in
defeating lightly armed insurgent forces and militias "inside Iraq."
---����
However, "both deployments" would be useful to deter - or defend
against
-
---
"retaliatory missile strikes from Iran"
>
"if the Israelis or the United States bomb Iran's nuclear facilities
or stage military raids inside Iranian territory."
---����
Iran has a relatively sophisticated arsenal of:
>
short- and medium-range missiles.
---
Those short-range missiles could be "fired at U.S. bases in Iraq or
elsewhere in the Persian Gulf."
---
The "medium-range missiles" could conceivably hit Tel Aviv.
----����
Not only could Patriot missiles be used to knock down Iranian missiles
while they're heading toward their targets, but
---
the fearsome firepower of two aircraft carrier strike forces could
deter any Iranian retaliatory strike
>
"following a U.S. or Israeli attack."
*******************************************
����
In other words,
>
"the deployments
would fit with Israel or the United States:
>
"bombing Iran's nuclear sites" and
>
"then trying to tamp down any Iranian response."
>���
Another "danger to American interests," however, would be
>
"pro-Iranian Shiite militias" in Iraq seeking revenge against U.S.
troops. >
If that were to happen, Bush's escalation of troop levels in Iraq
would make sense as a way to:
>
protect the Green Zone and other sensitive targets.
---����
So, "Bush's actions and rhetoric" over the past several weeks:
>
continue to mesh with "a scenario for a wider regional war" -
>
a possibility that now mainstream journalists, such as Tim Russert,
are beginning to take seriously.
>���
The Surge Purge
*******************�>���
Other data points are aiming in that same direction.
>���
On Jan. 4,
"Bush ousted the top two commanders"
in the Middle East,
>
>
Bush also "removed" Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte,
threat from Iran's nuclear program.
Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon as:
>
"the new chief of Central Command" for the Middle East despite the
fact that:
>
***************************************
currently "head of the Pacific Command",
will "oversee two ground wars"
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The choice of Fallon makes more sense
"if":
>
coast."
>���
Though "not" considered a Middle East expert,
>
Fallon has moved in "neoconservative circles",
for instance,:
>
attending a 2001 awards ceremony at the "Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs",
a "think tank" dedicated to:
>
explaining "the link between American defense policy and the security
of Israel."
>���
Bush also shifted Negroponte from his Cabinet-level position as DNI to
>
"Bush nominated "Navy retired"
Vice Admiral, John "Mike" McConnell,
******************************************
who is viewed by intelligence professionals as a "low-profile
>���
McConnell is seen as far more unlikely than Negroponte to give the
administration an "alarming assessment" of:
>
Iran's nuclear capabilities and intentions in an upcoming "National
Intelligence Estimate."
>
To the consternation of neoconservatives, Negroponte has splashed cold
water
on their heated rhetoric about:
>
"the imminent threat from Iran."
>���
"Our assessment is that:
>
the prospects of an Iranian weapon
"are still a number of years off, and
probably into the next decade,"
>
>
Expressing a similarly tempered view in a speech at the National Press
Club, Negroponte said,:
>
"I think it's important that this issue be kept in perspective."
Bush reportedly has been:
>
"weighing his military options for "bombing Iran's nuclear facilities
since early 2006."
>
But "he has encountered resistance"
from:
>
"the top U.S. military brass",
much as he has with his plans to escalate U.S. troop levels in Iraq.
As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker:,
>
a number of senior U.S. military officers were troubled by
administration war planners who believed:
>
"bunker-busting" tactical nuclear weapons, known as B61-11s,
>
were the "only way" to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities buried deep
underground.
A former senior intelligence official told Hersh that:
>
the "White House refused to remove"
"the nuclear option" from the plans
>
"despite objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
>
"Whenever anybody tries to get it out, "they're shouted down," the ex-
official said. [New Yorker, April 17, 2006]
By late April 2006, however,
>
the Joint Chiefs "finally got the White House to agree" that:
>
using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at
Natanz, less than 200 miles south of Tehran,
>
"was politically unacceptable", Hersh reported.
>��
"Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were "dead serious" about the
nuclear planning,"
>
one former senior intelligence official said. [New Yorker, July 10,
2006]
Delegating to Israel **********************����
But one way to get around the opposition of the Joint Chiefs would be
to:
>
"delegate the bombing operation to the Israelis."
Given Israel's powerful lobbying operation in Washington and
>
its strong ties to leading Democrats,
>
an Israeli-led attack might be more politically
palatable with the Congress.
*******************************
>���
Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert
***************************************
also has called the possibility of
"an Iranian nuclear bomb" an:
>
"cannot be tolerated."
�***********************
>��
Bush's tough talk about Iran
also comes as:
>
"Israel is reported stepping up preparations
for air strikes against Iran",
*****************************
possibly including the use of
"tactical nuclear bombs", to
destroy Natanz and
other Iranian nuclear facilities.
>���
The Sunday Times of London reported on
Jan. 7 that "two Israeli air squadrons"
are training for the mission and
>
"if things go according to plan,
a pilot will first "launch a conventional laser-guided bomb" to blow a
>
Other pilots will then be ready to drop low-yield
"one kiloton nuclear weapons" into the hole."
>
The Sunday Times wrote that:
>
"Israel also would "hit two other facilities" -
at Isfahan and Arak - with conventional bombs.
>
But the possible use of a nuclear bomb at Natanz would represent the
first nuclear attack since the United States destroyed Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in Japan at the end of World War II six decades ago.
After the Sunday Times article appeared, an Israeli government
spokesman:
>
"denied that Israel has drawn up secret plans" to bomb Iranian nuclear
facilities.
>
For its part, Iran claims it only wants a nuclear program for
producing energy.
While some observers believe Israel or the Bush administration:
>
"may be leaking details of the plans" as a way to frighten Iran into
>
>
"the preparations for a "wider Middle Eastern
**********************************************
war "are very serious and moving very quickly.
**********************************************
>
Without doubt, "Bush's actions" in the "past two months" -
>
reaffirming his determination to succeed in Iraq and
>
warning about a possible "regional explosion"
**********************************************
if he fails -
**********
>
suggest that "his future course" is:
>
an escalation of the conflict,
******************************
not some "graceful exit."
*************************
>���
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for
Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be
ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com,
as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras,
========�
JACKEL
---
Subject: COMPARE HITLER REGIME WITH BUSH REGIME-THEY ARE THE SAME!
----
I DID A GOOGLE SEARCH ON THIS. HERE ARE THE RESULTS OF THAT SEARCH. IT
IS CLEAR PROOF THAT AMERICANS
"DON'T KNOW THEIR HISTORY, SO THEY
CONTINUE "TO REPEAT IT"!
---
Subject:BUSH + HITLER - Google Search
---
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=us&q=BUSH+%2B+HITLER&btnmeta
%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web >
---
HERE IS JUST ONE ARTICLE FROM THAT SEARCH, FROM A GERMAN CITIZEN WHO
WAS AN EYEWITNESS UNDER THE HITLER REGIME, NOW...UNDER THE BUSH
REGIME.
---
NOTE: THIS WAS WRITTEN ALMOST EXACLY--2 YEARS AGO--A LOT HAS HAPPENED
SINCE THIS ARTICLE, THAT
PROVIDES "EVEN MORE EVIDENCE" THAT
BUSH IS FOLLOWING HITLER'S PSYCHOTIC
TALK AND ACTIONS.
---
THIS NEEDS TO BE READ AND SENT OUT, SO YOU CAN IDENTIFY WITH "WHAT
THE HELL IS HAPPENING, "UNDER THE BUSH REGIME" AND ABOUT "OUR ILLEGAL
BOMBINGS AND OCCUPATIONS", WHICH BUSH STATES,
HE WANTS TO DO IN "60 COUNTRIES" .
---
CLEARLY BUSH CAN'T ACCOMPLISH ALL OF THAT IN THE SHORT TIME HE HAS
LEFT IN OFFICE, BUT...HE HAS CLEARLY AND INTENTIONALLY, SET THE
BILLIONS OF MUSLIMS AND ARABS ON FIRE TO THE POINT OF
CAUSING WWIII, AND THE DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO STOP HIM, BY IMPEACHMENT.
WE DON'T NEED THEIR DAMN HEARINGS...WE ALREADY "HAVE THE EVIDENCE"!
-----
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/3201
>
-----
The Bush-Hitler Thing
*************************????
t r u t h o u t | Reader Submission
Friday 09 January 2004
****************************????
Dear Sir,
?????
My family was one of Hitler's victims.
"We lost a lot under the Nazi occupation,"
**********************************************
including an uncle who "died in the camps"
--
and a cousin killed by a booby trap. I was terrified when my father
went ballistic after finding my brother and me playing with a hand
grenade. (I was only 12 at the time, and my brother insisted the
grenade was safe.)
---
I remember the rubble and the hardships of 'austerity' - and the bomb
craters from Allied bombs.
---
As late as the 1980s, I had to take detours while bombs were being
removed - they litter the countryside, buried under parking
lots,buildings, and in the canals and rivers to this day.
----
Believe me, I learned a lot about Hitler while I was growing up, both
in Europe and here in the US - both my parents were in the war and
talked about it constantly, unlike most American families.
----
I spent my earliest years with the second-hand fear that trickled down
from their PTSD - undiagnosed and untreated in those days.
----?????
I'm no expert on WWII - but I learned a lot about what happened in
Germany - and Europe - back in those days.
----
I always wondered how:
"the wonderful German people"
***********************************
- so honest, decent, hard-working,
friendly, and generous -
"could ever allow such a thing to happen."
**********************************************
(There were camps near my family's home - they still talk about them
only in hushed conspiratorial whispers.) I asked a lot of questions -
we were only a few kilometers from the German border - and no one ever
denied me.
----
My relatives had obviously spent a lot of time thinking about the war
- they still haven't forgotten - I don't think anyone can forget such
a horrible nightmare.
----
Among the questions I asked:
*********************************?????
Why didn't you do anything about the people in the camps?
----
Everyone was terrified.
**************************
People 'disappeared' into those camps. Sometimes the Nazis came and
lined everyone up, walking behind them - even school children - with a
cocked pistol. You never knew when they would just shoot someone in
the back of the head.
----
Everyone was terrified.
**************************
Everyone was disarmed - guns were registered, so all the Nazis had to
do was go from house to house and demand the guns.
----?????
Didn't you see what was happening?
****************************************
"We saw. There was nothing we could do."
**********************************************
Our military had no modern weapons.
The Nazis had technology and resources - "they just invaded and took
over" -
***********************************
"we were overwhelmed by their air power."
**********************************************
"They had spies everywhere" -
*******************************
people spying on each other, just to have an 'ace in the hole' in case
they were accused - and anyone who had a grudge against you could
accuse you of something -
"just an accusation meant you'd disappear."
**********************************************
---
Nobody dared ask where you had gone - anyone who returned was
considered suspicious - what had they said, and who did they
implicate?
----
It was a climate of fear - there's nothing anyone
**********************************************
can do "when the government uses fear "
*********************************************
"and imprisonment to intimidate people."
********************************************
"The government was above the law" -
*****************************************
even in Germany, it became 'every man for himself'.
----
"Advancement was possible"
by exposing 'traitors' -
***********************
"anyone who questioned the government."
**********************************************
It didn't matter if the people you accused were guilty or not - just
the accusation was enough.
?????
Did anyone know what was going on?
*****************************************
"We all knew."
***************
We imagined the worst because the Nazis made 'examples' of a few
people in every town and village.
----
Public torture and execution.
**********************************
The most "unspeakable atrocities" were committed in full view of
everyone. If this is what happened in public, can you imagine what
might be going on in the camps?
"Nobody wanted to know."
***************************????
?
Why didn't the German people stop the Nazis?
**********************************************
Life was better, at first, under the Nazis.
---
"The war machine invigorated the economy"
**********************************************
- men had jobs again, and enough money to take care of their family.
---
"New building projects were everywhere."
----------------------------------------------
The shops were full again - and people could afford good food,
culture, and luxuries. Women could stay home in comfort. Crime was
reduced. Health care improved. It was a rosy scenario - Hitler brought
order and prosperity.
---
"His policies won widespread approval"
*********************************************
because life was better for most Germans, after the misery of
reparations and inflation.
---
"The people liked the idea" of:
*********************************
"removing the worst elements of society" -
**********************************************
---
the gypsies, the homosexuals,
the petty criminals -
----
"it was easy to elicit support for prosecuting" the corrupt 'evil'
people poisoning society.
**********************************************
Every family was:
"proud of their hometown heroes" -
****************************************
the sharply-dressed soldiers they contributed to his program -
---
"they were, after all, "defending the Fatherland."
**********************************************
Continuing a proud tradition that had been defeated and shamed after
WWI,
---
"the soldiers gave the feeling of":
"power and success" to the proud families
************************
that showered them with praise and support.
----
Their early victories were reason to celebrate - in spite of the fact
that:
---
"they faced poorly armed inferior forces" - further proof that:
*******************
"what they were doing was right", and
************************************
"the best thing for the country."
*********************************
---
The news was full of stories about their bravery and accomplishments
"against a vile enemy."
**********************************************
---
They were 'liberating' these countries
*******************************************
from "their corrupt governments."
----?????
These are some of the answers I gleaned over the years. As a child, "I
was fascinated with
the Nazis."
---
I thought the German soldiers
**********************************
were really something - that's how strong an impression they made,
"even after the war".
---
After all:,
they weren't the ones committing war crimes -
**********************************************
they were: "the pride of their families and communities".
----
It was just the SS and Gestapo that were 'bad'.
----
Now I know better -
********************
but "that pride in the military was a strong factor" for many years,
only adding to the mystique of military power -
----
after all, my father had been a soldier too, but in the American army.
****************************
It took a while "to figure out the truth."
*****************************************
---?????
Every time I've gone back to Europe,
someone has taken me to the 'gardens of stone' - the Allied cemeteries
that dot the countryside. With great sadness, my relatives would stand
in abject misery,
---
remembering the nightmare, and asking 'Why?'.
**********************************************
---
Maybe that's why:
"they wouldn't support the US invasion of Iraq.
**********************************************
They knew "war".
*****************
They knew "occupation".
*************************
And they knew "resistance."
******************************
----
I saw the building where British flyers hid on their way back to
England
- smuggled out by brave families that risked the lives of everyone "to
help the Allies".
---
As a child, I had played in a basement, where the cow lived under the
house, as is common there. The same place those flyers hid.
---?????
So why, now,
**************
"when I hear GWB's speeches",
**********************************
"do I think of Hitler?"
**********************
---
Why have I drawn a parallel between:
******************************************
"the Nazis" and "the present administration?"
**********************************************
---
Just one small reason -
*************************
the phrase 'Never forget'.
***************************
Never let this happen again.
********************************
It is better to question our government -
********************************************
"because it really can happen here" -
***************************************
than to ignore the possibility.
-----
?????
So far,:
"I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility" that Bush is on the
same course as Hitler.
**********************************************
---
And I've seen far too many analogies
"to dismiss the possibility".
----
The propaganda.
---
The lies.
---
The rhetoric.
-----
The nationalism. The flag waving.
---
The pretext of 'preventive war'.
----
The flaunting of:
--------------------
"international law" and
"international standards of justice."
----
The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens.
---
The threats against protesters.
------
"The invasion" of:
********************
"a non-threatening sovereign nation."
****************************************
The occupation of a hostile country.
---
The promises of prosperity and security.
----
The spying on ordinary citizens.
----
The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the
government.
---
The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest.
---
The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors.
---
The diversion of money to the military.
******************************************
---
"The demonization of government
appointed 'enemies'.
---
The establishment of 'Homeland Security'.
----
The dehumanization of 'foreigners'.
---
The "total lack of interest in the victims" of "government policy".
---
The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill.
----
The "growing prosperity from military ventures." ----- The "illusion
of 'goodness' and primacy."
---
The new einsatzgrupen forces.
---
Assassination teams.
---
Closed extralegal internment camps.
---
The "militarization of domestic police."
---
Media blackout of non-approved issues.
---
"Blacklisting of protesters" - including the no-fly lists and
photographing dissenters at rallies.
---
?????
There isn't much doubt in my mind -
***************************************
---
"anyone who compares the history of:
******************************************
"Hitler's rise to power" and
***********************
the "progression of recent events in the US"
**********************************************
"cannot avoid the parallels". It's incontrovertible.
**********************************************
Is Bush another Hitler?
*************************
Maybe not, but:
"with each incriminating event",
**********************************
"the parallel grows" -
*********************
it certainly cannot be dismissed.
---
There's too much evidence already.
***************************************
---
Just as "Hitler used American tactics"
to plan and execute "his reign",
---
it looks as if:
Karl Rove is reading Hitler's playbook to:
**********************************************
"plan world domination" -
**************************
and that is: "the stated intent of both".
---
>From the Reichstag fire;
to the landing at Nuremberg;
to the motto of "Gott Mit Uns";
--------
to the "unprovoked invasion and occupation" of Iraq;
---
to the "insistence that peace" was
"the ultimate goal,"
--
the line is unbroken and unwavering.
*****************************************
---?????
I'm afraid now, that:
**********************
what may still come to pass is:
"a reign far more savage and barbaric"
than that of the Nazis.
---
Already, appeasement has been fruitless -
---
it "only encourages the brazen" to:
escalate their arrogance and braggadocio.
**********************************************
---
Americans support Bush -
***************************
by a generous majority - and
"mass media sings his praises"
--
"while indicting his detractors" -
"or silencing their opinions completely."
---
The American people seem to care only:
********************************************
"about the domestic economic situation" -
---
and even in that, "they are in complete denial."
----
They don't want to hear about Iraq,
and Afghanistan is already forgotten.
---
"Even the Democratic opposition":
*************************************
supports the occupation of Iraq.
**********************************
---
Everyone seems to agree that:
Saddam Hussein deserves to be executed - with or without a trial.
----
'Visitors' are fingerprinted.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Snipers are on New York City rooftops.
---
When do the Stryker teams start appearing on American streets?
---
They're perfectly suited for 'Homeland Security' - and they've had a
trial run in Iraq.
---
The Constitution has been suspended -
until further notice.
---
Dick Cheney just mentioned:
it may be for decades - even a generation,
**********************************************
as Rice asserts as well.
---
Is this the start of the 1000 year reign
******************************************
of this new collection of thugs?
*********************************
So it would seem.
*******************
---?????
I can only hope that "in the coming year" there "will be some sign -
some hint" -
---
"that we are not becoming that which we abhor.
**********************************************
----
The "Theory of the Grotesque"
fares all too well these days.
---
It may not be Nazi Germany -
*******************************
"it might be a lot worse."
*************************
---????
SL | Wisconsin
-------
Jump to TO Features http://www.truthout.org
SHb
candidates in the '08 race.""
With dems still cheering over Bills Blowjobs on Duty,
why wouldn't the Hillabeast be in the lead?
Restoring Oral Sex to the Whitehouse, kneepads for interns and open season
on interns under the desk is quite a platform for the Hillabeast to persue.
Troops will be brought home to clean up the slums and hurricanes and flood
zones, sweep the streets etc..
Then us welfare folks are gunna get the free health care paid for by the
rich folks.
What a party!
"Skewer" <skew...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1169925486.9...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
JACKEL
TO THE U.S. OR ANYONE ELSE, YET DURING THEIR MANY HEARINGS, CONGRESS
"REFUSED TO CONFRONT POWELL AND RICE WITH THEIR OWN STATEMENTS AND
VIDEO TAPES WHERE THEY "ADMITTED" SADDAM WAS CONTAINED.
