tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28589485227796689682024-02-18T21:34:57.090-06:00BUSH DECISION POINTSFACT OR FICTION<center>Dedicated in Deciphering the truths and lies in a book Published by the 43rd president, George W. Bush</center><center>Statements presented by the Author are substantiated</center><center>with FACTS and REFERENCES for support</center>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-38700644645389076202016-01-17T05:58:00.000-06:002016-01-17T06:06:11.508-06:00With George W. Bush's Record, Never Again will a 'BUSH' become President The failed presidency of George W. Bush, the U.S. 43rd President, now comes to haunt the Republican wanna-be for president. Jeb Bush ignorantly wants to be the 45th president, thinking that he has a chance to be the 3rd person with the name of Bush to be President of the United States. It didn't take long for many to realize that all the money in the world could not help him but he continues to run. He owns the name of Bush, and in fact IS the brother of George W. Bush, one of the most failed presidents in U.S. history. To date, Jeb has spent more than any other candidate, almost as much as all of the other candidates combined. Still, he is in single digits when it comes to voter support in every poll. He is trying very hard to gain recognition in the polls, but the Republican supporters want somebody different, an outsider, someone who is not 'politically correct'. They seem to have no where to go except to now follow Donald Trump. The Republicans may have had a chance to regain the White House, but the party seems to continuously try to destroy itself, some in an attempt to support anyone who holds the last name of Bush which is a big mistake. The Bush ego continues to shine, as the candidate realizes that he cannot win, but he continues to try and challenge the front line candidate - Donald Trump, another mistake. Neither candidate has a chance to win the White House.<br />
Even George W. Bush would admit for what we know now, that he would not have invaded Iraq. Thousands of U.S. soldiers died because of his decision to attack Iraq. The war is widely accepted to have been a disastrous mistake, but what is more disastrous is the fact that George W. Bush ignored numerous warnings of a major terrorist plot, leading up to September 11, 2001. He continued to make one mistake after another, even fooling the American people for his intentions to invade Iraq. In a special televised report, it was stated that George W. Bush's intention to invade Iraq is because he wanted to take the country's oil. Many people are not aware of that. Yes, he was a newly elected president, but he did absolutely nothing to help prevent such an attack on the mainland of the United States. He continued to only take advise from his ill-informed advisers. <br />
In the Republican field of contestants today now running for the nomination of President to replace Barack Obama in 2016, one of the candidates named Donald Trump, now leading in the polls, openly states in an interview on October 16, 2015 said " When you talk about George W. Bush--I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time."<br />
Jeb Bush obviously heard these comments by Donald Trump at a debate, after Jeb had said, "We were attacked, my brother kept us safe." Really?!@/@!?%/@/$!. How did he keep Americans safe when the Twin Towers came down? How many lives were lost?<br />
How could he keep America safe when all he wanted to do was to take vacations. Yes, George W. Bush took more vacation time than ANY other President in modern history. A CBS White House reporter named Mark Knoller stated in a tweet on August 8, 2014, that Obama had taken 19 vacations totaling 125 days by August last year. But now let's compare with George W. Bush. The Republican president took at least 65 combined trips to his Texas ranch and his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine, which totaled 407 days at the same point in his presidency. Not included in this data are trips to the Camp David presidential retreat in western Maryland, which Knoller doesn’t count as "vacation." Knoller told Yahoo! News that, through Aug. 12, 2014, Obama had made 33 visits to Camp David for all or part of 84 days, while Bush had been there 108 times for all or part of 341 days. President Bush spent at least 20% of his presidency vacationing at the Crawford ranch.<br />
So what does this data prove? It displays a totally different leadership style between Obama and George W. Some of the late-night comics said that this symbolized a lackadaisical approach to the world's most important day job, an impression bolstered by Bush's periodic two-hour midday exercise sessions and his disinclination to work nights or weekends. Now, the last noted fact here is disastrous to George W Bush. He spend at least a month at the ranch shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when critics assert he could have been more attentive to warning signs. Yes, even at the ranch, George W. did receive national security briefings, had to sign documents, hold teleconferences with aides and military commanders, and even meet with foreign leaders, but he did this in the midst of taking vacation upon vacation at his ranch.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-80844746948214263522014-12-10T23:55:00.000-06:002016-05-30T04:24:04.417-05:00Enhanced Interrogation (TORTURE) Report Now ReleasedThe Senate Intelligence Committee released the "Interrogation Report", otherwise known as "The Torture Report".<br />
<br />
In an exclusive interview on December 9, 2014, Michael Hirsh of "Politico", asked Bush's former CIA director some questions. One of them is the following question, quoted out of that same "Politico" article, dated December 9, 2014, that can be found at the following URL...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/torture-report-michael-hayden-not-sorry-113450.html?ml=po#.VIkrQjHF98E">http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/torture-report-michael-hayden-not-sorry-113450.html?ml=po#.VIkrQjHF98E</a> .....<br />