---
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU SEND THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR CONGRESS PERSON
DEMANDING THAT POWELL AND RICE BE IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT UP FOR A HEARING
ON THIS, AS WELL AS CONTACTING THE AUTHOR FOR HIS TAPES.
---
THIS IS "PROOF OF FRAUD" UNDER U.S. CODE-TITLE 18, WHICH IS A FELONY
AND AN IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE.
---
NOTE: THE DATE OF THIS ARTICLE IS-2003
---
Subject: THE BIG LIE-POWELL & RICE PUBLICLY STATED:
---
IRAQ NO THREAT -"BEFORE ATTACKS"
---
Subject:t r u t h o u t - John Pilger | The Big Lie
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/092403B.shtml >
-----
TEXT COPY: 9-22-03
---
Subject:Mirror.co.uk - News - All News Archive - THE BIG LIE-9-22-03
---
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/
content_objectid=13434081_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-THE%2DBIG
%2DLIE-name_page.html
>
----???
The Big Lie
----???
By John Pilger
The London Daily Mirror
---???
Monday 22 September 2003
----
JOHN PILGER REVEALS WMDs WERE JUST A "PRETEXT" FOR PLANNED WAR ON IRAQ
----???
EXACTLY one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament:
---
"Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active,
detailed and growing.
----???
"The policy of containment is not working.
---
The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up
and running now."
----???
Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie
invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11
2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media
from the real reason for attacking Iraq.
----
"It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.
----???
An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary
"Breaking The Silence," together with interviews with former
intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that
Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively
disarmed.
----
Both Colin Powell, U.S. Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice,
President Bush's closest adviser,
---
made clear "before September 11 2001"
********************************************
"that Saddam Hussein was no threat" -
******************************************
to America, Europe or the Middle East.
*******************************************
---???
In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said:
**********************************************
"He (Saddam Hussein) has "not" developed any significant capability
with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
---
"He is unable" to project "conventional power" against his
neighbours."
----???
This is the very opposite of what Bush and
**********************************************
Blair said in public.
*********************
---???
"Powell even boasted" that:
*******************************
it was the U.S. policy of "containment"
********************************************
that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator -
**********************************************
again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again.
---
On May 15 2001, Powell went further and
***************************
said that:
---
"Saddam Hussein had not been able to
********************************************
"build his military back up or to develop
*******************************************
weapons of mass destruction" for
***************************************
"the last 10 years".
**********************
America, he said,
**********
had been successful in keeping him "in a box".
**********************************************
---???
Two months later,
*********************
Condoleezza Rice also described a weak,
**********************************************
divided and militarily defenceless Iraq.
******************************************
"Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said.
----
"We are able to keep his arms from him.
*********************************************
His military forces have not been rebuilt."
*********************************************
----???
So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to
their own propaganda,
**********************************************
and the Blair government's propaganda
---
that subsequently "provided the justification"
**********************************************
for "an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq."
**********************************************
---
The "result was the deaths" of what reliable studies now put at:
-----
50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well
as British and American troops.
----
There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.
----???
In a torrent of propaganda seeking to justify this violence before and
during the invasion, there "were occasional truths" that never made
headlines.
******************************
---
In April last year, (2002)
*******************
Condoleezza Rice described September 11 2001 as:
----
an "enormous opportunity" and
***********************************
said America "must move to take
**************************************
advantage of these new opportunities."
*****************************************
----???
Taking over Iraq,
----
"the world's second biggest oil producer, was the first such
opportunity.
***********************************
-----???
At 2.40pm on September 11,
***********************************
according to "confidential notes"
taken by his aides,
---
Donald Rumsfeld,
********************
the Defense Secretary, said:
---
he wanted to "hit" Iraq -
*************************
even though not a shred of evidence existed that Saddam Hussein had
anything to do with the attacks on New York and Washington.
---
"Go massive,"
***************
the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying.
---
"Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
********************************************
Iraq was given a brief reprieve when it was decided instead to attack
Afghanistan.
---
This was the "softest option" and easiest to explain to the American
people -
even though not a single September 11 hijacker
**********************************************
came from Afghanistan.
**************************
---
In the meantime, securing the "big prize", Iraq, became an obsession
in both Washington and London.
----???
An "Office of Special Plans" was
******************************
hurriedly set up in the Pentagon for
the sole purpose of converting "loose" or
*********************************************
"unsubstantiated intelligence" into U.S. policy.
?*********************************************
---
This was a source from which Downing Street received much of the
"evidence" of weapons of mass destruction "we now know to be phoney. "
---???
Contrary to Blair's denials at the time, the decision to attack Iraq
was set in motion on September 17 2001,
**************************
just six days after the attacks on New York and Washington.
---???
On that day, Bush signed a
******************************
" top- secret directive",
************************
"ordering the Pentagon" to
******************************
begin planning "military options" for
****************************************
an invasion of Iraq.
*********************
----
In July 2002,
******************
Condoleezza Rice told another Bush official
**********************************************
who had "voiced doubts about invading Iraq":
---
"A decision has been made.
*******************************
Don't waste your breath."
***************************
----???
The "ultimate cynicism of this cover-up" was expressed by Rumsfeld
himself only last week.
---
When asked why he thought most Americans still believed Saddam Hussein
was behind the attacks of September 11, he replied:
---
"I've not seen any indication that:
************************************
would lead me to believe I could say that."
**********************************************
----
It is this that makes the Hutton inquiry in London virtually a sham.
----
By setting up an inquiry solely into the death of the weapons expert
David Kelly,
"Blair has ensured there will be
"no official public investigation" into
the real reasons he and Bush attacked Iraq and into when exactly they
made that decision.
----
"He has ensured there will be:
"no headlines about disclosures"
in email traffic between Downing Street and the White House,
----
only secretive tittle-tattle from Whitehall and the smearing of the
messenger of Blair's misdeeds. ----
The sheer scale of this cover-up
************************************
makes almost laughable the forensic cross-examination of: the BBC
reporter Andrew Gilligan
**************************************
about "anomalies" in the
notes of his interview with David Kelly -
******************************************
when the story Gilligan told of "government "hypocrisy and deception
was basically true.
?*********************************************
----
Those pontificating about Gilligan failed to ask one vital question -
----
"why has Lord Hutton not recalled Tony Blair for cross-examination?
----
Why is Blair not being asked why British sovereignty has been handed
over to
"a gang in Washington" whose
"extremism is no longer doubted"
by even the most conservative observers?
----
No one knows the Bush extremists better than "Ray McGovern, a former
senior CIA officer"
**********************************************
and
---
personal friend of George Bush senior, the President's father.
---
In "Breaking The Silence", he tells me:
---
"They were referred to in the circles in which I moved when I was
briefing at the top policy levels as 'the crazies'."
************************???
"Who referred to them as 'the crazies'?" I asked.
----???
"All of us... in policy circles as well as
******************************************
intelligence circles...
**********************
"There is "plenty of documented evidence"
**********************************************
that they have been planning these attacks
**********************************************
for a long time and
**********************
that 9/11 accelerated their plan.
***********************************
"(The weapons of mass destruction issue) "was all contrived", so was
******************************
the connection of Iraq with al Qaeda.
*****************************************
It was all PR... Josef Goebbels had this dictum:
**********************************************
---
"If you say something often enough,
the people will believe it."
----
He added:
"I think we ought to be all worried about
*********************************************
fascism (in the United States)."
*********************************
----
The "crazies" include:
************************
John Bolton, Under Secretary of State,
******************************************
who has "made a personal mission"
****************************************
of "tearing up missile treaties" with the Russians and threatening
North Korea,
*********************************************
----
and
Douglas Feith, an Under Secretary of Defence,
**********************************************
who "ran a secret propaganda unit"
***************************************
"reworking" intelligence about Iraq's weapons.
**********************************************
-----
I interviewed them both in Washington.
---???
Bolton boasted to me that:
*****************************
"the killing of as many as 10,000 Iraqi civilians" in the invasion was
"quite low if you look at the size of the military operation."
----
For "raising the question of civilian casualties" and asking which
country America might attack next, I was told:
---
"You must be a member of the
**********************************
Communist Party."
*******************
----
Over at the Pentagon, Feith,
(No 3 to Rumsfeld), spoke about:
---
the "precision" of American weapons and denied that many civilians had
been killed.
**********************************************
----
When I pressed him,
an army colonel ordered my cameraman:
----
"Stop the tape!"
---
In Washington, the wholesale deaths of Iraqis "is unmentionable. "
---
They are non-people;
*************************
the "more they resist"
*************************
the Anglo-American occupation,
************************************
the more they are dismissed as "terrorists".
**********************************************
----
It is "this slaughter in Iraq",
******************************
"a crime" by any interpretation of
an international law,
**********************
that makes the Hutton inquiry absurd.
----
While his lordship and the barristers play their semantic games,
---
the spectre of thousands of dead human beings is never mentioned, and
witnesses to this great crime are not called.
----???
Jo Wilding,
**************
a young law graduate,
is one such witness.
**********************
---
She was one of a group of human rights "observers in Baghdad during
the bombing. "
---
She and the others lived with Iraqi families as the missiles and
cluster bombs exploded around them.
---
Where possible, they would follow the explosions to scenes of civilian
casualties and trace the victims to hospitals and mortuaries,
interviewing the eyewitnesses and doctors. She kept meticulous notes.
----???
She saw children cut to pieces by shrapnel and screaming because there
were no anaesthetics or painkillers.
---
She saw Fatima, a mother stained with the blood of her eight children.
---
She saw streets, mosques and farmhouses bombed by marauding aircraft.
---
"Nothing could explain them,"
she told me, "other than that:
it was a deliberate attack on civilians."
****************************************
---???
As these atrocities were carried out in our name, why are we not
hearing such crucial evidence?
---
And why is Blair allowed to make yet more self-serving speeches, and
none of them from the dock?
-----???
Go to Original--THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HAS EXPIRED.
---???
Journo Claims Proof of WMD Lies
*************************************???
By Paul Mulvey in London
--
Tuesday 23 September 2003
----???
Australian investigative journalist,
*************************************
John Pilger says:
*******************
---
"he has evidence" the war against Iraq
*******************************************
"was based on a lie" that:
**********************
---
could cost George W. Bush and
Tony Blair their jobs and
bring Prime Minister John Howard
down with them.
---???
A "television report by Pilger"
*******************************
aired on British screens overnight said:
*******************************************
---
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and
---
National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice
----
"confirmed in early 2001" that:
**********************************
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
**********************************
"had been disarmed" and "was no threat. "
**********************************************
----???
But after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on
September 11 that year,
----
Pilger claimed:
---
Rice said the U.S. "must move to take advantage of these new
opportunities"
to attack Iraq and claim control of its oil.
----???
Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell
**********************************************
in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying,
******************************************
---
"He (Saddam Hussein) "has not developed" any significant capability
with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbours."
----???
Two months later, Rice reportedly said,
---
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not
been rebuilt."
----???
Powell boasted this was because America's policy of containment and
its sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.
----???
Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of U.S. President George
W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and
Howard
- to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was
a huge deception.
----???
Pilger interviewed several leading U.S. government figures in
Washington but said he did not ask Powell or Rice to respond to his
claims.
----
"I think it's very serious for Howard. Howard has followed the
Americans and to a lesser degree Blair almost word for word,"
---
Pilger told AAP before his program was screened on ITV tonight.
---???
"All Howard does is say `well it?s not true? and never explains
himself.
----???
"I just don't believe you can be seen to be party to such a big lie,
such a big deception and endure that politically.
----???
"It simply can't be shrugged off and that's Howard's response.
----???
"Blair has shrugged it off but Blair is deeply damaged.
----
It's far from over here, there's a lot that is going to happen and
much of it could wash onto Howard.
---????
"And it's unravelling in America and Bush could lose the election next
year.
----???
"I've not seen political leaders survive when they've been complicit
in such an open deception for so long."
----???
Howard last week, dismissed an accusation from Opposition Leader,
Simon Crean that:
---
he hid a warning from British intelligence that
**********************************************
war against Iraq would heighten the
****************************************
terrorist threat to Australia.
*****************************
----???
In his report, Pilger interviews Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA
officer and friend of Bush's father and ex-president, George Bush
senior.
----???
McGovern told Pilger that going to war because of weapons of mass
destruction "was 95 per cent charade."
----???
Pilger also claims that six hours after the September 11 attacks on
the World Trade Centre,
----
U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he wanted to "hit" Iraq
and allegedly said "Go Massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and
not."
---???
He was allegedly talked down by Powell who said the American people
would not accept an attack on Iraq without any evidence, so they opted
to invade Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden had bases.
---???
Pilger claimed war was set in train on September 17, 2001 when Bush
signed a paper directing the Pentagon to explore the military options
for an attack on Iraq.(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
---
Print This Story? E-mail This Story
?? : t r u t h o u t 2003
JACKEL
--
THE POLITICIANS "HAVE BEEN SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE SOLDIER, IT'S
TIME FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO "SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES".
--
Subject:Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq --website & petition
to sign
---
http://www.appealforredress.org/
>
JACKEL
--
THEY "KNOW" THEY WERE LIED TO AND NOW ARE JUST "USED" FOR THE
"PERSONAL BENEFIT" OF OIL CORPS AND POLITICIANS.
--
AMERICANS MUST STOP THIS KILLING NOW..IT IS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL AND
THE WORLD KNOWS IT, WHICH IS WHY THEY REFUSE TO "JOIN BUSH'S REGIME".
---
WE, AMERICANS MUST HOLD CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE, SINCE THEY "REFUSE TO
IMPEACH BUSH".
---
Subject:Active-Duty Military Petition Congress to End War--1-15-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012307B.shtml
>
JACKEL
NATION", NOT A "DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC' THAT OUR SO-CALLED "PEOPLE'S
ELECTED POLITICIANS" LIKE TO SPEW.
---
LT. WATADA WAS THE ONE PERSON WHO "COULD HAVE" BROUGHT THIS HOME TO
ENSURE THAT "NO SOLDIER" WOULD BE FORCED INTO ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL
WARS, WHICH THE U.S. MILITARY TRIBUNAL AT NUREMBURG CLEARLY STATED:
--
"NO SOLDIER CAN USE THE EXCUSE OF SAYING THAT "HIS MILITARY SUPERIOR"
ORDERED HIM TO COMMIT THESE ILLEGAL ACTS, SO HE DID.
--
THE ACTION BEING TAKEN AGAINST LT. WATADA FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE
U.S.A.'S OWN LAWS, PLUS THOSE OF THE UNITED NATIONS. THUS, THIS CASE
"SHOULD BE TAKEN ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT, BUT IT APPEARS, THE
LT'S ATTORNEY HAS CONVINCED THE LT. THAT HE WOULD LOSE.
--
THUS, A PLEA BARGAIN HAS BEEN SET UP BY THE LT.'S ATTY. AND IF THE
MILITARY ACCEPTS IT, THERE WILL BE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SOLDIERS THAT
WILL DIE "UNDER THE ORDERS" OF THE FASCIST BUSH REGIME, AND THE NEXT
PRESIDENT.
---
THE COWARDLY DEMOCRATS HAVE ALREADY SHOWN THAT THESE "ILLEGAL WARS"
WILL NEVER BE PROSECUTED BECAUSE THEY ARE "REFUSING TO LISTEN TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND START "IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE BUSH
REGIME, WHICH OF COURSE, THEY ARE NOW A PART.
---
UNLESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE STAND-UP AGAINST THIS FASCIST GOVERNMENT,
WE WILL ALL BE CONTROLLED BY IT.
---
START TODAY TO GET EDUCATED TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
(I.C.C.) BY GOOGLING TO THE UNITED NATIONS WEBSITE, THEN CLICK ON THE
I.C.C. TO READ "HOW WE AMERICANS CAN PETITION THE U.N. SECURITY
COUNCIL SO THEY WILL REFER OUR CASE OF "WAR CRIMES" BY THE BUSH
REGIME, TO THE I.C.C. FOR PROSECUTION, "BECAUSE OUR OWN GOVT. REFUSES
TO HOLD THEM "LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE".
---
HERE'S THE ARTICLE RE THE LATEST ON LT.WATADA.
---
Subject: LT.WATADA-PLEA BARGAINING-BUT SHOULD TAKE CASE TO SUPREME
COURT
---
Subject:Two Charges Dropped Against Watada-1-29-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013007J.shtml
>
-----
Watada Agreement Means Journos
Won't Have to Testify in "Anti-War" Case
????
The Associated Press
?Monday 29 January 2007
????
Honolulu -
The U.S. government agreed to drop two
**********************************************
counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer"
**********************************************
from its case against the Army lieutenant who called the Iraq war
illegal and refused to deploy.
---????
1st Lt. Ehren Watada, whose court-martial is scheduled Feb. 5,
---
"still faces a maximum of four years imprisonment" if he is convicted
of:
"missing movement" for his refusal to deploy last June and
"two remaining counts of conduct unbecoming an officer" for:
---
"comments made" at a Veterans for Peace Convention in Seattle.
----????
The two counts dropped Monday carry a maximum of two years in prison.
They stem "from comments he made to reporters" in June explaining why
he refused to go to Iraq and why he was challenging the Bush
administration's reasons for going to war.
????
In exchange, Watada's attorney Eric Seitz agreed that two subpoenaed
reporters will not have to testify. They are Honolulu Star-Bulletin's
Gregg Kakesako and freelance reporter Sarah Olson.
---????
"We will stipulate and agree to the testimony that the reporters would
have otherwise provided and the accuracy to the statements that are
attributed to my client,"
said Seitz, of Honolulu.
---????
Seitz said Watada's action shields the journalists from the "heavy
handedness of the government."
---????
"While we don't think any charges should have been filed at all for:
"simply exercising free speech", we are pleased with the government's
willingness to reduce Lieutenant Watada's potential sentence by two
years," he said.
---????
Seitz is scheduled to leave for Fort Lewis, Washington on Tuesday to
attend Watada's trial next week.
---????
"This is not a justice proceeding but a disciplinary proceeding," he
said.
---
"Really, the only thing the Army is interested in here is:
---
"what kind of punishment to mete",
not whether Lieutenant Watada is guilty
********************************************
or innocent of the charges.
******************************
---????
"They've already determined, basically, his guilt."
---????
Military judge Lt. Col. John Head ruled Jan. 16 that the 28-year-old
Hawaii-born soldier
"cannot base his defense on the war's legality."
**********************************************
---????
"Head also rejected" lawyers' claims that "Watada's First Amendment
rights shielded him" from charges stemming from his criticism of the
war.
---
Head said "there are limits" to the
"free-speech rights of military personnel."
---????
Watada planned to argue that the war was illegal because:
---
"it violated Army regulations" that:
wars must be waged in accordance with
the United Nations Charter.
*******************************
---????
Fort Lewis spokesman, Joseph Piek said:
---
he had "no indication whatsoever" that any full settlement could be
reached before trial.
---????
"This is "still a serious case" of an officer who refused orders to
deploy," he said.
---
"For an officer "to violate military law" and "refuse orders" such as
these is:
"something the military takes very seriously."
---????
Seitz said:
"the Army wanted Watada to plead guilty to:
**********************************************
"at least two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer" and "missing
movement":
---
"in return for a sentence" that:
**********************************
would include "a dishonorable discharge"
*********************************************
and "18 months in prison."