<br />
"According to CIA records, it concludes, no CIA officer including Directors George Tenet and Porter Goss briefed the president on the specific enhanced interrogation techniques before April 2006. Is that true?"<br />
Michael Hayden: "It is not. The president personally approved the water-boarding of Abu Zubaydah [in 2002]. It’s in his book! What happened here is that the White House refused to give them [the Senate Intelligence Committee] White House documents based upon the separation of powers and executive privilege. That’s not in their report, but all of that proves that there was dialogue was going on with the White House. What I can say is that the president never knew where the [black] sites were. That’s the only fact I’m aware that he didn't know."<br />
<br />
So it is George W. Bush's own CIA director that claims that the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush did know of the torture techniques, and he knew about everything except where the "black sites" were. The black sites are now known to be located all across the world. How would the leader of the United States not know? The fact is what Michael Hayden is saying MUST be correct. He is going on record stating the facts. Vice President Dick Cheney and the President himself condones torture as legal and just. The vice president has recently been quoted that if he were to do it over again, he would gladly do it. President Bush mentioned how he condoned the torture techniques in his book.<br />
<br />
What were the techniques? Here is a list of highlights of the torture techniques. Immediately to follow is the abbreviated version of a several thousand page document that took over 6 years to accumulate and declassify for the public to read.<br />
<br />
Here are the points the report makes, according to its summary:<br />
<br />
<b>#1: The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#2: The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#3: The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#4: The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#5: The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#6: The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#7: The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#8: The CIA's operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#9; The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#10: The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#11: The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#12: The CIA's management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout the program's duration, particularly so in 2002 and early 2003.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#13: Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the program.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#14: CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#15: The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced Interrogation techniques were inaccurate.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#16: The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#17: The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious and significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systemic and individual management failures.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#18: The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#19: The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorized press disclosures, reduced cooperation from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#20: The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States' standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs.</b><br />
<br />
At the conclusion of the report, regardless of what was found, President Obama and legal consul has decided not to prosecute George W. Bush, or Dick Cheney, or the CIA Director Micael Hayden. This may be true for the moment, but there will be some lawsuits on indictments to follow such a report as this, as someone has to be accountable for what has happened. In my book, it should start at the top, indicting George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, because both of these people were ultimately responsible for everything that happened in the military.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
</div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-58940779068365172422014-08-21T11:26:00.001-05:002014-08-21T11:28:40.134-05:00FACTs ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH, our 43rd President of the United StatesHERE IS A FACT ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH, our 43rd President of the United States....<br />
<br />
The present civil war within IRAQ is a direct result of President George W. Bush's involvement in destroying the Saddam Hussein regime in an attempt to gain access to billions of barrels of oil to be exported back to the United States. Not too many people know that fact. In a recent report by Rachael Maddow listed in my previous story, these facts are now known. Now because of unrest that Bush initiated years ago, ISIS or ISUL is now killing innocent Iraqi's throughout-the country. If George W. Bush did not intervene in his war in Iraq, ISUS would have never gained power in the country. We have George W Bush to thank for, for the atrocities that are happening today.<br />
The prior president who wants the world to forget what he is responsible for, the killing of over 4,000 Americans in the foreign country of Iraq, hides from the truth like a scared sheep. He refuses to defend his action in Iraq, and continues to live a life as a previous President in riches and wealth that he does not deserve. He lives for the world to forget what he has done, thinking that future generations will think of him in a more positive light.<br />
How can this man sleep at night? Does he care that under his PONTUS direction, that he sent thousands upon thousands of American solders into harms way for his entire Presidency, and is responsible for their deaths. If it weren't for his direction, these American soldiers would be living. President Bush has forever destroyed thousands of American families just for his sickness to proclaim war on the world. What right did he have to con so many Americans into thinking that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? How could such a man so deceptively win election, let alone re-election in America as our President. How could he fool so many? I am ashamed of being a citizen of a country with a tyrant President such as him. President George W. Bush is as guilty as Saddam Hussein himself, along with his vice President Dick Chaney, who condoned unjust punishments of torture. Thank God that our present President, Barack Obama will never condone torture on anyone, not even our worst enemies.<br />
The phrase, "do unto others, as others shall do unto you" is what should happen to George W. Bush. Has he ever been tortured? No. Has he ever served in the military, under any President who put his troops into war? Absolutely not, and in matter of fact, George W. Bush did everything possible to stay out of the service, and he received a specialized deferment just so that he would not have to go into the military.<br />
<br />
That my friends of this blog is what our past president is all about.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-38963364429971431732014-03-07T02:46:00.002-06:002014-03-07T03:48:05.114-06:00The Real Reason for the Iraq War <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/86/RachelMaddowShow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/86/RachelMaddowShow.jpg" /></a>As reported for the first time yesterday, March 6, 2014, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow">Rachel Maddow</a>, a commentator from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC">MSNBC</a>, outlined what was to be the real reason for the Iraq War, in her commentary "<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/whos-who">Why We Did It</a>". People just need to know the truth. Who would have thought that the story would begin with the activity in N. Korea. As reported, on October 9, 2006, seismic recorders recorded what was thought to be an earthquake, located in North Korea. What it turned out to be was an underground nuclear test by North Korea. Our secret intelligence was caught off guard, as North Korea just set off its first nuclear bomb. It is important to note that President Bush didn't see a need to disarm that country, as there was no move by the U.S. to do so. Even after the actions of of Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attack on Sept. 11 2001, the United States did not directly go and seek out whom was considered now the number one terrorist in the world. The President and Vice President repeatedly said that they could not find the very elusive terrorist.<br />
Instead, the United States under false pretenses made a premeditated attack on Iraq. So what was the reason? Was Osama bin Laden in Iraq? What people didn't recognize is the fact that even prior to Sept. 11 2001, the United States led by George W. Bush had been working on something totally outside the scope of seeking out terrorists, even though central intelligence reports showed increased activity by Osama bin Laden, and intelligence gathered that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on America.<br />
The President of the United States, along with the Vice-President of the United States, Dick Cheney, were more interested in Iraq, and purposely hid secrets concerning their real objectives for attacking Iraq. The Secretary of Defense at the time <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-rumsfeld-gets-grilled-by-interviewer-on-iraq-war-did-you-ever-think-about-apologizing/">Donald Rumsfeld</a>, serving under George W. Bush, purposely hid secrets from the United States Congress, along with the President and Vice President. What they claimed was the immediate issue was the fact that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein">Saddam Hussein</a>, the reining president of the time in Iraq, was producing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Was that true? It was proven after the U.S. attack on Iraq that Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction. So what just happened was that the United States started a war under false pretense and went through one of the longest wars in U.S. history.<br />
So what is this hidden secret? Behind closed doors, not even privy to the U.S. Congress, the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense along with a few select others who are not important to this story, were secretly figuring out a way to take over the Iraq oil fields. The very rich reserves of oil in the country of Iraq proved to be of very high interest to oil billionaire George W. Bush from Texas. An oil company called Halliburton, had two major headquarters, one in Dubai, and another in Houston, Texas. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._Lesar">David J Lesar</a> has been CEO of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton">Halliburton</a> (HAL) for 12 years. Mr. Lesar has been with the company for 19 years. The 59 year old executive ranks 8 within Oil & Gas Operations. His prior boss was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney">Dick Cheney</a>. So here you have it, two Texas Oil men, George W. Bush and David Lesar worked in Texas with oil. In September of 2000, the price of oil kept climbing, affecting the United States, especially with global energy demand on the rise. The U.S. dependence of foreign oil hit an all-time high. Just before becoming the President, George W. Bush was interviewed and ran for President with the premise that foreign oil was going to be a big problem for his administration. The President met in Houston, and plans to take over Iraqi oil were made. The President had secret meetings with Haliburton, just before the insurgence into Iraq. Not known at the time by the American people, plans were being made to secure oil fields in that country.<br />