*****************************
----????
"We did not feel that was appropriate and there have been no further
discussions since the government made that position known to us," he
said.
---????
Seitz said:
he has offered:
****************
---
"three months of confinement" and
---------------------------------------
"dishonorable discharge",
---------------------------------
but the Army did not indicate any
willingness to go along with that.
---????
Watada refused to go to Iraq last June with his unit, the 3rd Brigade,
2nd Infantry Division,
after deciding the war was illegal.
---
He has said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan or elsewhere.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features: ??
http://www.truthout.org
JACKEL
ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO DESTROY CONGRESS'S LAWS RE THE MOST IMPORTANT LAWS
THAT DEAL WITH OUR "HEALTH".
>
WHAT BUSH IS DOING IS "EXACTLY" WHAT MANY STATES, INCLUDING ALASKA AND
WASHINGTON HAS BEEN DOING FOR DECADES, I.E. "INTERPRETING FEDERAL
LAWS" THAT ILLEGALLY DENY THE VERY GOVT. SERVICES, THAT WE HAVE PAID
FOR VIA OUR TAXES, I.E. DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, HEALTH CARE,
WORKER'S COMPENSATION, ETC.
>
BUSH'S LEGAL PROSTITUTES APPARENTLY REALIZED THIS AND DECIDED TO DO
THE SAME THING.
>
THE TRUTH IS: CONGRESS INTENTIONALLY AND CORRUPTLY MADE THE LAWS SO
VAGUE AND ALLOWED "THE STATE GOVT.'S TO "DECIDE" A "STATE PLAN" TO
PROVIDE THESE BENEFITS, I.E. 50 STATE PLANS, IN WHICH THE STATE
POLITICIANS TELL THEIR BUREAUCRATS TO "DENY THE POOR, SICK, AND
HOMELESS" OF THESE VERY DESPERATELY NEEDED SERVICES, THEN THEY THROW
THIS MONEY INTO THE "GENERAL FUND" WHERE THEY ARE USED TO BUILD
CONVENTION CENTERS, ETC.
--
AGAIN, NOT UNTIL AMERICANS, THEMSELVES DEMAND PROSECUTION OF THIS
CORRUPTION, WILL WE GET RID OF THESE FASCIST POLITICIANS.
---
Subject: BUSH "AGAIN" USES EXEC.ORDER TO BENEFIT GREEDY CORPS-
>
BEFORE READING THE BELOW ARTICLE ABOUT THE BUSH REGIME, READ THIS 1944
ARTICLE ABOUT "HOW TO TELL IF THE U.S.A. GOVERNMENT "HAS BECOME A
FASCIST GOVERNMENT" AND COMPARE IT TO WHAT THE BUSH REGIME, IN
COLLUSION WITH CONGRESS (BOTH DEMS & REPUBS) HAVE BEEN DOING "TO US":
--
Subject:The Danger of American Fascism
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082103F.shtml
>
---
Subject:BUSH-EXEC, ORDER"- PASSES ILLEGAL LAW-TO BENEFIT CORPS-1-30-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013007L.shtml
>
----
Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation
**********************************************ByRobert
Pear
The New York Times
Tuesday 30 January 2007
????
Washington -
President Bush has "signed a directive" that:
**********************************************
gives the White House:
"much greater control over the
"rules and policy statements" that:
the government develops to:
"protect":
public health,
safety,
the environment,
civil rights and privacy.
????
In "an executive order" published last week
**********************************************
in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that:
"each agency":
***************
must have "a regulatory policy office"
****************************************
run by "a political appointee", to:
**************************************
"supervise the development of rules" and
*****************************************
documents "providing guidance" to
***************************************
"regulated industries."
************************
The White House will thus:
"have a gatekeeper in each agency"
"to analyze" the costs and the benefits
of new rules and to"
make sure the agencies carry out
*************************************
"the president's priorities."
****************************???
?
This strengthens the hand of
the White House in:
"shaping rules" that have, in the past,
often "been generated by civil servants" and scientific experts.
It suggests that:
"the administration still has ways"
*************************************
to exert its power after the takeover of
*******************
Congress by the Democrats.
????
The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any
one agency.
But "business executives" and
"consumer advocates" said:
"the administration was particularly concerned" about rules and
guidance issued by:
the "Environmental Protection Agency" and the "Occupational Safety and
Health Administration."
????
In an interview on Monday,
Jeffrey A. Rosen,
*******************
"general counsel" at the White House
******************************************
Office of Management and Budget, said,:
"This is a "classic good-government measure"
**********************************************
that will make federal agencies
more open and accountable."
????
"Business groups welcomed the executive
**********************************************
order", saying:
******
it had the "potential to reduce"
what they saw as:
the burden "of federal regulations."
***************************************
"This burden" is of great concern to many groups, including small
businesses, that
"have given strong political and financial
*********************************************
backing to Mr. Bush.
***********************
????
Consumer,
labor and
environmental groups
"denounced the executive order", saying:
***********************************
it gave too much control to the White House and would hinder agencies'
efforts
"to protect the public."
????
"Typically, agencies issue regulations"
******************************************
"under authority granted to them"
************************************
"in laws enacted by Congress."
***********************************
In many cases, "the statute does not say"
**********************************************
precisely:
---
"what agencies should do",
******************************
giving them "considerable latitude"
*************************************
"in interpreting the law" and
********************************
"developing regulations."
**************************
????
The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that:,
"in deciding" whether to "issue regulations",
**********************************************
"federal agencies"
********************
must identify "the specific market failure" "or problem" that:
justifies government intervention.
*************************************
????
Besides "placing political appointees"
"in charge of rule making",
****************************
Mr. Bush said:
"agencies must give the White House"
******************************************
an "opportunity to review "
any "significant guidance documents"
"before" they are issued.
**************************????
The "Office of Management and Budget" "already has" an:
elaborate process for
"the review of proposed rules."
But in recent years,
**********************
"many agencies" have
*************************
"circumvented this process" by:
***********************************
"issuing guidance documents",
which explain:
"how they" will enforce federal laws"
***************************************
and "contractual requirements."
**********************************
????
Peter L. Strauss,
*****************
a professor at Columbia Law School, said:
"the executive order "achieves a
"major increase" in "White House control" "over domestic government."
******************************???
"Having lost control of Congress,"
Mr. Strauss said,:
"the president is doing what he can
"to increase his control"
**************************
of the executive branch."
????
Representative, Henry A. Waxman,
***************************************
Democrat of California and
chairman of the
"Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform", said:
"The executive order:
"allows the political staff" at the White House to: > "dictate
decisions" on health and safety issues, even if the government's own
"impartial experts disagree."
This is a terrible way to govern,
but great news for special interests."
****************************************
????
Business groups hailed the initiative.
*****************************************????
"This is the most serious attempt by
"any chief executive to get control over"
********************************************
"the regulatory process",
**************************
which spews out thousands of regulations a year," said: William L.
Kovacs,
********************
a vice president of the
"United States Chamber of Commerce."
"Because of the executive order,
"regulations will be less onerous" and
more reasonable.
"Federal officials "will have to":
pay more attention to the costs imposed on business, state and
local governments, and
society."
????
Under the executive order:,
each federal agency "must estimate":
"the combined aggregate costs" and
"benefits of all its regulations" each year.
Until now, agencies often tallied the costs and the benefits of major
rules one by one, without measuring the cumulative effects.
????
Gary D. Bass,
***************
executive director of "O.M.B. Watch",
a liberal-leaning "consumer group" that monitors the Office of
Management and Budget, criticized Mr. Bush's order, saying,
"It will result in more delay and more White House control over the
day-to-day work of federal agencies."
????
"By requiring agencies to show a 'market failure,'" Dr. Bass said,
"President Bush has created another hurdle for agencies to clear
"before they can issue rules protecting public health and safety."
????
Wesley P. Warren,
*********************
program director at the
"Natural Resources Defense Council",
who worked at the White House for seven years under President Bill
Clinton, said,:
"The executive order is a backdoor attempt"
**********************************************
to prevent E.P.A. from "being able to enforce" environmental
safeguards that keep cancer-causing chemicals and other pollutants out
of the air and water."
????
Business groups have complained about the proliferation of guidance
documents.
David W. Beier,
*****************
a senior vice president of Amgen,
"the biotechnology company", said:
"Medicare officials had issued"
*********************************
such documents "with little or no public input."
**********************************************
Hugh M. O'Neill,
*****************
a vice president of
the pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis, said:
"guidance documents" sometimes
"undermined or negated"
the effects of "formal regulations."
************************************????
In theory, "guidance documents":
************************************
"do not have the force of law."
********************************
But the White House said:
"the documents needed closer scrutiny" because:
they "can have coercive effects"
and "can impose significant costs"
on the public.
**************
Many guidance documents are:
"made available to regulated industries" but not to the public.
***********************
????
Paul R. Noe,
**************
who "worked on regulatory policy"
at the White House from 2001 to 2006, said:
"such aberrations would soon end."
"In the past,
***********
"guidance documents were often"
issued in the dark,"
********************
Mr. Noe said.
"The executive order will ensure":
they are issued in the sunshine,
with more opportunity for public comment."
????
Under the new White House policy,:
"any guidance document" expected to:
"have an economic effect" of:
*********************************
$100 million a year or more
*******************************
"must be posted on the Internet", and
************************************
"agencies must invite public comment,
*******************************************
"except in emergencies"
**************************
in which the "White House grants an exemption."
????
The White House told agencies that:
in "writing guidance documents",
"they could not impose new legal obligations"
**********************************************
on anyone and
***********
could not use "mandatory language":
***************************************
such as 'shall,' 'must,' 'required' or 'requirement.'"
????
The executive order was issued as White House aides were preparing for
a battle over the nomination of:
Susan E. Dudley
******************
to be administrator of the
"Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs" at the Office of
Management and Budget.
????
President Bush first nominated Ms. Dudley last August. The nomination
died in the Senate, "under a barrage of criticism" from environmental
and consumer groups,
which said:
she had been hostile to government regulation.
**********************************************
Mr. Bush nominated her again on Jan. 9.
**********************************************
????
With Democrats in control, the Senate appears "unlikely to confirm Ms.
Dudley".
But under the Constitution, the president could appoint her while the
Senate is in recess, allowing her to serve through next year.
????
Some of Ms. Dudley's views
"are reflected in the executive order."
In a "primer on regulation" written in 2005, while she was at the
Mercatus Center of George Mason University in Northern Virginia, Ms.
Dudley said that:
"government regulation was generally:
"not warranted "in the
*****************
"absence of a significant market failure."
????
She did not return calls seeking comment on Monday.
Skewer
government is filled with some of the most corrupt, self-serving, ego-
manical, liars who sit as the "Top Leaders" of our government.
---
There are also few, if any people, who will disagree that it was
stupid and ignorant people who voted for these people which why these
"unprosecuted criminals" are in office.
---
George W. Bush, of course, "leads" the list of all of the above, but
while G.W. has these street-con qualities, most acknowledge that G.W.
Bush is also a Moron, i.e. all he has to do is open his mouth and
speak, (without a script) and out falls his pea-brain thoughts.
>
Next in line, are all of those bureaucrats that these Morons hire,
i.e. "the bureaucrats" who are protected to the teeth with job
security, automatic wage increases, the best benefits, etc. and all
they have to do is "agree with their bosses", i.e. no thinking is
required, thus nothing gets done except the illegal crap they are
ordered to do.
---
The "tie" between these "Criminal Morons" is that All of them are
"willing" to prostitute themselves to "those who sign their checks and
give them orders".
---
The FACT that almost none of the "people" who vote for these criminal-
morons have "any personal knowledge of these U.S. officials, any more
than the jurors sitting on a trial.
---
But, the difference between a juror and a election-voter IS:
---
The Juror has the Benefit of seeing and hearing "Facts and Evidence"
that at least provides the juror justification for finding the
defendant "guilty or not guilty" yet, we have found dozens of people
who were wrongfully sentenced to death or life in prison, but due to
technology, such as DNA testing, they were proved innocent and THE
JURORS WRONG".
---
Where am I going with this? Well, I think it is time that Americans
START to consider a "Change in How We Do the Most Important Things
that Affect Our Lives", i.e. "Voting for People" We Don't Know" but
obviously Are Very Wealthy, or they couldn't Run for Office, and
---
Jurors who have absolutely "No Knowledge of Law" or Experience in Life
to even Understand a simple court case.
---
In other words, I am talking about taking "the human element", with
all "their emotional baggage and bias" out of these events and
replacing them with a non-bias COMPUTER.
---
No, this is Not the Ultimate "Big Brother" or "Orwellian" style that
we have all feared.
--
Just ask yourself these two questions:
--
(1) If you were charged with Murder, but you were innocent, Would You
Trust your Life to the Jury System we have Now?;
--
(2) Do You Trust the Government You Have Now?
---
If your answer is "No" to either or Both of these questions, then
"Let's Not Be Stupid and Immediately Dismiss this Change."
---
We could, of course, have a hybrid-type of System, i.e. We would put
All of the Documentation Available on the subjects of both cases, i.e.
"The Crime" or "The Candidate" and compare that data with Each
Situation, or in the case of the political candidate AND the
Bureaucrat, his/her "Actual Qualifications" vs "The Job" and "Based
Solely on "The Data Results" we can find the Candidate which is "Most
Qualified" for the Job, then we have these selected candidates take
"psychological tests" to gauge their "mental status, i.e. logic,
reasoning, etc.
---
This would also eliminate any racial or religious bias, as well as
physical disabilities from Only those who are "Good-Looking-wealthy-
con-artists.
--
In the case of Jury trials, the "Hard Results" of "Real Evidence" vs
the demeanor; the race; the mental illness of the defendant, will be
removed from all of the "human elements" of bias that jurors come with
when sitting on a jury. Again, psychological testing of the defendant
would take place, eliminating the mentally-ill from the so-called
"Justice System" and they would finally be able to "Get the Treatment"
that our society never provided, until now.
---
HAVING SAID ALL OF THIS, I HAVE PROVIDED THIS THREAD TO "SHOW YOU" HOW
MANY MORONS WE HAVE IN OUR GOVERNMENT.
--
CLEARLY THESE "MORONS" WHO ARE SO-CALLED "PUBLIC SERVANTS" WERE HIRED,
NOT DUE TO THEIR QUALIFICATIONS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED.
---
BUT AS WE HAVE SEEN WITH THE BUSH REGIME, "IT'S NOT WHAT YOU KNOW,
IT'S "WHO YOU KNOW" THAT GOT THEM THEIR JOBS, AND THEY ARE EITHER
PROMOTED OR PROTECTED, WHEN THE "EVIDENCE PROVES THEY ARE SELF-SERVING
LIARS" WHO ARE WILLING TO PROSTITUTE THEMSELVES TO FULLFILL THE
"WISHES OF THEIR CRIMINAL BOSSES".
--
PLEASE READ THIS THREAD AND SEE IF YOU AGREE, THAT "IT IS TIME THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE GET "SMART" AND CHANGE THESE SYSTEMS SO WE CAN
"ENSURE" THAT ONLY THE "MOST QUALIFIED" PEOPLE RUN THIS NATION AND NO
INNOCENT PERSON IS PUT TO DEATH OR DIES IN PRISON FOR SOMETHING THEY
DIDN'T DO.
--
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME!
POGO
THE "SEND ME A COPY", SHOWING THAT GOOGLE HAD POSTED IT, "YET IT HAS
NOT SHOWED UP IN THE ALT. GROUPS".
--
IT APPEARS "OUR GOVT. & OR GOOGLE, DOESN'T LIKE MY POSTS. I GUESS THEY
DON'T LIKE BEING EXPOSED.
---
SOOOO, HERE IT IS AGAIN.
--
E-mail message
From: skew...@webtv.net(Skewer)
---
Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2007, 11:56am
---
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
---
Subject: Re: THE MORONS WHO RUN OUR U.S. GOVT.-U.S. PRESIDENTS WHO
"GAVE" URANIUM & REACTORS TO OTHER COUNTRIES
---
THESE TWO ARTICLES SHOW HOW SHORT-SIGHTED OUR PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN IN
THE PAST, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT PROVES THAT MANY OF THESE
PRESIDENTS AND CONGRESS, "KNOWING" WHAT A MISTAKE IT WAS TO GIVE-AWAY
THE MOST LETHAL MATERIAL THAT COULD KILL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, "REFUSED
TO TRY AND RECOVER THIS URANIUM", AS WELL AS "FIRE" THE MOST QUALIFIED
PERSON WHO SPENT A LIFE-TIME ON THIS "MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL SECURITY
ISSUE".
---
THESE ARE THE MORONS THAT THIS THREAD WAS SETUP TO EXPOSE. UNTIL I
READ THESE ARTICLES WAS IGNORANT OF MOST OF THIS, AS I AM SURE MOST
AMERICANS HAVE BEEN.
---
LIKE MOST OF THE PROBLEMS IN THE U.S.A., WE HAVE ALLOWED "OUR MORONS"
TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PEOPLE.
---
WITH THE ADVENT OF THE INTERNET, WE, THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET
"ALL OF THIS INFORMATION" IF WE GET LAWS THAT "REQUIRE OUR GOVERNMENT
TO TELL US "BEFORE" THEY DO THESE MORONIC THINGS, AND THEN, WE, THE
PEOPLE, NOT OUR INCOMPETENT CONGRESS, COULD VOTE ON THEIR DECISIONS.
---
I.E. IT WAY PAST TIME THAT "THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION TAKE CONTROL OF
"OUR GOVT." AND NO LONGER LET LUNATICS AND MORONS CAUSE DEATH AND
DESTRUCTION OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT A THREAT TO US AND STOP THE
PSYCHOTICS FROM GETTING IN OFFICE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
---
Subject:Part I: An Atomic Threat Made in America &
---
PT 2-Trying to find and recover the Uranium.
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013007E.shtml
>
---
JACKEL
---
Subject:COPY OF- Cheney's Handwritten Notes- Implicate Bush in Plame
Affair
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
>
---
HOME PAGE FOR TRUTHOUT:
http://www.truthout.org
JACKEL
SUFFERING MENTAL ILLNESS. THIS ACTION IS IN VIOLATION OF U.S. LAWS AND
THESE COMMANDERS SHOULD BE HELD "LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE" AND THROWN OUT
OF SERVICE.
--
THIS THREAD CONTAINS OTHER SUCH ARTICLES, YET BUSH CONTINUES TO SPEW
HIS LIES ABOUT "HOW WELL THE G.I. IS BEING TREATED".
---
A PSYCHOPATH, LIKE BUSH, HAS A TOTAL INABILITY TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT
THE PAIN OF HUMAN BEINGS. READ THE ARTICLES FROM PSYCHOLOGISTS STATING
THAT BUSH IS DELUSIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY DISABLED IN MY OTHER
THREAD: "IMPEACHMENT AND I.C.C."
---
WHY ARE "WE" ALLOWING THIS LUNATIC ANYWHERE NEAR THE U.S. CAPITOL?
--
Subject:Troops Return to Painful Wait for Needed Help-2-04-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020507M.shtml
>
---
JACKEL
HIS SPEECH WHERE HE SAID "HE WAS AGAINST NATION BUILDING", THEN
ILLEGALLY BOMBED THE HELL OUT OF AND OCCUPIED TWO COUNTRIES;
AFGHANISTAN AND THEN IRAQ?