When George W. Bush became President, he immediately began to try and find a way to work on the foreign oil issue. He determined that what better way to get allot of oil if the United States were to take it from Iraq. Not long after his election as President, the attack of the World Trade Center took place on Sept. 11 2001, and now the President found a reason to enter Iraq and get approval from Congress to do so. His claim, to attack Saddam Hussein, because he had weapons of mass destruction. What we know now is that this was a lie, as he involved the United States in a foreign war. He became directly responsible for thousands of U.S. lives lost on foreign soil. The sad thing about the war is that we were not hunting for Osama bin Laden, but used Saddam Hussein as a scapegoat with weapons of mass destruction, just so that we could enter Iraq and secure the oil fields. Ultimately by securing the oil fields, the production of oil greatly increased from Iraq. But was it worth the invasion of Iraq, and the loss of so many American lives, along with the innocent citizens of this country that were caught up in a war started by the United States? The unnecessary loss of American soldiers lives because of President Bush's selfish and greedy interests makes him directly responsible for the lives of the thousands of dead Americans. Has the cost of oil gone down because of the attack on Iraq and increased production from the oil fields? Absolutely not, and in matter of fact, the oil prices have continued to go up.<br />
President Bush claims that history will judge him over time in a more favorable light. He doesn't seem concerned on what people think of him now. All that I plan to do about it is publish articles like this to help bring to light what exactly happened during the Presidency of George W. Bush and how bad I consider him for America. <br />
One thing is certain. If Democratic contender for President, Al Gore was to become president instead of George W. Bush, the Iraq war would have never happened. Thousands of American soldiers would be living today and the United States wouldn't have been the reason for so much death and destruction in the foreign country of Iraq. I say this because no American president of that time would have started a war in a foreign country just to secure oil fields. The United States was not being threatened by Saddam Hussein by weapons of mass destruction.<br />
<br />
Immediately below is a video clip, narrated by Rachel Maddow of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC">MSNBC</a> in her commentary that was aired yesterday on her news station.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe border="no" height="500" scrolling="no" src="http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/EmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_whyPT1_140306" width="635"></iframe>
<br />
Below, Rachel offers a bit of a preview to The Daily Show's Jon Stewart.
<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 368px;">
<div style="padding: 4px;">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="293" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:433528" width="460"></iframe><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;">
<b>The Daily Show</b> <br />
Get More: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-21844946265801252012013-07-06T11:32:00.000-05:002013-07-06T11:34:35.742-05:00Mr. Bush wants People to Forget Who He Truly Is Mr. Bush thinks that trying to do something right in his life for others will correct what he has done in his. He is presently on a good will mission to poor people in far away lands. That is what is called wishful thinking. Readers of this blog may wonder why I'm so negative when it comes to Mr. Bush. Maybe I can shed some of the light here. He wants to be remembered as something else than what he truly is, even though he would not like to admit it. What is he? How about a murderer for starters because of all the innocent people that he killed, like members of our dead that were killed in the war because of him. Everyone was afraid of him, not knowing where he would strike next. He became a terrorist in his own right. How about other innocent people, like the people of these ravaged countries like in Iraq and Afghanistan, the same type of people he is now out and about in his mission, now in his sickening sympathetic effort to try and do something good for the kind of people that he killed.<br />
The United States was involved in a war, I get that. Innocent people do get killed in battles. Actually in two wars, President Bush put our troops into harms way. He is responsible for the thousands of innocent lives that have perished because of his actions. The truth is coming out, even before he is dead, even before the historians can tell us and our children about his legacy. The truth is already out that we, the United States should have NEVER been involved in those wars. The good that was done from them, does not even come close or even justify the means in which he took to accomplish his goals. He had no idea that it would draw our country in a war lasting a decade. What did he know? The secret intelligence at the time gave so many false readings on the state of foreign affairs, especially telling him that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That is what he wanted to hear because he wanted to attack and he wanted to start a war.<br />