---
BUSH THEN "REMOVED THE RECOGNIZED LEADERS OF "BOTH COUNTRIES?
---
THIS WAS "REGIME CHANGE NUMBER ONE" IN BOTH COUNTRIES;
---
THEN BUSH & THE NEO-CONS SET UP A SO-CALLED "DEMOCRATIC ELECTION IN
WHICH "THEIR SELECTED PEOPLE" WERE ELECTED....THIS WAS "REGIME CHANGE
NUMBER 2";
---
NOW...IN IRAQ, THE "SO-CALLED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT" WHICH THE BUSH
REGIME HAS BEEN BOASTING ABOUT, "REFUSES TO DO WHAT THE BUSH REGIME
WANTS, I.E. TELLING BUSH TO TAKE HIS TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ; BUSH IS NOW
GOING TO TRY FOR A THIRD REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ".
---
IN "EACH CASE", BUSH AND HIS HENCHMEN HAVE "FAILED" TO PRODUCE "THE
SUBMISSIVE GOVT'S" THEY WANTED AND INSTEAD HAS CAUSED THE ENTIRE
MIDDLE EAST TO BE ON THE BRINK OF WWIII.
--
AS MOST MORONIC-PSYCHOPATHIC BULLIES DO, THE BUSH REGIME HAS BEEN
BLAMING "EVERYONE" BUT THEMSELVES FOR THEIR ILLEGAL ACTS AND WAR
CRIMES".
---
THIS ARTICLE MAKES CLEAR THEIR "THIRD" ATTEMPT OF REGIME CHANGE IN
IRAQ, BY SOME "INSIDERS" OF BUSH'S OWN REGIME.
--
WHILE CONGRESS PLAYS JUVENILE HEAD GAMES TO VOTE ON A "NON-BINDING
RESOLUTION" TO STOP FURTHER ESCALATION OF MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ, IN
WHICH EACH CONGRESS PERSON'S VOTE WILL BE USED AGAINST THEM, IF THEY
VOTE "FOR" THE RESOLUTION, THEY (CONGRESS) HAVE "REFUSED TO STOP THIS
ENTIRE INSANITY BY REMOVING THE PSYCHOPATHS BEHIND THIS WWIII, WHICH
WILL SURELY COME WITH THE U.S. AS THE "FIRST TARGET".
---
AMERICANS HAVE A "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" TO REMOVE THESE PSYCHOPATHS,
WITH OR WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. AMERICANS ALSO HAVE "THE
RIGHT" TO DEMAND THAT THEY BE PROSECUTED UNDER "THE INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT" VIA A PETITION TO THE U.N.'S SECURITY COUNCIL...
---
WHY ARE AMERICANS "NOT DOING EITHER"?
---
HERE IS THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE "3RD REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ".
---
Subject:Authors of Bush's New Iraq Strategy Fear Repeat of
Failure--2-04-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020507N.shtml
>
JACKEL
---
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/browse_thread/thread/27641239c306cbe1/1dc7b68fcd13a92b
>
---
JACKEL
I.E. LT. WATADA "HAS ABIDED BY "THE LAW" AND REFUSED TO COMMIT WAR
CRIMES.
--
THIS FASCIST JUDGE AND FRAUDULENT SO-CALLED "MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM"
IS RIGHT OUT OF HITLER'S PLAY BOOK, I.E. KILL OR IMPRISON ALL WHO
DISSENT AGAINST "THE LEADER".
---
HOPEFULLY, LT. WATADA WILL THROW ENOUGH LIGHT ON THIS HYPOCRISY AND
FRAUD AND PURSUE HIS APPEALS, WHICH CAN GO TO "A FEDERAL GOVT. COURT
THEN ON TO THE SUPREME COURT".
---
THIS ACTION IS TYPICAL OF THE FASCIST BUSH REGIME, I.E. "SPEW TO THE
WORLD THAT HE WANTS "ALL NATIONS" TO HAVE A "DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE
GOVT. OF; BY; AND FOR.. THE PEOPLE, AND WILL "KILL THEM" IF THEY
DON'T, AS IN IRAQ, THEN PRAISE OUR G.I.'S FOR KILLING THEM, AND WILL
KILL OR IMPRISON THE SOLDIER "IF HE TOO" REFUSE TO KILL THESE
CIVILIANS.
---
NOT UNTIL THE "AMERICAN PEOPLE" FILE INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP PETITIONS TO
THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL, FOR REFERRAL TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL
COURT (ICC) WHO CAN PROSECUTE THE BUSH REGIME "AND" OUR SO-CALLED
CONGRESS, WHO VOTED TO INVADE AND OCCUPY A SOVEREIGN NATION (IRAQ)
WHICH NATION ACTUALLY JOINED THE UNITED NATIONS "BEFORE" THE U.S., WE
WILL BE FORCED TO LIVE UNDER THIS U.S. FASCIST GOVERNMENT.
---
Subject:Watada Lawyer Rebukes Judge-2 articles-2-06-07 & audio
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020607J.shtml
>
---
JACKEL
If you wondered what the hell Bush is doing when he fired all of his
top military advisers and even his "Top Director of the 16 agencies
Intelligence Dept i.e. Negroponte, read this and connect ALL the dots.
>
---
>
Subject:Bush's Rush to Armageddon -1-08-07
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807R.shtml
> >
>
GET "TRUTHOUT" TO "GET THE FACTS" SENT TO YOU DAILY- --"FREE"! THEY
AREA NON-PROFIT DEDICATED TO INFORMING THE PUBLIC THRU ARTICLES
PUBLISHED AROUND THE WORLD.
> >
> http://www.truthout.org
>
Bush's Rush to Armageddon
By Robert Parry
>
Consortium News
Monday 08 January 2007
>
George W. Bush has purged senior military and intelligence officials
who
were obstacles to a "wider war in the Middle East", broadening his
options
for both escalating the conflict inside Iraq and expanding the fighting
to Iran and Syria with Israel's help.
>
>
On Jan. 4, Bush ousted the top two commanders in the Middle East,
>
Generals John Abizaid and George Casey,
>
>
removed Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who had
stood by intelligence estimates "downplaying the near-term threat from
Iran's nuclear program."
>
routine
>
or part of his desire for a new team to handle his planned "surge" of
U.S. troops in Iraq.
>
But intelligence sources say the personnel changes also fit with a
scenario for
"attacking Iran's nuclear facilities" and "seeking violent regime
change
in Syria."
>
Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon as the new chief of Central
Command for the Middle East despite the fact that Fallon, a former Navy
"two ground wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
The choice of Fallon makes more sense if Bush foresees a bigger role
for
support for possible Israeli air strikes against Iran's nuclear targets
>
or as a deterrent against any overt Iranian retaliation. >
Though not considered a Middle East expert, Fallon has moved in
>
at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a think tank
dedicated to explaining "the link between American defense policy and
the security of Israel."
>
preparations for air strikes",
>
possibly including tactical nuclear bombs, to destroy Iran's nuclear
facilities, such as the reactor at Anton,
south of Tehran, where enriched uranium is produced. >
The Sunday Times of London reported on Jan. 7 that "two Israeli air
squadrons are training" for the mission and "if things go according to
blow a shaft down through the layers of hardened concrete [at Natanz].
>
weapons" into the hole."
>
The Sunday Times wrote that Israel also would hit two other facilities
-
>
>
But the possible use of a nuclear bomb at Natanz would represent the
first nuclear attack since the United States destroyed Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in Japan at the end
of World War II six decades ago.
>
>
as a way to frighten Iran into accepting international controls on its
administration are seriously preparing for this wider Middle Eastern
war.
>
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has called the possibility of an
Iranian nuclear bomb an "existential threat" to Israel.
>
After the Sunday Times article appeared, an Israeli government
spokesman
denied that Israel has drawn up secret plans to bomb Iranian nuclear
facilities.
>
For its part, Iran claims it only wants a nuclear program
for producing energy.
>
********************>
Whatever Iran's intent, Negroponte has said "U.S. intelligence does
"not believe" Iran could produce a nuclear weapon until "next decade.
>
Negroponte's assessment in April 2006 infuriated "neoconservative
hardliners "who wanted a worst-case scenario on Iran's nuclear
capabilities, much as they pressed for an alarmist view on Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in 2003.
>
Unlike former CIA Director George Tenet, who bent to Bush's political
needs on Iraq, Negroponte stood behind the position of intelligence
analysts who cited Iran's limited progress in refining uranium.
>
"Our assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian weapon are still a
number of years off, and probably into the next decade," Negroponte
said
>
Expressing a similarly tempered view in a speech at the National Press
Club, Negroponte said, "I think it's important that this issue be kept
in perspective."
>
>
Frank J. Gaffney Jr., a leading figure in the "neoconservative Project
for the New American Century", called for Negroponte's firing because
of
the Iran assessment and his "abysmal personnel decisions" in hiring
senior intelligence analysts who were skeptics about Bush's Iraqi WMD
claims.
>
In an article for Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times, Gaffney
attacked Negroponte for giving top analytical jobs to Thomas Fingar,
who
>
had served as assistant secretary of state for intelligence and
research, and
>
Kenneth Brill, who was U.S. ambassador to the
International Atomic Energy Agency, which debunked some of the U.S. and
British claims about Iraq seeking uranium ore from Africa.
>
Fingar's Office of Intelligence and Research had led the dissent
against
the Iraq WMD case,
especially over what turned out to be Bush's false
claims that Iraq was developing a nuclear bomb.
>
"Given this background, is it any wonder that Messrs. Negroponte,
Fingar
and Brill ... gave us the spectacle of absurdly declaring the Iranian
regime to be years away from having nuclear weapons?"
>
wrote Gaffney, who
was a senior Pentagon official during the Reagan administration.
>
Gaffney also accused Negroponte of giving promotions to "government
officials in sensitive positions who actively subvert the President's
policies," an apparent reference to Fingar and Brill. >
The neocons have
long resented U.S. intelligence assessments that conflict with "their
policy" prescriptions. [See Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]
>
In his personnel shakeup, Bush shifted Negroponte from his Cabinet-
level
position as DNI to a sub-Cabinet post as deputy to Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice.
To replace Negroponte, Bush nominated Navy retired Vice Admiral John
McConnell, who is viewed by intelligence professionals as a low-profile
technocrat, "not" a strong independent figure.
>
A Freer Hand
************
>
Negroponte's departure should give Bush a freer hand if he decides to
support attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities.
>
Bush's neocon advisers fear that if Bush doesn't act decisively in his
remaining two years in office, his successor may lack the political
will to launch a
>
"preemptive strike against Iran."
>
Bush reportedly has been weighing his military options for bombing
Iran's nuclear facilities since early 2006.
>
But he has encountered
plans to escalate U.S. troop levels in Iraq.
>
>
number of senior U.S. military officers were troubled by administration
war planners who believed "bunker-busting" tactical nuclear weapons,
>
known as B61-11s, were the only way to destroy Iran's nuclear
facilities
buried deep underground.
>
A former senior intelligence official told Hersh that the White House
>
refused to remove the nuclear option from the plans despite objections
from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
>
"Whenever anybody tries to get it out,
2006]
>
By late April 2006, however, the Joint Chiefs finally got the White
House to agree that using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's
uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, less than 200 miles south of
Tehran,
>
was politically unacceptable, Hersh reported.
>
nuclear planning," one former senior intelligence official said. [New
Yorker, July 10, 2006]
>
to
delegate the bombing operation to the Israelis.
>
strong ties to
>
leading Democrats, an Israeli-led attack might be more politically
with the Congress.
>
Attacks on Iran and Syria also would fit with Bush's desire to counter
the growing Shiite influence across the Middle East, which was given an
>
unintended boost by Bush's ouster of the Sunni-dominated government of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
>
The original neocon plan for the Iraq invasion
**********************************************
>
was "to use Iraq as a base" to force regime
change in Syria and Iran,
>
thus dealing strong blows to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the
Palestinian territories.
>
This regional transformation supposedly would have protected Israel's
northern border and strengthened Israel's hand in dictating final peace
terms to the Palestinians.
>
But the U.S. invasion of Iraq backfired, descending into a sectarian
civil war with Iraq's pro-Iranian Shiite majority gaining the upper
> hand.
>
In effect, by ousting Saddam Hussein, Bush had eliminated the
"principal
buffer" who had been holding the line against the radical Shiites in
Iran
since 1979.
>
By tipping the strategic balance to the Shiites, Bush also unnerved
the Sunni monarchy of Saudi Arabia.
>
A Nightmare
>
>
By 2006, the dream of a U.S.-orchestrated transformation of the Middle
East had turned into a nightmare of rising Shiite radicalism.
> ---
>
To address this unanticipated development, Bush began pondering how
best to throttle Shiite expansionism. >
In summer 2006, Washington Post foreign policy analyst Robin Wright
wrote that:
>
U.S. officials told her that "for the United States, the
broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and
Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to
>
"change the strategic playing field in the Middle East." [Washington
Post, July 16, 2006] >
Bush's advisers also blamed the governments of Syria and Iran for
supporting anti-U.S. fighters in Iraq.
>
Yet lacking the military and political capacity to expand the conflict
beyond Iraq, the Bush administration turned to Israel and its new Prime
> Minister Ehud Olmert.
> ---
>
By summer 2006, Israeli sources were describing Bush's interest in
>
finding a pretext to take Syria and Iran down a notch.
>
That opening came when border tensions with Hamas in Gaza and with
Hezbollah in Lebanon led to the capture of three Israeli soldiers and a
>
rapid Israeli escalation of the conflict into an air-and-ground
campaign
against Lebanon.
>
Bush and his neoconservative advisers saw the Israeli-Lebanese conflict
>
as an opening to expand the fighting into Syria and achieve the
long-sought "regime change" in Damascus, Israeli sources said.
>
One Israeli source told me that Bush's interest in "spreading the war
to Syria was considered "nuts" by some senior Israeli officials,
although
>
Prime Minister Olmert generally shared Bush's hard-line strategy
against
Islamic militants. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Bush Wants Wider War."]
>
In an article on July 30, 2006 the Jerusalem Post also hinted at:
>
Bush's suggestion of a wider war into Syria.
>
"Defense officials told the Post
.. that they were receiving indications from the US that:
>
America would
be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria," the newspaper reported.
>
In August 2006, the Inter-Press Service added more details, reporting
that:
>
the message was passed to Israel by Bush's deputy national security
adviser, Elliott Abrams, who had been a central figure in the Iran-
Contra
scandal of the 1980s.
>
"In a meeting with a very senior Israeli official, Abrams indicated
that:
>
"Washington would have no objection if Israel chose to extend the war"
beyond to its other northern neighbor, leaving the interlocutor in no
doubt that:
>
the intended target was Syria," a source told the Inter-Press
Service.
>
In December 2006, Meyray Wurmser, a leading U.S. neoconservative whose
spouse is a "Middle East adviser" to Vice President Cheney,
>
"confirmed that neocons inside and outside the Bush administration"
had hoped
>
Israel would attack Syria as a means of undermining the insurgents in
Iraq.
> "
If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended,"
>
Wurmser said in an interview with Yitzhak Benhorin of the Ynet Web
site.
> ---
>
"A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against
the real enemy, the one backing Hezbollah....
>
If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran
that it would have weakened it and (changed) the strategic map in the
Middle East."
>
But the Israeli summer offensives in Gaza and Lebanon fell short of
Olmert's objectives, instead generating international condemnation of
Tel Aviv for the large numbers of civilian casualties from Israel's
bombing raids.
>
Wounded Leaders
********************>
Now, as two politically wounded leaders, Bush and Olmert share an
interest in trying to salvage some success out of their military
setbacks.
>
So, they are looking at possible moves that are much more
dramatic than minor adjustments to the status quo.
>
Democrats and some Republicans are questioning why Bush wants to send
20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq and offer Iraqis some jobs programs,
>
when similar tactics have been tried unsuccessfully in the past.
>
Indeed, one source familiar with high-level thinking in Washington and
Tel Aviv said an unstated reason for Bush's troop "surge" is to bolster
the defenses of Baghdad's Green Zone if a possible Israeli attack on
Iran prompts an uprising among Iraqi Shiites.
>
The two U.S. aircraft carrier strike forces off Iran's coast could
provide further deterrence against Iranian retaliation. >
But the conflict
would almost certainly spread anyway.
>
Likely Hezbollah missile strikes against Israel would offer
>
"another pretext" for Israel to invade Syria and finally oust
Hezbollah's allies in Damascus, as the U.S. neocons had hope would
happen in summer 2006, the source said.
>
In the neoconservative vision, this wider war would offer perhaps a
last
chance at achieving the "regional transformation" that has been at the
heart of Bush's strategy of "democratizing" the Middle East through
violence if necessary.
>
However, few Middle East experts believe that Bush really would want
the
results of truly democratic elections in the region because Islamic
militants would almost surely win resoundingly amid the anti-
Americanism
that has grown even more intense since the hanging of Saddam Hussein in
late December.
>
An Israeli assault on Iran could put the region's remaining "pro-
American
dictators" in jeopardy, too.
> ---
>
In Pakistan, for instance, Islamic militants with ties to al-Qaeda have
been gaining strength and might try to overthrow Gen. Pervez Musharraf,
>
conceivably giving Islamic terrorists control of Pakistan's nuclear
arsenal.
>
For some U.S. foreign policy experts, this potential for disaster from
a
>
U.S.-backed Israeli air strike on Iran is so terrifying that they
ultimately don't believe Bush and Olmert would dare implement such the
plan.
>
But Bush's actions in the past two months - reaffirming his
determination to achieve "victory" in Iraq - suggest that he wants
nothing of the "graceful exit" that might come from a de-escalation of
the war.
>
Losing Faith
>
>
Bush has dug in his heels even as some senior administration officials
>
have lost faith in his strategy.
>
On Nov. 6, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent Bush a memo
suggesting
>
a "major adjustment" in Iraq War policy that would include "an
accelerated drawdown" of U.S. bases" from 55 to five by July 2007 with
remaining U.S. forces only committed to Iraqi areas that request them.
>
"Unless they [the local Iraqi governments] cooperate fully, U.S.
forces would leave their province," Rumsfeld wrote.
>
Proposing an option similar to a plan enunciated by Democratic Rep.
John
Murtha, Rumsfeld suggested that the commanders "withdraw U.S. forces
from vulnerable positions - cities, patrolling, etc. - and move U.S.
forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within
Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need
assistance."
>
And in what could be read as an implicit criticism of Bush's lofty
rhetoric about transforming Iraq and the Middle East, Rumsfeld said:
>
the administration should "recast the U.S. military mission and the
U.S.
goals (how we talk about them) - go minimalist." [NYT, Dec. 3, 2006]
>
On Nov. 8, two days after the memo and one day after American voters
>
elected Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Bush fired
Rumsfeld. >
The firing was widely interpreted as a sign that Bush was ready to
moderate his position on Iraq, but the evidence now suggests that Bush
got rid of Rumsfeld for:
>
going wobbly on the war.
>
On Dec. 6, when
longtime Bush family counselor James Baker issued a report by the
bipartisan Iraq Study Group "urging a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq,"
>
Bush wasted little time in slapping it down.
>
Instead, Bush talked about waging a long war against Islamic "radicals
and extremists,"
>
an escalation from his original post-9/11 goal of
defeating "terrorists with global reach."