Now the families of the sick and fallen of that war have to forever live with the fact that their loved one will be forever affected because of the war. Apparently he forgets about the past and what people overseas think of him. In an article by Ray McGovern, the title read, "George Bush Can't Travel Overseas for Fear of Arrest and Prosecution". Back then, highlighted in the article dated February 9, 2011, he avoided a flight and appearance in Geneva to avoid the risk of arrest on a torture complaint. There it is, in plain sight, the leader of the free world afraid to travel to avoid arrest, just like Mr. Snowden. The difference between Bush and Snowden is that Bush got away with mass murder, and Mr. Snowden will be forever haunted by the U.S. government for leaking classified secret information to the world. Mr. Snowden has to forever stay away from the United States in fear of getting arrested, but Bush can come and go as he pleases. As the article continues to read, "Doomed to become America's first better-stay-at-home former president". And how about another quote from the same article... "Remember, Mr. President, it was Richard Nixon who pronounced the principle of presidential impunity in his famous statement to interviewer David Frost. When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." <br />
<br />
You can read the entire article at the following URL..... <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/149855/george_bush_can't_travel_overseas_for_fear_of_arrest_and_prosecution."><b>http://www.alternet.org/story/149855/george_bush_can't_travel_overseas_for_fear_of_arrest_and_prosecution.</b></a><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-12014055168040713522013-07-01T22:26:00.003-05:002013-07-01T22:42:45.320-05:00Bush Recent Interview with Robyn CurnowIn an interview with Robyn Curnow, president George W. Bush starts off explaining how Snowden has damaged the country.<br />
But then he goes on explaining that he put protections in place to protect the country, meaning that he had allot to do with the ways and means of the government spying on other countries but he says it is done with the protection on peoples civil liberties. But then he again came out of his shell being very disrespectful not allowing Robyn Curnow to get her questions fully out before he breaks in and starts talking says that "The only time I cared was on election day".<br />
Ok, what does that mean? That S.O.B president used the country, used our troops and then he brushes it off lightly by saying "I did what I did". "Ah, I know the spirit in which I did it."<br />
<br />
Just watch the video below and see how sick minded the 43rd president of the United States was by making comments as he did in this interview.<br />
<br />
He sincerely believes that historians will be the best to judge him, and that time would be when he is dead.
Well, I'm here as an American in the year 2013, and I believe that he needs to be judged now, before he is dead. Maybe he doesn't think I would be objective, and maybe not, but people who just want the truth and are not biased read this blog.<br />
<br />
The world is getting educated now, while he is living, and I hope that someday when historians recant the workings of President George W. Bush that he is still living to be able to read in print how it has been objectively decided that he was absolutely the worst president in U.S. History and that his is judged. I<b> hope that the President lives to be 100 years old, just to make sure that he is living when he is judged, way before he is dead.<i></i></b> He may be right by saying that it will take some time before objective historians judge him, or at least that is what he thinks in his mind. People who think objectively right now have the right to make their own judgments on this President right now and they most certainly will.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" height="300" id="ep" width="470"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_embed_2x_container.swf?site=cnn&profile=desktop&context=embedwww&videoId=world/2013/07/01/curnow-intv-bush-snowden-polls.cnn&contentId=world/2013/07/01/curnow-intv-bush-snowden-polls.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_embed_2x_container.swf?site=cnn&profile=desktop&context=embedwww&videoId=world/2013/07/01/curnow-intv-bush-snowden-polls.cnn&contentId=world/2013/07/01/curnow-intv-bush-snowden-polls.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="470" wmode="transparent" height="234"></embed></object></center>
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Robyn Curnow sits down with former President George W. Bush to discuss</span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"> Edward Snowden and the legacy of his office.</span></b><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<b><i>A transcript of the interview is immediately below.</i></b><br />
<br />
<b>Curnow: </b>Do you think he is a traitor? <i>(Curnow asks Bush about Snowden)</i><br />
<br />
<b>Bush:</b> I know he damaged the country. The Obama administration will deal with it.<br />
<br />
<b>Curnow: </b>Do you think it is possible for one man to damage the security of the nation?<br />
<br />
<b>Bush: </b>I think he damaged the security of the country.<br />
<br />
<b>Curnow: </b>And when it comes to surveillance,(then rudely, George Bush interrupts Curnow...)<br />
<br />
<b>Bush: </b> I put the program into place to protect the country. And one of the certainties is civil liberties is guaranteed.<br />
<br />
<b>Curnow:</b> So you don't think there was a compromise between security and privacy?<br />
<br />
<b>Bush: </b>I think that there needs to be a balance and I think as the president explained there must be a proper balance.<br />
<br />
<b>Curnow:</b> No one criticized the Obama administration and that's something, that you really made the decision?<br />
<br />
<b>Bush interrupts again:</b> It doesn't do any good. It's a hard job. He's got plenty on his agenda and ah, it's difficult, and a former president doesn't need to make it harder.<br />
<br />
Then she asks him a question about polls and what people think.. He interupts and says..<br />
<br />
<b>Bush: </b>I could care less. THe only time I really cared was on election day. Did I? I guess it's nice. Let me rephrase that. Thank you for bringing it up.<br />
<br />
<b>Curnow:</b> You like the idea that people are perhaps looking at you differently?<br />
<br />