>
At his news conference on Dec. 20, Bush cast this wider struggle
against Islamists as a
>
"test of American manhood" and perseverance by demonstrating to the
enemy that:
>
"they can't run us out of the Middle East, that they can't intimidate
America."
>
Bush suggested, too, that painful decisions lay ahead in the New Year.
>
"I'm not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in
Iraq, except that it's going to require difficult choices and
>
"additional "sacrifices", because the enemy is merciless and violent,"
Bush said. >
Rather than scale back his neoconservative dream of transforming the
Middle East, Bush argued for:
>
an expanded U.S. military "to wage this long war."
>
"We must make sure that our military has the capability
>
"to stay in the
fight for a long period of time," Bush said.
> ---
>
"I'm not predicting any particular theater, but I am predicting that
>
it's going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to finally
triumph over the ideology of hate....
>
"We're in the beginning of a conflict between competing ideologies - a
>
conflict that will determine whether or not your children can live in a
peace.
>
A failure in the Middle East, for example,
>
or failure in Iraq,
>
or isolationism,
>
will condemn a generation of young Americans to permanent threat from
overseas."
>
Escalation
>
Since then, Bush has floated the idea of a troop "surge" and replaced
commanders who disagreed with him.
> ---
>
"Bush also removed
>
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq" Zalmay Khalilzad, a Sunni
Muslim
>
generally considered a voice for moderation in U.S. policy who
privately objected to Bush's decision to press ahead with the hanging
of
Saddam Hussein.
>
There are even indications of
>
tension between Bush and Cheney, who like
his old friend Rumsfeld,
>
appears to have grown disillusioned with the war.
>
In a little-noticed comment on Jan. 4,
Sen. Joseph Biden, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, said Cheney and Rumsfeld
>
"are really smart guys who made a
very, very, very, very bad bet, and it blew up in their faces. Now,
what
do they do with it?
>
I think they have concluded they can't fix it, so how do you keep it
stitched together without it completely unraveling?"
>
[Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2007]
>
But Bush does not appear to share that goal of limiting the damage.
>
Instead, he is looking for ways to "double-down" his gamble in Iraq by
>
joining with Olmert - and possibly outgoing British Prime Minister Tony
Blair -
>
in expanding the conflict.
>
Since the Nov. 7 congressional elections, "the three leaders" have
conducted a round-robin of meetings that on the surface seem to have
little purpose.
> ---
>
Olmert met privately with Bush on Nov. 13;
>
Blair visited the White House on Dec. 7; and
>
Blair conferred with Olmert in Israel on Dec. 18.
>
Sources say the three leaders are frantically seeking options for
turning around their political fortunes as they face harsh judgments
from history for
>
their bloody and risky adventures in the Middle East.
>
But there is also a clock ticking.
>
Blair, who now stands to go down in
the annals of British history as
>
"Bush's poodle," is nearing the end of
his tenure, having agreed under pressure from his Labour Party to step
down in spring 2007. >
>
So, if the Bush-Blair-Olmert triumvirate has any hope of accomplishing
>
"the neoconservative remaking of the Middle East", time is running
out.
> ---
>
Something dramatic must happen soon.
> **********************************************
>
That something looks like it may include a rush
**********************************************
to Armageddon.
******************
>
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
> Associated Press and Newsweek.
> ---
> His latest book,
> Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty From Watergate to Iraq,
> can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com.
> ---
> His 1999 book,
> --
> Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
-------
JACKEL
"TELLING THE TRUTH"
>
(LIKE JOE WILSON & HIS WIFE, VALARIE PLAME; NEGROPONTE; LIBBY; MANY
MILITARY OFFICERS-THE LIST IS LONG)
>
BUSH'S SO-CALLED MILITARY TRIBUNAL JUDGE, (HEAD) IS MAKING LT.
WATADA'S CASE "AN EXAMPLE" FOR ANY OTHER G.I.'S WHO REFUSE TO DEPLOY
TO IRAQ, "BECAUSE THE "SO-CALLED WAR IS BLATANTLY ILLEGAL AND THE
KILLINGS, ARE CONSIDERED "WAR CRIMES".
>
BUT, OTHER G.I.'S "HAVE REFUSED TO GO TO IRAQ, BUT THEY WEREN'T
"OFFICERS".
>
HERE IS THE QUESTION OF THE YEAR:
>
THE WATADA COURT MARTIAL CASE IS "NOW ON NATIONAL T.V., SO WHY ARE
NONE OF THOSE COWARDS IN CONGRESS TALKING ABOUT THIS ON THE 24/7 C-
SPAN AND C-SPAN2 CHANNELS?
>
I.E. THE DEMOCRATS ARE ALL WHINING ABOUT "THE REPUBLICANS STALLING THE
DEBATES ON THEIR "NON-BINDING RESOLUTIONS" THAT PUTS THEM ALL "ON THE
RECORD" IF THEY VOTE ON THEM; THE RESOLUTIONS VARY BUT THE BOTTOM-LINE
IS TO "STOP BUSH FROM SENDING MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ".
>
WHY? BECAUSE IT IS AN ESCALATION OF THE SO-CALLED "WAR" THAT CANNOT BE
WON AND IN FACT, IS THE OUTRIGHT KILLING OF "IRAQ CIVILIANS" WHO WANT
THE TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ, "THEIR COUNTRY".
>
THE "KILLING OF CIVILIANS WHO ARE RESISTING THE ILLEGAL INVASION AND
OCCUPATION BY THE U.S. "IS/WAS ILLEGAL IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHICH THEY
ALL KNOW NOW".
>
SO, LT. WATADA AND ALL OF THE REST OF THE TROOPS THERE, HAVE "A LEGAL
RIGHT" TO REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE KILLINGS & REFUSAL TO GO TO
IRAQ, WHICH MAKES THE WATADA CASE "LEGALLY, VERY IMPORTANT TO THE
FASCIST BUSH REGIME AND EVERY CONGRESS PERSON WHO "VOTED TO ALLOW BUSH
TO INVADE IRAQ".
>
THIS IS WHY CONGRESS ISN'T SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT WATADA, BECAUSE "THEY
KNOW THEY ARE JUST AS GUILTY AS THE BUSH REGIME". THIS IS ALSO WHY,
THE DEMOCRATS "REFUSE TO IMPEACH BUSH, I.E. THE "EVIDENCE" WILL SHOW
THAT CONGRESS PERSONS WHO "VOTED FOR" THIS ILLEGAL INVASION CAN BE
CONSIDERED "CO-CONSPIRATORS" IN THIS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL KILLINGS OF
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS.
>
IT IS NOW "UP TO ALL OF US TO START OUR OWN PROSECUTION OF THESE WAR
CRIMINALS, VIA THE "INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT".
>
HERE ARE TWO ARTICLES RE WATADA WHICH INCLUDES A WEBSITE THAT SHOWS
FACTS ABOUT "OTHER G.I.'S CASES AND THE MOUNTING FAMOUS PEOPLE WHO ARE
SUPPORTING WATADA.
>
Subject:Making an Example of Ehren Watada- 2-06-07-(2 ARTICLES)
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020607A.shtml
>
---
POGO
---
Subject: WEBSITES FOR U.S. G.I.'S -AGAINST WAR
Subject:Thank You Lt. Watada - BREAKING NEWS--WEBSITE-FAMOUS
SUPPORTERS
---
http://www.thankyoult.org/
>
----
Subject:The GI Rights Hotline (800) 394-9544---WEBSITE
---
http://girights.objector.org/
>
---
Subject: Soldier Voices-website
--
http://www.soldiervoices.net/
>
---
Subject:Different Drummer Cafe--WEBSITE
---
http://www.differentdrummercafe.org/
>
---
Subject:Courage to Resist - website-FOLLOWING WATADA CASE
---
http://www.couragetoresist.org
>
JACKEL
I.E. "WE, THE PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO READ AND UNDERSTAND OUR OWN
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS", SO "THEY" WILL DECIDE WHAT THE LAW "IS".
---
AMERICANS STILL DON'T GET IT...
---
WE HAVE A FASCIST GOVT. FROM THE PRESIDENT TO HIS MILITARY, TO THE
"TOP COP", GONZALES, (U.S.ATTORNEY GENERAL).
>
WITH BUSH, HE HAS SIGNED THOUSANDS OF "ACTUAL CONGRESSIONAL LAWS" WITH
A "SIGNING STATEMENT"
SAYING THIS VERY THING.
--
HERE IS ONE OF RUMSFELD'S MILITARY JUDGES MAKING THIS "SAME FASCIST
STATEMENT" IN SAYING THAT "AN ILLEGAL WAR" IS A "POLITICAL ISSUE" AND
THE LAW IS NOT INVOLVED.
--
NO LESS THAN MR. KOFFI ANNAN, THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
NATIONS HAS PUBLICLY STATED THAT "THE U.S. ATTACKING IRAQ" WAS ILLEGAL
AND VIOLATED THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER, (A TREATY) WHICH OUR OWN U.S.
CONSTITUTION SAYS: THAT "ALL TREATIES WE (U.S.) SIGN "MUST BE UPHELD
AND OUR "THE LAW OF THE LAND". TO INTENTIONALLY VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION IS "AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE".
>
YET THE PRESIDENT AND MANY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (MANY OF WHOM ARE
LAWYERS AND "KNOW THE LAW) HAVE DONE EXACTLY THIS.
---
THAT "IS WHY" THE DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO IMPEACH BUSH, I.E. ALL CONGRESS
PERSONS WHO VOTED FOR THIS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUIONAL INVASION,
OCCUPATION AND MURDER OF IRAQIS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE "DEFENDING
THEIR LIVES FROM THIS INVASION, IS MURDER, YET BUSH & HIS REGIME "CALL
THEM THE TERRORISTS, WHEN "WE ARE CLEARLY THE TERRORISTS" AND THE
WORLD KNOWS THIS WHICH IS WHY WE ARE HATED.
--
AT NO TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE U.S. HAVE WE BEEN SO CONTROLLED BY A
CORRUPT AND
ABUSIVE FASCIST REGIME, YET "BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES REFUSE TO GET RID
OF IT" AND THE PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK "THAT THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT
IT".
--
WRONG! GOOGLE THE UNITED NATIONS AND CLICK ON TO THE "ICC"
(INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT) AND READ HOW "WE, THE PEOPLE, CAN
PETITION THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL TO GET THE BUSH REGIME PROSECUTED
FOR "WAR CRIMES", BECAUSE...OUR OWN POLITICIANS WON'T HOLD THE BUSH
REGIME ACCOUNTABLE.
--
THIS SOLDIER HAD ALREADY SERVED A TOUR. HE IS "NO COWARD".HE SPEAKS
FOR THOUSANDS OF OTHER SOLDIERS.
--
Subject:Army Denies Watada Illegal-War Defense--1-17-07
--
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011707A.shtml
>
----
Soldier Defense-- Can't Cite War Legality
*********************************************
The Associated Press
Wednesday 17 January 2007
***
Fort Lewis, Washington -
**
An Army lieutenant who:
"called the Iraq war illegal" and
"refused to deploy"
"cannot" base his "court-martial defense" on "the war's legality",
a military judge has ruled.
***
>
Lawyers for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada planned to argue at the "Feb. 5
trial"
that:
***
>
the war was illegal because:
>
"wars must be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter."
***************************
**
But in a ruling released Tuesday, Lt. Col. John Head said:
***
"whether the war is lawful"
>
is "a political question" that could not be judged in a military
court.
>
Watada, 28,
**************
is "charged with missing troop movement" last year.
***
He is also accused of:
"conduct unbecoming an officer" for:
statements he made to journalists and
*************************************
at a veterans convention.
***
He faces up to six years in prison.
**************************************
>
Head [judge] also rejected lawyers' claims that:
***
Watada's "First Amendment rights"
shielded him from charges stemming from
"his criticism of the war."
Head [Judge] said:
"there are limits to the free-speech rights" of
military personnel.
**********************
>
"We have been stripped of every defense," said Eric A. Seitz, Watada's
lawyer.
**
"This is a disciplinary system,
**********************************
"not a justice system."
************************
Otherwise, we would have been
entitled to defend ourselves."
>
"Army officials said" in a statement:
***
they had full confidence in the
"military-justice system" to ensure
that Watada gets "a fair trial."
>
Watada, a Hawaii native, refused to go to Iraq last June with his
unit,
the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division,
"after conducting research" and
"deciding the war was illegal."
He has said:
*************
"he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan
or elsewhere.
**************
=====
Judge Rejects Watada Motions
***********************************
By Michael Gilbert
The Tacoma News Tribune
Wednesday 17 January 2007
>
An Army judge sided with government prosecutors Tuesday and rejected
Lt. Ehren Watada's defense that he refused to deploy to Iraq because
he
believed the war is illegal.
>
The judge, Lt. Col. John Head, also denied Watada's motion to dismiss
four of the five charges against him on the grounds that he was
exercising his right to free speech.
>
Watada's lawyer said he was "disgusted" at the rulings and said they
leave little room for argument when the former Stryker artillery
officer's court-martial begins Feb. 5 at Fort Lewis.
>
"I'm appalled, but not surprised,"
defense attorney Eric Seitz said.
***
"We'll have a hearing,
a couple people will testify,
the government will make their argument, and "everybody will fall in
line", because:
>
"that's what happens in military cases."
>
Watada, 28, faces up to six years in prison
**********************************************
if convicted of one count of missing movement and four counts of
conduct unbecoming an officer.
***
The Army filed the charges after Watada "publicly refused to go to
Iraq
in June"
with his unit from the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. The
4,000-soldier brigade is currently operating in Baghdad.
**
The Army issued a brief press release Tuesday evening announcing
Head's
decisions, reached after a daylong hearing Jan. 4.
**
A Fort Lewis spokesman said
"prosecutors would not comment."
****
Seitz released copies of:
Head's [judge] two (three-page) orders. >
(To read them, see FOB Tacoma at blogs.thenewstribune.com/military.)
>
Seitz had hoped the judge would allow him to present a
>
"Nuremberg
defense,"
>
derived from the post-World War II tribunals that:
***
"established a soldier has an obligation"
********************************************
"to disobey an unlawful order."
*********************************
>
But Head wrote that:
"the legality of the Iraq war is
*********************************
"a political question and not one for the courts."
**********************************************
>
And past
cases have established that:
***
"a soldier's motives are irrelevant" when he or she "is charged with
missing movement," the judge ruled.
>
Seitz had argued:
"for dismissal of the conduct unbecoming" charges on the grounds that:
**
the statements were protected by Watada's First Amendment rights.
>
At a press conference,
in interviews and
in a speech at a Veterans for Peace convention in Seattle,
***
Watada condemned the Bush administration for
**********************************************
what he called:
*****************
"a betrayal of the trust of the American people."
**********************************************
"And "these lies" were a "betrayal" of
*****************************************
the trust of the military and the soldiers,"
********************************************
he said.
>
Head [judge] "cited previous cases" in
"the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces" that held":
**
"service members' free-speech rights are
**********************************************
limited.
*******
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
>
>
Visit our Multimedia page for more audio and video reports.
JACKEL
>
Subject:Opening Statements and Prosecution Blunders-2-07-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020707K.shtml
>
--
JACKEL
INCLUDING THOSE WHO VOTED "AGAINST" THE INVASION IS GOING TO START
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BUSH; NOT EVEN THE DEMOCRATS OR THE
NEW SENATORS YOU VOTED FOR...THE REASON IS CLEAR:..."FEAR"!
---
77 SENATORS VOTED "FOR" THE INVASION AND 23 AGAINST. MANY OF THEM ARE
LAWYERS AND CLEARLY "KNEW" THAT THIS INVASION WAS ILLEGAL AND VIOLATED
OUR CONSTITUTION RE "TREATIES" WHICH ARE CALLED "THE SUPREME LAW OF
THE LAND".
>
YET THEY DID IT. WHY? WHY WOULD THEY PUT THEIR OWN HIGH POSITIONS ON
LINE?
>
THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY "GREED AND POWER" JUST LIKE WHAT THE NEOCON'S
PNAC PLAN TALKS ABOUT, I.E. CONTROL OF IRAQ'S OIL AND A BASE WHERE OUR
MILITARY COULD BE USED TO INVADE THE OTHER MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES THAT
HAVE OIL.
>
THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING AT ALL OF THESE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS RE THE
IRAQ SO-CALLED "WAR" ABOUT "OUR NATIONAL INTEREST" IN IRAQ AND THE
MIDDLE EAST".
>
EVERY TIME YOU HEAR THE WORDS "IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST" THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT "OUR NEED FOR OIL & OUR BLATANT LIES TO TAKE IT FROM
SOVEREIGN NATIONS, UNDER ANY PRETEXT WE CAN MANUFACTURE.
>
WHICH AS YOU KNOW, THEY ARE NOW DOING WITH IRAN THRU THREATS UNDER THE
PRETEXT OF THEM WANTING A BOMB, EVEN THOUGH OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE
AGENCIES HAVE "TOLD THEM" IRAN WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE A BOMB FOR
AT LEAST A DECADE.
>
SENATORS LIKE HILLARY CLINTON, WHO VOTED "FOR" THIS INVASION, REFUSES
TO SAY SHE WAS "WRONG" BECAUSE...SHE WANTS TO BE OUR PRESIDENT
>
AND LIKE THE BUSH REGIME, THINKS SHE CAN HIDE FROM WHAT SHE HAS DONE,
BY REFUSING TO ADMIT WHAT SHE HAS DONE WAS "WRONG" AND THINKS "WE ARE
TOO STUPID TO KNOW THIS, SO WHY TELL US!
>
CLINTON "IS AN ATTORNEY" AND "KNEW DAMN WELL WHAT SHE WAS
DOING..VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO KNEW, SHE COULD BE
IMPEACHED AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR BY SUPPORTING BUSH'S ILLEGAL WAR.
>
THEY ARE ALL TOO COWARDLY TO EVEN DEMAND "REPEAL OF THIS "WAR
RESOLUTION" EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BEEN "TALKED ABOUT".
>
IT IS CLEARLY "UP TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO RID OURSELVES OF THESE
FASCISTS" BY FILING PETITIONS WITH THE UNITED NATION'S SECURITY
COUNCIL FOR A REFERRAL TO THE "INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (I.C.C.)-
DO A GOOGLE OF IT AND READ HOW WE CAN ASK THIS COURT TO PROSECUTE THEM
ALL.
---
HERE IS THE LIST OF THOSE SENATORS WHO VOTED "FOR AND AGAINST" THIS
WAR RESOLUTION.
--
NOTE: IF YOU DON'T KNOW "WHO" YOUR U.S. SENATORS ARE, SCROLL TO THE
BOTTOM AND FIND "YOUR STATE". (SHAME-SHAME)
------
Subject: LIST OF U.S. SENATORS WHO "VOTED" FOR/AGAINST ILLEGAL ATTACK
ON IRAQ"
---
HJ-RES 114-VOTES BY NAME & STATE
**********************************************
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
>
---
TEXT COPY:-
---
Home > Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote???
---
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session as compiled
through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the
Secretary of the Senate
---
Vote Summary
---
Question:
********
On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
*******************************************
Vote Number: 237
---
Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
*************************************
Required For Majority: 1/2
**************************
---
Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
---
Vote Counts:
***********
YEAs--------77
NAYs-------23
----
By Senator Name
*******************
YEAs ---77
***********
(NOTE:
I SEPARATED THE DEMOS FROM REPUBS)
**********************************************
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
-----------------------------Baucus (D-MT)
-----------------------------Bayh?(D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
-----------------------------Biden?(D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
-----------------------------Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
-----------------------------Cantwell (D-WA)
-----------------------------Carnahan (D-MO)
-----------------------------Carper (D-DE)
-----------------------------Cleland (D-GA)
-----------------------------Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
----------------------------Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
----------------------------Dodd?(D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
----------------------------Dorgan (D-ND)
----------------------------Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
----------------------------Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
---------------------------Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
---------------------------Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
--------------------------Johnson (D-SD) --------------------------
Kerry (D-MA)
--------------------------Kohl?(D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
-------------------------Landrieu (D-LA) -------------------------
Lieberman (D-CT) -------------------------Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
-------------------------Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
-------------------------Nelson (D-FL)
-------------------------Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
-------------------------Reid?(D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
------------------------Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
------------------------Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
--------------------------Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
*************************
---
---
NAYs ---23
*************
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
-------------------------------Chafee?(R-RI
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
-----------------------------------Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
------
Grouped by Home State
***************************
Alabama:
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
----
Alaska:
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
---
Arizona:Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
---
Arkansas:
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
---
California:
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
---
Colorado:
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
---
Connecticut:
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
----
Delaware:
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
---
Florida:
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
---
Georgia:
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
---
Hawaii:
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
---
Idaho:
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
---
Illinois:
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
---
Indiana:
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
---
Iowa:
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
---
Kansas:
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
---
Kentucky:
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
---
Louisiana:
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
---
Maine:
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
---
Maryland:
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
---
Massachusetts:
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
---
Michigan:
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
---
Minnesota:
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
---
Mississippi:
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
---
Missouri:
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
---
Montana:
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
---
Nebraska:
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
---
Nevada:
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
---
New Hampshire:
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
---
New Jersey:
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
---
New Mexico:
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
---
New York:
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
---
North Carolina:
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
---
North Dakota:
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
---
Ohio:
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
---
Oklahoma:
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
---
Oregon:
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
---
Pennsylvania:
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
---
Rhode Island:
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
---
South Carolina:
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
---
South Dakota:
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
---
Tennessee:
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
---
Texas:
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
---
Utah:
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
---
Vermont:
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
---
Virginia:
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
---
Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
---
West Virginia:
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
---
Wisconsin:
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
---
Wyoming:
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
***********
??
?
JACKEL
>
AGAIN, OUR "TOTAL CONGRESS" REFUSES TO IMPEACH BUSH BECAUSE THOSE IN
CONGRESS WHO VOTED "FOR THIS WAR RESOLUTION, IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION CAN ALSO BE IMPEACHED AS CO-CONSPIRATORS, I.E. THEY KNEW
THEY WERE VIOLATING OUR CONSTITUTION WHEN THEY DID THIS, YET THOUGHT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE TOO STUPID TO KNOW IT.
>
EVEN THOSE WHO VOTED "NO" TO THIS RESOLUTION ARE REFUSING OUT OF
"LOYALTY OR FEAR" TO PROTECT THESE CRIMINAL POLITICIANS.
>
WE MUST RID OURSELVES OF THESE FASCISTS BY PETITIONING THE UNITED
NATION'S SECURITY COUNCIL FOR A REFERRAL TO PROSECUTE THEM IN THE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (I.C.C.)-GOOGLE THE I.C.C. TO READ HOW WE
CAN DO THIS.
--
IF AMERICANS "REFUSE TO PROSECUTE THESE WAR CRIMINALS" YOU ARE
"SUPPORTING A FASCIST U.S.A. GOVERNMENT" AND YOU AND YOURS WILL PAY
FOR THE LOSS OF YOUR FREE NATION, WHICH IS ON THE BRINK OF TOTAL
DESTRUCTION RIGHT NOW.
---
YOU DECIDE..IS IT WORTH "YOUR EFFORT" TO FIGHT FOR YOUR CHILD'S
FREEDOM AND PROTECTION AND THE GENERATIONS THAT FOLLOW.
>
---
Subject:HOUSE OF REPS WHO VOTED "FOR" WAR RESOLUTION.
>
(THIS IS A REPOST)
CONGRESS-REPS WAR VOTES & RE-ELECTION!
---
Subject:Final HOUSE Vote Results
********************************
for HJ RES 114-BUSH TO ATTACK IRAQ
*********************************
http://www.house.gov/davis/images/vote455.html
>
---
HERE IS THE LINK "BY STATE" OF WHICH REPS ARE UP FOR RE-ELECTION.
---
Subject:CURRENT U.S. REPS-BY STATE
**********************************
http://www.vote-smart.org/official_congress.php >
>
--
FIND "YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REP'S VOTE ABOVE" THEN SEE IF HE/SHE IS UP
FOR RE-ELECTION, THEN MAKE A "DECISION" IF YOU WILL VOTE FOR "THE
OTHER CANDIDATE" SO AS TO REMOVE HIM/HER.
---
Subject:Candidates for U.S. Congress-- by STATE
**********************************************
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_congress.php
POGO
--
I CAN TELL YOU FIRST HAND THAT THE G.I. IS TREATED LIKE A "GUINEA-
PIG", I.E. THE MAJORITY OF THE SO-CALLED DOCTORS, ARE NOTHING MORE
THAN "MEDICAL STUDENTS" WHO "LEARN OR PRACTICE" THEIR LACK OF SKILLS
ON THE G.I. AND WITHOUT SUPERVISION FROM A LICENSED MEDICAL DOCTOR.
--
I HAVE HAD AN EXTREMELY PAINFUL TEST USED ON ME TO FIND NERVE DAMAGE
IN MY ARM. THE FEMALE MEDICAL STUDENT HAD THE ELECTRICITY TURNED UP SO
HIGH THAT I LITERALLY JUMPED A FOOT IN THE AIR.
--
WHEN I COMPLAINED, I WAS SENT TO THE "HEAD OF THIS DEPT" (A MALE) IN A
ANOTHER CLINIC WHERE I WAS TOLD TO STRIP DOWN AND PUT A ROBE ON. NOTE:
MY INJURY WAS IN "MY ARM". THE ROOM WAS SO COLD AND I HAD TO WAIT SO
LONG, I PUT MY CLOTHES BACK ON BECAUSE I WAS SHAKING FROM THE COLD.
--
FINALLY WHEN THE SO-CALLED "LICENSED TOP DOCTOR" CAME TO SEE ME, HE
SAID IT DIDN'T MATTER THAT I WAS DRESSED. HE ASKED ME WHAT THE PROBLEM
WAS. I TOLD HIM THAT I WAS GIVEN THIS SO-CALLED TEST FOR NERVE DAMAGE
ON MY ARM THE WEEK BEFORE AND I HAVE BEEN IN PAIN EVER SINCE.
--
I ALSO TOLD HIM THAT I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE TEST WAS "NOT"
PERFORMED WHEN MY ARM WAS BENT AT THE ELBOW, SINCE THAT IS WHEN MY
FINGERS GO NUMB AND MY BACK GOES INTO SPASMS, I.E. IT IS OBVIOUSLY
THAT THE NERVES ARE BEING PINCHED BY THE BONES IN MY ELBOW WHEN IT IS
BENT.
--
THIS "DR." SAID: WELL, WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO ABOUT IT? I SAID:
"TELL ME WHY THIS TEST WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT MY ELBOW BEING BENT,
SINCE THE "TEST" WAS SUPPOSED TO SHOW WHICH NERVES WERE FIRING WRONG,
ETC. AS IT WAS, WITH ARM LAYING FLAT AND THE ELECTRODES APPLIED, THE
TEST RESULTS SHOWED "THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY ARM, I.E.
"NEGATIVE RESULTS".
--
I SWEAR I HAD TO SAY THIS 3 TIMES TO THE DR. BECAUSE "HE WAS NOT
LISTENING TO ME" AND THERE WAS NO DISTRACTIONS. HE JUST GOT MORE
ARROGANT AND WAS GRINNING AT ME, LIKE I WAS NUTS.
--
WITH US, WAS A FEMALE MEDICAL INTERN WHO WAS LISTENING TO ALL OF THIS
AND ASKED THE DOCTOR THE "SAME QUESTION" I HAD ASKED.
--
THE DR. THEN SAID, "YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT THEY DIDN'T BEND YOUR ARM
FOR THE TEST?" I SAID: WHAT LANGUAGE DO YOU HEAR WHEN I TALK?
--
HE THEN SAID: "WELL THEY SHOULD HAVE BENT YOUR ELBOW, THAT IS HOW THE
TEST IS SUPPOSED TO BE GIVEN." THEN HE JUST LOOKED AT ME, AGAIN LIKE I
WAS SOME CRAZY PERSON AND SAID:
--
"WELL, WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO?"
--
I TOLD HIM: IT'S OBVIOUS YOU ARE TOO STUPID AND INCOMPETENT TO
UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM HERE, SO I WILL TALK TO A LAWYER AND LEFT.
--
UNFORTUNATELY, I COULDN'T FIND AN ATTORNEY WHO WOULD TAKE MY CASE (PRO
BONO) SO I HAD TO DROP THE ENTIRE MATTER AND STILL LIVE WITH THE PAIN,
WHICH IS WHY I TYPE IN ALL CAPS, RATHER THAN IN BOTH UPPER AND LOWER
CAPS.
--
MY CASE IS "TYPICAL" OF MOST G.I.'S WHO SEEK OUT MEDICAL TREATMENT AT
A V.A.
--
THERE ARE REAL HORROR STORIES COMING FROM THE NATION'S V.A. HOSPITALS
(SEE MY NEXT POST).
--
HOW DARE BUSH AND CONGRESS ALLOW THE G.I.'S TO BE, SO-CALLED TREATED
BY THESE INCOMPETENT MEDICAL TRAINEES, WITHOUT SUPERVISION, WHILE ALSO
ALLOWING THE WEALTHIEST OF PEOPLE TO AVOID TAXES WHICH COULD PAY FOR
"REAL DOCTORS" TO TREAT THE G.I.S.
--
HOW DARE BUSH AND CONGRESS ALLOW "FEDERAL EMPLOYEES" AND THEMSELVES
GET "THE BEST MEDICAL BENEFITS AND TREATMENT FROM "PRIVATE DOCTORS AND
HOSPITALS".
--
IT IS TIME THAT AMERICANS DEMAND THAT "ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES BE
TREATED BY THE V.A. SINCE IT IS "OUR TAX-DOLLARS" THAT IS BEING USED
TO PAY "FOR THEIR MEDICAL BENEFITS".
--
IT IS TIME THAT A "PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL TASK FORCE" BE PAID TO OVERSEE
THE MEDICAL TREATMENT AND PROCESS OF THE PATIENTS AT V.A. HOSPITALS
WHO WILL HAVE A "SINGLE PLACE" WHERE THEY CAN FILE THEIR COMPLAINTS
FOR INVESTIGATION WITH A "LEGAL TEAM TO REPRESENT THE G.I. WHO HAS
BEEN BADLY TREATED OR NOT TREATED AT ALL".
--
THIS IS "A CLASS SYSTEM" AND "FRAUD AND ABUSE" IS TAKING PLACE. IT IS
PAST TIME THAT CONGRESS IGNORES IT. LAWS MUST BE MADE TO PROTECT THE
G.I. WITH PUNITIVE ACTION FOR THOSE WHO REFUSE TO FOLLOW "LEGAL
PROCEDURES AND TREATMENT" OF THE G.I.
--
POGO
I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION:
--
WE SHUT DOWN ALL V.A. HOSPITALS AND USE THE BILLIONS OF TAX PAYER'S
DOLLARS TO CHANGE THEM INTO "CIVILIAN HOSPITALS" WITH THE SAME OR
BETTER OVERSITE AND STAFF.
--
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE IN THE "BILLING" WHICH WOULD NOT BE ANY
MORE CUMBERSOME THAN THE MEDICARE OR MEDICAID SYSTEM IS TODAY.
--
WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESS PERSON DEMANDING THIS CHANGE AND THE CHANGE IN
THEIR "OWN MEDICAL TREATMENT TO THAT BEING USED BY THE G.I., OR THEY
WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR MEDICAL BENEFITS OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS
LIKE THEY ARE DEMANDING THE POOR TO DO TODAY BECAUSE THE STATE'S ARE
ILLEGALLY DENYING MEDICAL TREATMENT VIA MEDICAID TO THE POOR.
--
NOTHING FORCES THESE POLITICIANS TO WAKE UP TO THEIR ABUSE THEN WHEN
"THEY ARE PERSONALLY THROWN INTO THE SAME SITUATION, AS "THEIR
SUBJECTS, I.E. CITIZEN AMERICANS".
--
THEY CALL THEMSELVES, "PUBLIC SERVANTS" BUT THEY HAVE ELEVATED
THEMSELVES TO "THE KING'S (PRESIDENT) SERVANTS AND ENFORCERS, INSTEAD.
--
THIS MUST STOP..A PUBLIC SERVANT SHOULD "NOT PERSONALLY BENEFIT" FROM
THEIR POSITION IN GOVERNMENT, INSTEAD, THEY SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE LIKE
AN AMERICAN AVERAGE INCOME PERSON/FAMILY AND IF THEY USE THE OLD
MANTRA THAT "THEY WOULDN'T GET GOOD PEOPLE WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT
IF THEY DIDN'T PAY THEM WELL", THEN WE CAN POINT TO THE FRAUD AND
CORRUPTION OF OUR GOVERNMENT "NOW" AND TELL THEM, "WE COULDN'T GET
WORSE; LET THE RALPH NADERS RUN OUR GOVERNMENT.
---
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BUDGET IS BEING VOTED ON NOW AND MUST BE APPROVED
IN 3 DAYS, BUT THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF TIME AFTER THAT FOR THEM TO
PRODUCE THE LEGISLATION TO REPEAL THE V.A. HOSPITAL SECTIONS OF LAW
AND REPLACE THEM WITH "THE V.A. HOSPITAL CONVERSION ACT".
--
DO IT NOW...WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESS PERSON. THEIR E-MAILS ARE CONTAINED
IN MY ABOVE ARTICLES ON: CONGRESS-WHO VOTED FOR THE "WAR RESOLUTION".
--
POGO
-----
AS STATED IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE, THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS "KNOWS" HOW
INCOMPETENT AND ABUSIVE THE MILITARY TREATS THE SICK AND WOUNDED G.I.,
YET THEY DO NOTHING.
---
ONLY "WE", AMERICANS CAN FORCE OUR SO-CALLED "PUBLIC SERVANTS" TO
EITHER "TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION AND CLOSE DOWN THE V.A. AS A "MILITARY
HOSPITAL" AND BRING THEM ALL UNDER "CIVILIAN LAWS WITH CIVILIAN
PROSECUTION" AS WELL AS "CIVILIAN OVERSITE" AND "CIVILIAN LEGAL
ADVOCATES FOR THE ABUSED G.I.".
--
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MULTI-BILLIONS OF AMERICAN TAX-DOLLARS ARE NOT
ONLY BEING FRAUDULENTLY WASTED UNDER THE V.A. HOSPITAL SYSTEM, IT IS
ALSO CONDONING ABUSIVE AND INCOMPETENT TREATMENT BY A MILITARY SYSTEM
THAT COVERS-UP THESE OUTRAGEOUS ACTS.
--
HERE IS BUT ONE RECENT CASE OF A G.I. WHO PLEADED FOR HELP AND WAS
TOLD TO WAIT. THE RESULT IS: HE KILLED HIMSELF.
--
BUT, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF OTHERS WHO ARE: "HOMOCIDAL" AND HAVE
KILLED OTHER G.I.'S AND/OR THEIR OWN FAMILIES. THESE CASES ARE ONLY
KNOWN IN THE TOWNS WHERE THEY TOOK PLACE AND SHOULD BE "CONSTANTLY
REPORTED ON BY THE MEDIA".
--
DEMAND THAT CONGRESS DO AN INVESTIGATION AND GET THE "HARD DATA ON HOW
MANY G.I.S HAVE EITHER KILLED THEMSELVES OR OTHERS AND HOW MANY TRIED
TO GET HELP FROM THE V.A. "BEFORE" THEY DID IT.
--
Subject: Told to Wait, a Marine Kills himself-2-11-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207P.shtml
>
POGO
OF BEING "IN CONTROL OF THE "WORLD'S BANK".
---
EVERYDAY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND "THE WORLD" ARE SEEING THE "HARD
EVIDENCE" OF THESE FASCISTS, WHO HAVE VIOLATED ALL LAWS AND OUR
CONSTITUTION, YET OUR CONGRESS "REFUSES TO IMPEACH THEM"...WHICH
PROVES:
--
OUR CONGRESS IS SUPPORTING THIS FASCIST GOVERNMENT!
--
CLEARLY, ONLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN FORCE THEM INTO LEGAL
ACCOUNTABILITY BY FILING A PETITION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL
COURT FOR THE WAR CRIMES THEY "INTENTIONALLY COMMITTED" THRU LIES AND
FRAUD.
---
Subject:Wolfowitz Emerges as Key Figure in:
>
Intel Manipulation
******************
-2-12-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207A.shtml
>
JACKEL
CLEARLY CONTRADICTING THE BUSH REGIME'S STATEMENTS THAT THE IRANIAN
GOVT. IS SUPPLYING THESE BOMBS TO MILITANTS?
--
IS PACE LETTING US KNOW THAT THE BOMBS BEING USED IN IRAQ IS ANOTHER
FRAUDULENT MFG. OF WEAPONS THAT CONTAIN SCRAP METAL FROM IRAN SO BUSH
CAN "AGAIN" JUSTIFY THE BOMBING OF ANOTHER COUNTRY (IRAN)?
---
CLEARLY, THE FASCIST BUSH REGIME CAN NO LONGER BE TRUSTED, ESPECIALLY
WITH "WHAT THEY SAY".
>
THE MERE FACT THAT GEN. PACE IS DISPUTING THAT THERE IS "NO EVIDENCE"
THAT THE IRAN GOVT. IS BEHIND SUPPLYING THESE BOMBS, AT THE CLEAR
POSSIBLY OF RETALIATION FROM BUSH & CHENEY, SHOULD BE ENOUGH OF A
"WARNING TO US" THAT "SOMETHING IS WRONG".
--
WE ALREADY KNOW THAT OTHER TOP MILITARY ADVISERS HAVE TOTALLY DISPUTED
THE BUSH REGIME'S STATEMENTS ABOUT IRAN HAVING A NUKE, OR MAKING A
NUKE SOON, I.E. THE MILITARY ANALYSTS SAY IT WILL TAKE AT LEAST 10
YEARS BEFORE THEY CAN MAKE A NUKE.
--
HERE IS THE ARTICLE:
----
Subject:Pace Questions Whether Iran Arming Iraq - 2-13-07
---
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-US-Iraq.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
>
---
TEXT COPY: 2-13-07
--
Pace Questions Whether Iran Arming Iraq
**********************************************
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
Published: February 13, 2007
Filed at 9:09 a.m. ET
---
JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- The top U.S. military officer said Tuesday
the discovery that roadside bombs in Iraq contained material made in
Iran does not necessarily mean the Iranian government was involved in
supplying insurgents.