<b>Bush says... </b>Ah, Ultimately history will judge, ah the decisions I've made, ah, I won't be around because it's going to take a while for the objective historians to show up. So I'm pretty comfortable with it. I did what I did. Ah, I know the spirit in which I did it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-91792756310282440002013-04-25T22:23:00.002-05:002013-06-22T11:36:03.974-05:00A Gread President He is NOT - George W. Bush is Already Judged <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1W6EAvEuL6uGNR_tlM__IQyz7jVxfoNOuMcTgozMyQGowSfE2AbWjSVlnzEcRPilw8Jwf50YwgjhPb8NE0d4LRs2yS4C9Oqck7Sd-x29cO80WTNx3pIfm2_Kq42iowgCRP1bIhHmWclE/s1600/Bush.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1W6EAvEuL6uGNR_tlM__IQyz7jVxfoNOuMcTgozMyQGowSfE2AbWjSVlnzEcRPilw8Jwf50YwgjhPb8NE0d4LRs2yS4C9Oqck7Sd-x29cO80WTNx3pIfm2_Kq42iowgCRP1bIhHmWclE/s640/Bush.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
In a conversation with CNN just prior to the dedication of his new Presidential library, George W. Bush still does not openly admit that he really made mistakes starting the IRAQI war, nor does he believe that he was ultimately responsible for not supporting help and rescue plans during Hurricane Katrina that devastated New Orleans. Here is a man that follows the footsteps of his father, George H.W. Bush and became the 43rd President of the United States, and he now says in the CNN interview "History will ultimately judge the decisions that were made for Iraq and I'm just not going to be around to see the final verdict.". Then he says, "In other words, I'll be dead.". Also, stepping back when he was president, George W. Bush staunchly supported his own form of terrorism, as he practiced a method called 'water-boarding' on his Iraqi prisoners. Everyone knows that the presidency of George W. Bush was a failure, and his right wing agenda and policies crippled the country, and during his two terms as president, he started a systematic bankruptcy of the country. The U.S. government, who had a surplus of money during the presidency of Bill Clinton, quickly evaporated when George W. Bush became president, and since, the deficit has grown to unbelievable proportions. Of course, the Republicans blame the Democrats for the money deficits, because President Obama had no choice than to spend money to try and bring the country back together again when in fact the country technically entered another depression era during the Bush presidency. <br />
Appearently, George W. Bush doesn't read this blog, and if he has, he should realize that authors like me will never let the atrocities such as the ones he made as president ever go away. I'm not waiting for him to be judged after he is dead, as he puts it, to let people know how disastrous of a president he truly was. <br />
What ultimately upset me about this man is that he threw the country in a war under false pretenses, explaining to the country that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Of course as we know now, this is totally untrue. There never was one bit of evidence turned up in Iraq during the U.S. occupation in that country that proved at the slighted possibility that there ever was weapons of mass destruction in that country. <br />
Thousands of American soldiers died in a war that they never should have participated in. Still George W. Bush doesn't feel guilty for their lives, and doesn't admit to wrongs. He blames the actions that were taken to invade Iraq due to inaccurate reports given to him by the CIA and FBI. But the fact is, George W. Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction there. His right hand man, the vice president of the United states at the time was Dick Chaney, and even still today, the vice-president openly admits that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. <br />
So it begs the question, why were we ever in Iraq? Cheney's answer is that we belonged in Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein, a president who had weapons of mass destruction, even though to this day that there never was an ounce of proof that there ever was weapons of mass destruction. <br />
For the dedication today, accompanying George W. Bush and his father H.W., Presidents Obama, Carter and Clinton were on hand for the dedication for the George W. Bush library. <br />
I have just one thing to thank President George W. Bush for, and of course it is not for his service as president. I think that most will agree it's a presidency that everyone would like to forget. But for me, waking up to the extreme right wing thinking and ideology of Republicans and of George W. and Dick Cheney during his two terms of office, spurred me into openly supporting Democratic President Barrack Obama as I started writing the blog "Obama in the White House",immediately after Barrack's election in 2008. <br />
As the saying goes, time fly's when you are having fun, and I just hope that someday I would soon forget the likings of such a failed president, George W. Bush. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-77577292461334840302011-09-22T19:42:00.000-05:002011-09-22T19:42:30.767-05:00Death Penalty for Bush?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<div class="subheadlinestyle" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 6px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
Bugliosi Makes the Case</div>
<div class="mainauthorstyle" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 1px; margin-bottom: 9px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
by CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER</div>
<div class="mainauthorstyle" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 1px; margin-bottom: 9px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
June 2008</div>
<div class="main-text" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; position: relative;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