---
The comments by:
Gen. Peter Pace,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
*****************************************
called into question assertions by three senior U.S. military
officials in Baghdad on Sunday who said:
---
"the highest levels of Iranian government" "were responsible for
arming Shiite militants in Iraq with the bombs,
---
blamed for the deaths of more than 170 troops in the U.S.-led
coalition.
---
White House spokesman, Tony Snow said Monday:
---
"he was confident"
*****************
the weaponry was coming with:
>
the approval of the
********************
Iranian government.
*******************
---
Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, that:
---
U.S. forces hunting militant networks in Iraq that produced roadside
bombs had arrested Iranians and
---
"some of the materials used"
********************************
in the devices--- were made in Iran.
*************************************
---
''That does not translate that the Iranian
*********************************************
government per se, for sure,
********************************
is directly involved in doing this,''
***********************************
Pace said.
---
''What it does say is that:
***************************
"things made in Iran"
**********************
are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.''
**********************************************
---
On Monday, Pace said:
--
"he had no firm knowledge that:
************************************
the Iranian government had sanctioned
********************************************
the arming of the insurgents.
********************************
---
''It is clear that Iranians are involved", and
****************************************
"it's clear that materials from Iran are involved,"
**********************************************
but I "would not say", by what I know that:
**********************************************
"the Iranian government clearly knows"
*******************************************
or is complicit,''
***************
Pace told the Voice of America.
---
Iran denied:
************
it gave sophisticated weapons to militants to attack U.S. forces.
---
''Such accusations cannot be relied upon
**********************************************
or be presented as evidence. The United States has a long history in
fabricating evidence. Such charges are unacceptable,''
---
Foreign Ministry spokesman,
Mohammad Ali Hosseini
told reporters in Tehran.
---
"The Joint Chiefs chairman (Pace) is
******************************************
the senior military adviser to the president,
**********************************************
but he commands no troops and
is not in the chain of command that runs from the president to the
secretary of defense to commanders in the field.
---
Afjs
I.E. "AXIS OF EVIL" AND HAVE BEEN TRULY INVESTIGATING THE BUSH REGIME
AND WHAT IT INTENDED.
--
HERE IS ANOTHER "RIGHT ON TARGET" ARTICLE ABOUT BUSH'S INTENT TOWARDS
IRAN.
--
Subject:POSSIBLE REASONS WHY BUSH REGIME IS CLAIMING IRAN IS BEHIND
BOMBS?
>
URL TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE ON THE BOTTOM-HAS PHOTOS OF BOMBS.
------
US claims against Iran: why now?
*************************************
Analysis
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent,
BBC news website
In October 2005, the then British ambassador to Iraq William Patey
told reporters in London that:
---
"Iran had been supplying technology"
*****************************************
used to kill British troops in Basra.
---
He said he had complained to the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad about
it.
---
The claim was that:
*********************
---
"elements connected to the Shia militia" in the south, (the Mehdi
army), had been "using specially shaped charges", in which the force
of the explosion is directed narrowly in one direction, thereby
enabling it to penetrate armoured vehicles.
---
No evidence was produced,
*******************************
other than "a suggestion" that:
*********************************
the Iranian-supported Lebanese group "Hezbollah had also used such
charges,
so the common origin had to be Iran."
----
"US officials have made similar claims"
over the last year. General George Casey, the then US commander in
Iraq,
said so in June 2006.
---
Evidence
***********
In a briefing in Baghdad on Sunday,
US military and intelligence officers
finally laid out their evidence.
----
The question has to be asked as to:
why it has taken at least 14 months for
this to happen.
---
So, why now?
****************
If you take the claims at face value,
the reason is that:
---
"only now" has the evidence become substantial enough to be made
public.
---
The number of attacks is said to "have grown" as well, so that is
another explanation put forward for going public now.
---
A trend has been identified about which information should be given.
---
According to this position,:
---
there is nothing sinister about the timing of the claim. It is the
result of an evidence-based process which has only now reached the
stage of producing a result.
---
And after all, reporters have been
"asking for this evidence for months."
----
There are other possibilities as well.
---
Softening up?
***************
For a start,"the fear among some is that:
---
"the US is softening up world opinion"
for an attack on Iran. Such an attack would be aimed at Iran's nuclear
facilities.
---
At the moment, "the US lacks a casus belli" and
---
by claiming that Iran is responsible for killing USA troops,
---
it could be laying the groundwork for a
********************************************
'self-defence' justification,
****************************
according to this theory.
----
The new chairman of
the Senate Intelligence Committee,
Senator John Rockefeller said recently:
---
"To be quite honest, I'm a little concerned that it's Iraq again."
*********************
---
There is also "the fact" that:
---
the US is launching its 'surge' policy of moving extra troops into
Baghdad.
---
"These claims" are being made
"against Shia militias",
************************
including the Mehdi army,
one of the main targets of the latest policy.
----
"Blaming Shia Iran" for:
**************************
"supporting Iraqi Shia militias"
*********************************
---
makes it "easier for the US to sell that policy"
**********************************************
at home and abroad.
**********************
----
Blaming others
****************
Then there is "the old tactic" of:
blaming someone else for your own problems.
**********************************************
----
Many people "will not distinguish" between:
---
"the Shia militias" that Iran is said to supply -
******************
and which have ties to the Iraqi government -
---
and "the Sunni insurgents" who have been
*****************************
the cause of much of the violence.
---
The allegedly Iranian supplied bombs are said to have: caused the
deaths of 170 American soldiers,
**********************************************
---
but overall 2497 soldiers have been killed
**********************************************
in hostile incidents,
most of them at the hands of the Sunnis.
*****************************************
---
The claim serves the purpose of:
*************************************
"helping to lay the blame"
for the whole insurgency at Iran's door."
********************************************
----
There are also "other possible reasons"
for this timing.
****************
---
Council deadline
******************
The UN Security Council has laid down
that:
---
"Iran must suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February."
***************************
---
If it does not, and
*************
if the International Atomic Energy Agency "confirms this",
----
the resolution says that:
**************************
further economic sanctions will be considered.
**********************************************
----
The officials said:
*******************
such an assertion
[that Iran was the source of components for the explosive devises]
---
was "an inference" based on
********************
"general" intelligence assessments "
***************************************
New York Times
---
The US is preparing to argue for:
---
tougher sanctions, so making claims against Iran over Iraq might help
it in its arguments that: Iran is a threat.
*****************
---
On the wider front, the Bush administration is engaged in:
---
"a campaign against the Iranian government" in order "to isolate it"
and eventually maybe see "its end under internal pressure" from the
Iranian people.
----
The latest claims against Iran could be a part of that campaign.
---
The claims
************
What of the claims themselves?
---
They are "based on physical evidence",
from bombs and their effects.
---
The bombs now even have their own name
and acronym - explosively formed penetrators or EFPs.
---
Previously they had been lumped in the generalised description of IEDs
- improvised explosive devices.
---
The implication is that:
************************
"now they are:
less improvised and more planned."
----
They are said to be:
---
"provided by Iran in kit form" and
******************************
to be:
"smuggled across the often-open border.
----
However," the officials" who:
********************************
presented the evidence,
***************************
"could not make a direct link to Iran."
****************************************
---
"The officials said:
*******************
such an assertion "was an inference"
based on general intelligence assessments," stated the New York Times.
----
They "did" make much of:
---
the "detention in Irbil of five Iranians" who were said to be members
of the
"Quds force of the Iranian revolutionary Guards. --- The Quds (the
word means Jerusalem)
force was said by the US officials:
---
"to be controlled directly by the
************************************
"highest levels of the Iranian government".
**********************************************
----
That last statement is significant in that:
********************************************
"the US is now making a charge against
"the Iranian government itself",
not just against its agents.
*****************************
---
Scepticism
*************
Against the inference that:
"this all comes from Iran" is:
---
"the concept that Iraqis themselves"
****************************************
"would be capable of copying a design" and
*******************************************
therefore, "do not need" to get bombs from Iran.
**********************************************
---
And there have been a number of news reports "over the last year":
---
"expressing scepticism", even among "military
**********************************************
personnel, about "the link to Iran."
************************************
---
The Washington Post reported "last October" that:
---
British troops in the south doubted the claim.
**********************************************
----
A year ago, the London Times said that:
*********************************************
British officers in Basra had stopped
*****************************************
making any such claim, saying only that:
*********************************************
"the technology matched" bomb-making
********************************************
found elsewhere in the Middle East,
****************************************
including Lebanon and Syria.
********************************
----
Paul.Reynol...@bbc.co.uk
-----
Story from BBC NEWS:
---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6353489.stm
>
---
Published: 2007/02/12 13:12:12 GMT
? BBC MMVII
Afjs
REGIME INVADED AFGHANISTAN, "NOT BECAUSE OF BIN LADEN'S ATTACK ON
9-11, BECAUSE BUSH HAD THREATENED HIM VIA ARMITAGE, RIGHT UP TO TWO
WEEKS PRIOR TO 9-11.
---
alt.culture.alaska alt.impeach.bush
---
May 25 2005, 11:01?am
---
Newsgroups: alt.culture.alaska
---
From: "corinne" <corinne_...@hotmail.com>
---
Subject: Re: THE REASON FOR 9-11 WAS PROVEN TODAY-BUSH GUILTY
---
HERE IS THE LINK TO THE UK PAPER, THE INDEPENDENT, WHICH APPEARS TO
STATE THAT THE AFGHANISTAN PORTION OF THE PIPELINE ISN'T YET HOOKED UP
TO THE ONE THAT WAS OPENED TODAY.
>
>
Subject:-FIRST LEG OF CASPIAN PIPELINE BUILT-AFGHAN NEXT
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=641172
>
---
HERE IS THE TEXT:
--
The pipeline that will change the world
----------------------------------------
It is 42 inches wide, 1,090 miles long and
>
is intended to save
*******************
the West from
**************
relying on Middle
*****************
Eastern oil.
*************
>
Nothing has been allowed to stand
in its way - and it finally opens today
>
By Daniel Howden and Philip Thornton
25 May 2005
------------
The first drops of crude will snake their way along a pipeline that
traverses some of the most unstable and war-ravaged countries on
earth.
>
This is the oil flow that was meant to save the West, and "this
morning
the taps were turned on."
>
Only 42 inches wide, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan was supposed to alter
global oil markets forever.
>
The 1,000-mile project has transformed the geopolitics of the Caucasus
and its impact is now being felt in the vastness of central Asia.
>
Output is supposed to reach one million barrels a day - more than 1
per cent of world production - from an underground reserve that:
could hold as many
as 220 billion
**************
barrels.
*******
>
Its architects and investors claimed the pipeline would:
>
shore up energy
**************
supplies in the US
******************
and Europe for 50
*****************
years,
******
protecting our "gas-guzzling
way of life" and
>
easing our reliance
*******************
on the House of
***************
Saud.
****
>
The goal of the ambitious project, which makes its tortuous way from:
>
the Caspian in Azerbaijan, through Georgia to the Mediterranean coast
of Turkey,
>
is to ease the reliance of the West on the Organisation of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (Opec) and bring cheaper fuel to our
filling stations.
>
The pipe threads its way through the region in a seemingly modest
private corridor only 50 yards wide but:
>
nothing has been
****************
allowed to stand in
********************
its way.
*******
>
>From forests to labour laws and endangered species to "democracy
protesters":
>
all have given way to the costliest and most significant pipeline ever
built. ------------------------------------------------------
The project, known as "BTC", has:
>
driven a wedge
**************
between the US and
******************
Russia,
*******
"triggered political unrest in the countries it passes through and
their neighbours" and
>
sparked concern at extensive damage to the environment.
>
Since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US,
>
concern at the
**************
West's dependence on ********************
Persian Gulf oil has *******************
"intensified."
*************
>
For Washington,
**************
>
"the opening is a cause for celebration."
>
"We view this as a significant step forward in:
>
the energy security
********************
of that region,"
***************
said Samuel Bodman,
******************
the American energy secretary, who
stood next to the three heads of state at today's ceremony. >
With him at the pumping station controls was the president of the tiny
former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan.
**********
>
The BTC has allowed Ilham Aliev to
***********
become:
>
"a firm friend of
*****************
the West" while:
***************
>
overseeing a
*************
government condemned ********************
for "human rights
*****************
abuses" and
***********
>
sitting at the head of an administration placed 140 out of 146 in
>
"Transparency International's global corruption
*****************
index.
*****
------------------------
The politics of the pipeline have also changed the face of Georgia,
********
>
where "the battle for control with Russia" saw:
>
immense US influence ********************
deployed in support
*******************
of the so-called
****************
"Rose Revolution".
*****************
>
The popular protest ushered the American-educated
*****************
Mikhail Saakashvili
*******************
into power two years ********************
ago.
***
-------------------------------------
Washington's new ties with Tbilisi were amply demonstrated when:
>
George Bush became the first US
************
president to visit
******************
the country earlier
*******************
this month.
**********
>
In the long-term,
>
US ally, Turkey,
***************
where the pipeline
******************
crucially "delivers
******************
its oil"
********
>
direct to the Mediterranean -
>
bypassing the tanker-clogged
Bosphorus straits,
>
it is no accident
****************
that it does so "right next" to the
American airbase at
*******************
Incirlik.
********
----------------------------
When big oil
************
companies
*********
>
turned their attentions to the potential:
>
Caspian energy
*************
reserves released
********
from:
>
behind the
**********
collapsing walls of the Soviet Union,
****************
>
the region was
**************
billed as the "new
******************
Middle East".
***********
>
If only the reserves could be:
>
"securely transported" from the landlocked
sea to the Mediterranean,
>
the West would be gifted a vital alternative
to:
>
the "volatile Persian Gulf"
>
and the region would be freed from the
iron grip of Russia, which:
>
"had previously monopolised the export routes"
of their former Soviet satellites.
>
Once the Soviet empire fell,:
>
the Caspian found
*****************
itself surrounded by ********************
five nation states - ******************
>
Azerbaijan,
**********
Iran,
******
Kazakhstan,
**********
Russia and
******
Turkmenistan.
************
>
The region's supply of "cheap oil" and key position on the historic
border "between the West and the East" meant that:
>
countries quickly
*****************
moved into position
*******************
like pieces on a chessboard.
>
Three rival plans
*****************
were drawn up -
**************
>
(1) a northern route through Russia,
>
(2) a southern alternative through Iran and
>
(3) the central option through the Caucasus to the Mediterranean.
>
The winner could be in little doubt:
>
"the middle road" was the "only one" which:
>
guaranteed
**********
Washington and
**************
its corporate
**************
allies a corridor of ********************
control.
*******
>
The US
******
Vice-President Dick
*******************
Cheney,
******
>
who was then "chief
executive of oil services giant Halliburton",
***********
>
was among the first
*******************
to be swept away in
*******************
the excitement.
**************
>
"I cannot think of a time when we have had:
>
a "region emerge as
*******************
suddenly"
********
>
to become as strategically
*************
significant as:
**************
the Caspian,"
************
he said in 1998.
*****************
>
Now, more than a decade and
>
$4bn (2.2bn) later,
>
almost "three quarters"
of which came from:
>
"bank loans" which
*******************
were underwritten by ********************
government agencies
********************
and $320m in
*************
taxpayers' money,
*****************
>
the pipeline is
***************
open.
****
>
But this chapter of what Rudyard Kipling called:
>
the "Great Game" -
***************
the "secret battle" to ********************
dominate central
****************
Asia -
****
>
has only reached:
>
the end of its first ********************
phase.
*****
>
The fanfare at the "British oil giant"
>
"BP's" gleaming new terminal at
Sangachal in Azerbaijan may yet prove to be premature.
>
Stripped of the "American hype of the 1990s",
>
the crude that began a very modest flow this morning is:
>
the "first installment" of a reserve many analysts are now
convinced is:
>
actually only 32 billion barrels -
>
equivalent to that of a "small Gulf player" such as Qatar.
*****
>
"The game" now moves *******************
to:
**
>
the "trans-Caspian pipeline" and
>
to the immense plains of "Turkmenistan"
*************
and the "political cauldron" of:
>
Uzbekistan,
***********
Afghanistan and
***********
beyond.
******
------
25 May 2005 11:40
>
Contact us 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
?
Afjs
FULL ARTICLE. THIS IS THE ONE WITH TWO PAGES, WHICH I HAD POSTED
EARLIER IN 2005.
---
alt.culture.alaska
---
THE REASON FOR 9-11 WAS PROVEN TODAY-BUSH GUILTY
--
---
HERE IS WHAT TOOK PLACE TODAY, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I REPORTED TO ALL
OF YOU FOUR YEARS AGO.
---
(SNIPPED MY COMMENTS)
IF "I"KNEW WHAT BUSH WAS UP TO, THEN CERTAINLY OUR SO-CALLED U.S.
REPRESENTATIVES DID, >
YET THEY PLAYED DUMB AND THE DEMOS SAY THEY WERE LIED TO BY BUSH, WHEN
PEOPLE LIKE THE WANNABE PRESIDENT, JOHN KERRY, WAS SITTING ON
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE FOR YEARS, AND "KNEW EXACTLY
WHAT WAS HAPPENING" AND REFUSED TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO HE
WANTED TO
MAKE "HIM PRESIDENT".
------
HERE IS PG 1 OF 2 OF TODAY'S ARTICLE OF "WHY BUSH WANTED TO KILL OFF
THE AFGHANS", AND THE NEXT POSTED ARTICLE I MAKE WILL PROVE TO YOU
THAT BUSH
>
LITERALLY THREATENED ********************
OSAMA BIN LADEN
***************
5 MONTHS BEFORE THE
*******************
9-11 ATTACKS;
>
WITH MASSIVE BOMBING OF AFGHANISTAN IF HE WOULDN'T LET THE U.S. OIL
CORPS BUILD THIS OIL PIPELINE AND IT WAS PUBLISHED THROUGHOUT THE
WORLD,
>
BUT THE AMERICAN MEDIA SHUT IT OUT, BUT I POSTED IT IN ACA.
--
PAGE 1 OF 2
---
First Pipeline From Caspian Sea Opened
---------------------------------------
By AIDA SULTANOVA
The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 25, 2005; 9:23 AM
>
SANGACHAL, Azerbaijan --
>
With speeches and a letter from President Bush, officials
---------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday opened the first section of a 1,100-mile
--------------------------------------------------
pipeline that will carry Caspian Sea oil to Western
---------------------------------------------------
markets,
------
a project seen as an economic and political boon for the troubled
Caucasus region.
>
The $3.2 billion
****************
U.S.-backed project
*******************
also realizes
>
"several crucial goals for Washington", including
>
reducing dependence on Middle Eastern oil and the need to use Russian
pipelines to ship oil westward.
>
Azerbaijani President, Ilham Aliev, right, greets Georgian President
Mikhail Saakashvili during a meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan, Tuesday, May
24, 2005.
>
Presidents and oil
******************
company executives
******************
will inaugurate a 1,100-mile
pipeline Wednesday that will carry millions of gallons of crude from:
>
"the landlocked Caspian" to the Mediterranean,
>
a much-needed alternative
to Mideast energy resources.
>
The presidents of:
*****************
(1) Azerbaijan,
>
(2) Kazakhstan,
>
(3) Georgia and
>
(4) Turkey
>
were on hand for the ceremony at the "Sangachal oil terminal", about
25
miles south of Azerbaijan's capital, Baku.
>
Beginning in Azerbaijan _
**********
>
a mostly Muslim
***************
country and
*******
a U.S. ally
***********
>
in "the war on terrorism with troops in Iraq"
_
>
the underground pipeline passes through Georgia and Turkey, ending at
the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.
>
It avoids going through:
>
Russia,
>
Armenia,
>
Iran,
>
Iraq and
>
Syria
>
---
on its
way to the Mediterranean.
>
It passes within a few miles of Nagorno-Karabakh _
****************
>
an enclave that
"ethnic Armenian separatists" took control of more than a decade ago.
>
The "conflict continues to simmer",
>
"undermining the region's security",
and
>
critics of the pipeline have suggested:
>
"it could be vulnerable to
terrorist attacks" at various points.
>
The pipeline's route through Georgia
>
"avoids the two separatist regions"
in the north of that country,
>
but does traverse
*****************
areas where security ********************
is fragile.
**********
>
Some of its stretch in Turkey goes through:
>
"conflict-prone Kurdish areas."
*************
>
The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
*******************
pipeline,
********
>
with a capacity of 1 million barrels
per day,
>
"will take new supplies of oil to the world market and will help to
demonstrate that:
>
security is best
****************
achieved by having
******************
"multiple sources of supply" and
"trade routes,"
>
BP PLC, Chief
*************
Executive,
*********
John Brown,
***********
>
"whose company leads the consortium" that built the
-------------------------------------------------
pipeline, said at the ceremony.
-----------------------------
>
It is the first direct oil link between the landlocked Caspian, which
is thought to contain:
>
the world's
***********
third-largest oil
*****************
and gas reserves,
****************
to the Mediterranean.
>
The pipeline "opens a new era in the Caspian Basin's development,"
--
Bush said in a
**************
letter read by
**************
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.
*************
>
Bush, whose administration is:
---
seeking to diversify ********************
energy sources,
**************
called it:
>
a "monumental
*************
achievement."
************
>
"The United States
******************
has:
****
>
"consistently
************
supported (the
**************
pipeline) because:
*****************
>
we believe in the project's ability to >
(1) bolster "energy security",
>
(2) strengthen participating countries' energy diversity,
>
(3) "enhance
regional cooperation" and
>
(4) "expand
***********
international
*************
investment
*********
opportunities,"
**************
>
Bush's letter said.
*******************
>
Azerbaijan,
Georgia and
Turkey
>
look to "earn substantial revenue from the pipeline,
>
"through transit fees and royalties." >
Azerbaijan is banking on:
>
the pipeline to "raise its profile in the world" and
>
it's increased security ahead of its inauguration.
>
On Saturday, police broke up a banned demonstration by
-------------------------------------------------------
protesters demanding free elections and arrested
------------------------------------------------
demonstrators,
-------------
with the government "citing safety concerns" ahead of the pipeline's
opening.
>
----
CONTINUED-1-2 The Associated Press
Copyright 1996-2005 ---?
washingtonpost.com:
Afjs
----
THIS IS PAGE 2 OF THIS ARTICLE.
--
NOW, YOU MUST TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THIS TWO PAGE ARTICLE WRITTEN BY
"THE WASHINGTON POST/AP" AND COMPARE IT TO THE ABOVE ARTICLE WRITTEN
BY A U.K REPORTER:
---
THE "BIG GAPPING HOLE OF:
>
"AFGHANISTAN IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE U.S. ARTICLE".
>
AT THIS WRITING, IT HAD BEEN 3 YEARS SINCE BUSH ORDERED THE BOMBING OF
AFGHANISTAN.
--
THE U.S. MEDIA INTENTIONALLY KEPT COVERED UP, THE WORDS:
"OIL & AFGHANISTAN & U.S. MILITARY INVOLVEMENT", WHICH IS WHY, ALL
AMERICANS SHOULD READ THE U.K. & OTHER FOREIGN PAPERS IF "YOU WANT TO
GET TO THE TRUTH".
---
alt.culture.alaska
Re: THE REASON FOR 9-11 WAS PROVEN TODAY-BUSH GUILTY
>
corinne <corinne_...@hotmail.com>
>
PG 2 OF 2-WASHINGTON POST
---
washingtonpost.com
Page 2 of 2 < Back
>
First Pipeline From Caspian Sea Opened
------------------------------------
Tensions between the government and the opposition in the tightly
controlled
--
"former Soviet republic" has increased since an October 2003
election in which:
>
Ilham Aliev replaced ********************
his late father,
****************
Geidar Aliev,
>
as president in a
*******************
vote the opposition said:
---
was marred by fraud. *******************
>
"This pipeline first of all will help solve economic and social
problems, but the role of the pipeline in:
>
strengthening peace and security in the region also is not small,"
Aliev said at the ceremony.
------
>
photo
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev, right, greets Georgian President
Mikhail Saakashvili during a meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan, Tuesday, May
24, 2005.
>
Presidents and oil company executives will inaugurate a
1,100-mile pipeline Wednesday that will carry millions of gallons of
crude from the landlocked Caspian to the Mediterranean,
>
"a much-needed
alternative to Mideast energy resources."
(AP Photo/Oktay Mamedov, Pool)
(Oktay Mamedov - AP)
------
>
Turkish President
*****************
Ahmet Necdet Sezer said:
>
the pipeline
"can be called the Silk Road of the 21st century."
-------
>
Georgia President
******************
Mikhail Saakashvili said:
>
the pipeline should help "attract investment" and improve living
standards.
>
Saakashvili has sought to:
>
"lessen Russia's influence" on his impoverished
country, which:
>
"depends heavily on Moscow for energy."
>
Kazakhstan President *******************
Nursultan Nazarbayev was on hand because:
>
"oil from his country will also be transported through the pipeline."
>
Officials said it would take up to six weeks to fill the Azerbaijani
section with oil.
>
The Georgian part
******************
will be ready after that,
>
then the Turkish stretch, which Turkish authorities have said should
be
filled by Aug. 15.
******************
>
It will take approximately 10 million barrels of crude to fill the
entire pipeline.
>
Bodman said Tuesday
***********
that:
>
deliveries of oil from the pipeline to tankers at the "terminal in
Turkey" are to begin in the fall.
>
"Once fully operational", the pipeline will represent a
>
"significant"
************
addition to Western
*******************
oil supplies,
************
>
said analyst Jason Kenney of ING
Financial Markets,
>
although the time needed to fill it means:
>
"you won't see exports until
the later part of
*****************
the year." (2005)
****************
--------
< Back: 1-2
---
NOW....HOW MANY AMERICANS HAVE EVEN HEARD ABOUT THIS OIL COMING TO THE
U.S.A.? DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND WHY? I.E.THE BUSH REGIME BOMBED
AFGHANISTAN IN ORDER TO GET THIS PIPELINE BUILT AND PER USUAL "KEPT
THIS BIG SECRET TO THEMSELVES, SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD SAY
IGNORANT OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
--
HOW ABOUT THE "BANK LOANS" THAT THE U.S. MADE, AS WELL AS THE "USE OF
OUR TAX-DOLLARS"???
--
YOU HAVEN'T HEARD "YOUR CONGRESS PERSON TALK ABOUT THIS, MUCH LESS THE
AMERICAN MEDIA".
--
THESE ACTS ARE ALL CLEAR ACTS OF A "FASCIST GOVERNMENT".
---
Print This Article
E-Mail This Article
RSS Feed 2005-The Associated Press
Muckraker
"BUSINESS WITH OIL CORPS" WHICH INVOLVES MILITARY INVASIONS.
---
WHILE BIN LADEN'S NAME IS INTENTIONALLY "NOT MENTIONED", EVERYONE
OBVIOUSLY KNOWS WHO HE IS.
--
BE SURE AND SEE THE LIST OF THE "MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE", I.E. LIKE
ROHRBACHER WHO CONTINUES TO SAY WE SHOULD STAY IN IRAQ AND
AFGHANISTAN, AND SHOULD FEAR IRAN.
--
YET NOT A WORD ABOUT THIS "UNOCAL OIL DEAL AND THE SUBSEQUENT BOMBING
AND INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN.
--
PUT THAT TOGETHER WITH THE MULTI-MILLIONS OF "BANK LOANS AND TAX-
DOLLARS SPENT ON THE AFGHAN OIL PIPELINE, AND YOU HAVE A CLEAR CUT
"FASCIST GOVT. DOING BUSINESS WITH GREEDY AND CORRUPT OIL CORPS AND
COUNTRIES "KNOWN TO BE DICTATORSHIPS".
--
NOT UNTIL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET EDUCATED, THE WAY THE REST OF THE
WORLD IS, RE THE U.S.A.'S BLATANT ILLEGAL WARS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ROBBING COUNTRIES OF THEIR RESOURCES, WILL THEY REALIZE THAT IT IS UP
TO WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE THAT THEY ARE THROWN IN PRISON.
--
Subject:CRG -- Hearing On US Interests In The Central Asian Republics
2-12-98
---
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CON110A.html
>
--
Afjs
OR AUTHORITY TO INVADE, KILL, AND ROB A COUNTRY OF THEIR LAND & OIL
AND THEN SAY, "WE ARE LIBERATING YOU. YOU WILL BE FREE, EVEN IF WE
HAVE TO KILL YOU?
--
THIS IS THE THINKING OF A PSYCHOPATH..YOUR PRESIDENT AND HIS GANG.
--
PLEASE READ THE ABOVE ARTICLES RE BUSH-OIL-AND TALIBAN.
--
Subject:Bush Orders More Troops Into Afghanistan-2-15-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021507R.shtml
>
---
Question!
TO US CONTINUALLY.
---
THEIR PSYCHOTIC DELUSIONS OF TELLING US "THEY JUST MADE A MISTAKE"
WHEN "THEY KNEW" THEY APPROVED OF THE ILLEGAL INVASON AND KILLING
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, "WILL BE ENOUGH, BECAUSE
"WE, THE PEOPLE ARE JUST TOO STUPID TO KNOW, THEY ARE JUST AS GUILTY
AS THE FASCIST BUSH REGIME OF "WAR CRIMES".
--
MC CAIN, WHO WANTS TO BE "OUR NEXT PRESIDENT" AND IS OBVIOUSLY WILLING
TO CALL BUSH A LIAR, VIA HIS STATEMENTS BELOW, WHICH PROVES "HE KNOWS
THAT THE BUSH REGIME; CONGRESS; AND OBVIOUSLY HIMSELF, (IF ELECTED),
WILL "CONTINUE TO BUILD AN AMERICAN EMPIRE IN THE MIDDLE EAST", WITH
BASE BEING IN IRAQ, JUST LIKE THE NEO-CONS' PNAC PLAN CALLS FOR.
---
AS YOU CAN SEE, HE THINKS WE ARE SO STUPID WE WOULD VOTE FOR HIM.
--
AGAIN, THIS IS "WHY CONGRESS REFUSES TO HOLD THE FASCIST BUSH REGIME
LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ILLEGAL ACTS, I.E.
---
"MOST ARE GUILTY OF THESE "WAR CRIMES" AND STILL WANT TO SETUP THIS
AMERICAN EMPIRE, BECAUSE THEY ALSO KNOW, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN'T
LEGALLY IMPEACH THEM ALL.
------
THE WORLD IS WATCHING US, THE PEOPLE OF THE U.S.A., WHO ARE "NOT"
DOING ANYTHING TO GET RID OF THIS FASCIST GOVERNMENT. ---
AS STATED, THEY CAN ALL BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE "INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT (I.C.C.) "IF" WE SEND OUR LETTERS TO THE U.N. SECURITY
COUNCIL.
-----
Subject:McCain: Americans Will Be In Iraq For A Long Time -2-20-07
---
http://www.news4jax.com/print/11063943/detail.html
>
----
News4Jax.com
---
(PHOTO)
John McCain Campaign Image
---
POSTED: 1:59 pm EST February 20, 2007
---
ATLANTA -- Republican presidential hopeful John McCain said Tuesday
that:
>
American forces are in for a long, difficult stay in Iraq and likened
it to the United States' decades-long presence in South Korea.
---
"I think we're there ********************
for a long, long
****************
time,"
*****
>
McCain told reporters during a stop at the Georgia Capitol.
---
"We've been in South Korea for a long, long time also."
---
The comments came a day after McCain blasted former Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld for:
>
"mismanaging the war in Iraq."
---
McCain said Monday that:
>
Rumsfeld would be remembered as one of the "worst defense chiefs in
the nation's history."
---
Asked if his criticism extended to President Bush for keeping Rumsfeld
around as long as he did, McCain said:
>
--
"there was plenty of blame to go around." ---
>
"I am being critical of everybody including:
**********************************************
"all of us who are responsible for "mistakes"
**********************************************
that we've made in the war,"
******************************
the Arizona senator said.
"Including myself."
*******************
---
"I have said many times that:
I am critical, but the president has the right to choose his team,"
McCain said.
---
McCain paid a visit to the statehouse in Atlanta on Tuesday in an
attempt to rally support with Republican state lawmakers. He met also
with GOP Gov. Sonny Perdue. He was escorted around the Capitol by
Georgia state Republican Party Chairman Alec Poitevint, a McCain
supporter, and former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, of Texas.
---
With the state Legislature in session, Georgia's Capitol was crowded
and onlookers stopped to gawk at the war hero-turned-senator as he
moved by. McCain stopped at one point to have his picture taken with a
group of tiara-wearing child beauty queens.
---
McCain has been attempting to:
***********************************
shore up support among:
****************************
"religious conservatives in the Bible Belt"
*********************************************
and was set to continue a campaign swing in South Carolina later
Tuesday.
---
Speaking to reporters after a private meeting with Perdue, McCain
reaffirmed:
his opposition to abortion.
*****************************
---
"I have a 24-year pro-life voting record," McCain said. "I have always
been pro-life and my voting record indicates that."
---
His visit comes just a day before former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt
Romney, a rival for the Republican nomination, holds a a fund raiser
in the Peach State.
---
Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press.
Rico
"DRAFT" OF ALL 18 YEAR OLD + MEN TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY.
--
AS SUCH, WE NOW HAVE A "CIVILIAN'S VOLUNTARY MILITARY", OF WHICH, THE
G.I. "SIGNS A CONTRACT" WITH THE U.S. GOVT. TO SERVE.
---
AGAIN, THE BUSH REGIME CONTINUES TO SPEW "THE U.S. IS A NATION OF
"LAWS", I.E. THE U.S. OPERATES UNDER "THE RULE OF LAW AND NOT BY THE
RULE OF MAN".
---
AS SUCH, IT IS CLEAR THAT U.S. GOVT., I.E. THE "COMMANDER AND CHIEF"
WHO CALLS HIMSELF "THE WAR PRESIDENT", HAS VIOLATED SO MANY LAWS NOW
THAT IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP TRACK OF SINCE EACH DAY, MORE
ILLEGAL ACTS ARE BEING REPORTED.
--
CLEARLY, THE CONTRACT WITH THOSE WHO "VOLUNTARILY JOINED THE U.S.
MILITARY" HAS BEEN VIOLATED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, I.E. BY FORCING
THE G.I. TO KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS, IN AN "ILLEGAL WAR/S".
---
NOTHING COULD BE MORE HEINOUS THEN TAKING A SERIOUSLY WOUNDED G.I. AND
PLACING HIM/HER IN AN UNSANITARY U.S. SO-CALLED HOSPITAL WHERE THEY
ARE LEFT WITHOUT ANY TREATMENT OR BAD TREATMENT.
--
YET THAT HAS BEEN THE CASE, AS MY ABOVE POSTED ARTICLES PROVE.
---
YET AGAIN, MORE "DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE" HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ABOUT THE
TERRIBLE CONDITIONS AT THE WALTER REED HOSPITAL HAVE SURFACED.
--
REMEMBER, ALL ALONG BUSH AND HIS MILITARY REGIME HAVE BEEN LYING TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT "WONDERFUL TREATMENT THEY ARE
RECEIVING, WHILE FINALLY ADMITTING THAT "THE G.I. WAS GOING INTO
BATTLE "WITHOUT FULL PROTECTION", WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE RECEIVED
THESE INJURIES OR WORSE, DEATH.
--
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE AGAIN "PROVIDES THE EVIDENCE OF THESE BUSH
REGIME LIES", YET THEY ARE "NOT BEING HELD LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE".
--
WHILE TWO CONGRESSMAN ARE "FINALLY GOING TO WRITE ANOTHER PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, NOTHING IS BEING DONE ABOUT THE THOUSANDS OF WOUNDED
G.I.S WHO ARE APPARENTLY "JUST SUPPOSE TO TRY AND STAY ALIVE UNTIL
THESE LAWS ARE MADE".
--
IF, WE ARE A GOVERNMENT "OF LAWS", THEN CLEARLY THESE G.I.'S SHOULD
SUE THIS SO-CALLED "COMMANDER AND CHIEF", AKA U.S. GOVT. BUT FIRST,
THE WOUNDED G.I. SHOULD BE "REMOVED FROM THESE V.A. HOSPITALS AND
PLACED IN GOOD CIVILIAN HOSPITALS WITH THE BILLS SENT TO GEORGE W.
BUSH.
---
BOTTOM-LINE:
--
THE CIVILIAN MILITARY PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE CIVILIAN LAWYERS PROTECTING
THEM..."NOW".
---
Subject:PUBLIC OUTCRY VIA CONGRESS-FORCED BUSH'S PENTAGON TO ADMIT TO
POOR G.I
TREATMENT.-2-20-07
Skewer
FINALLY LOPPING OFF
SOME FASCIST HEADS.
---
BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BUSH REGIME "KNEW", AS WELL AS MANY CONGRESS
PEOPLE, WHO OBVIOUSLY RECEIVED COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE THOUSANDS OF
G.I.'S WHO WEREN'T RECEIVING GOOD TREATMENT WHILE WOUNDED AND AT THE
V.A. HOSPITALS.
--
THIS IS JUST THE "TIP" OF A VERY BIG BUREAUCRACY WHERE THE G.I. IS
TREATED LIKE CATTLE, I.E. I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE, I.E.
--
(1) YOU ARE TOLD TO "WAIT YOUR TURN" BCAUSE THERE ARE NEITHER
APPOINTMENTS OR A REGULAR DOCTOR WHO SEES YOU;
--
(2) WHEN YOU "SEE" A DOCTOR, YOU ARE EITHER SEEN BY A "MEDICAL
STUDENT" OR A "PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT"...NOT A REAL LICENSE DOCTOR;
--
(3) IF YOU ARE BEFORE THIS INCOMPETENT MORE THAN 10 MINUTES, THEY
START TRYING TO RUSH YOU OUT, SO THE NEXT COW CAN COME IN.
--
(4) THE SO-CALLED "MEDICAL TREATMENT" IS EITHER SHODDY OR WRONG,
BECAUSE OF THE INCOMPETENCE OF YOUR SO-CALLED "DOCTOR".
--
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE G.I.'S DON'T HAVE ANY LEGAL ADVOCATE TO HELP
THEM, WHICH IS WHY THIS GROSS NEGLIGENCE HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR DECADES.
---
THIS WOULDN'T HAPPEN IF THESE V.A. HOSPITALS WERE PRIVATIZED AND YOU
COULD SUE THEM...THEN IT WOULD "WAKE-UP" THESE INCOMPETENT SO-CALLED
"LEADERS OF THIS FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY".
---
AGAIN...YOUR CONGRESS HAS ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN.
--
Subject:Army Secretary FORCED TO Resign in Scandal's Wake-3-02-07
---
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030207R.shtml
>