If Vincent Bugliosi were prosecuting George W. Bush for the murder of the more than 4,000 American soldiers who have died in Iraq, he would seek the death penalty.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
“If I were the prosecutor, there is no question I would seek the death penalty,” Bugliosi told CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER in a wide-ranging interview.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
Bugliosi is the author of the just published book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159315481X/counterpunchmaga" style="color: #cf1028; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;">The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder</a> (Vanguard Press, 2008).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
“I’m urging here that an American jury try George Bush for first degree murder. I want to see him on trial for murder before an American jury. And if they convict him, it will be up to the jury to decide what his punishment is. One of the options would be the imposition of the death penalty. If I were prosecuting him, absolutely I would seek the death penalty. As Governor of Texas, George Bush signed death warrants – 152 out of 152 – most of them for people who only committed one murder.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
Bugliosi said he is sending a copy of his book to all fifty state Attorneys General, offering his assistance in prosecuting Bush for homicide.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
“I’m herein enclosing a copy of my book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” Bugliosi writes in the letter to the Attorneys General. “I hope you will find the time to read it and that you will agree with its essential conclusion – that George W. Bush is guilty of murder for the deaths of over 4,000 American soldiers who have died fighting his war in Iraq.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
Bugliosi said he’s also meeting with a high profile California District Attorney to urge him to bring the case.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
“I am going to meet here soon with a very prominent DA,” Bugliosi said. “I don’t think he is going to do it. But I do think he will give me some ideas as to who would be likely to do it. I’m going ask him to do it. My guess is he is not going to do it. But he attends DA conventions. And he may very well know someone. There may be a case where a DA or an AG lost a son over in Iraq.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
“I offer my services to help out in any way that they see fit,” Bugliosi said. “But I want to convey the thought that this is a serious thing. This is not a fanciful reverie. At my age, I don’t have time for fanciful reveries. If I had to guess what the probabilities are, my guess is that there is not a high probability of it. But I think there is a very substantial probability that George Bush, as a direct result of this book, will end up in an American courtroom being tried for murder. And the main reason that I say that is because of the great number of American prosecutors that I’ve established jurisdiction for.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
Bugliosi said that the homicide prosecution against Bush can be brought by the U.S. Attorney General, any of the U.S. Attorneys, any of the 50 state Attorneys General, or any of the hundreds of district attorneys – if a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq is from their districts.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
Bugliosi says that even if the prosecution of Bush doesn’t come about for a number of years, he wants to plant in the President’s mind the idea that such a prosecution is possible.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
“The least I can do is put that thought in his mind until he goes to his grave,” Bugliosi said. “That’s the least I can do for the thousands of American soldiers who came back in an aluminum box or came back as a jar of ashes. And the parents are told – don’t open the box, it is unviewable. They are getting back limbs and body parts. And this – I don’t want to use a cuss word here – this small, horrible human being – while young men who never had a chance to live out their dreams, being blown to pieces by roadside bombs – and this guy is having a ball dancing. I want to put the thought in his mind that in any time in the future, five years from now, ten years from now, some aide is going to tap him on the shoulder and say – Mr. President, there is this prosecutor, I don’t know how to pronounce his name, he’s up in Fargo, and he’s charging you with murder sir, and we are due for an arraignment next Wednesday in Fargo, sir.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
“Bush will never know whether that will happen. They went after (former Chilean strongman Augusto) Pinochet for murder 33 years later. I want to put that thought in Bush’s mind. This guy has been enjoying himself throughout this entire war. And the suffering and the horror and blood is unbelievable. And he has enjoyed himself throughout this whole thing.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
At the center of Bugliosi’s indictment of Bush is a October 7, 2002 speech to the nation in which Bush claims that Saddam Hussein was a great danger to this nation either by attacking us with his weapons of mass destruction, or giving these weapons to some terrorist group.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
“And he said – the attack could happen on any given day – meaning the threat was imminent,” Bugliosi says.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
“The only problem for George Bush – and if he were prosecuted, there is no way he could get around this – is that on October 1, 2002, six days earlier, the CIA sent George Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified top secret report. Page eight clearly and unequivocally says that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. In fact, the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared that America was about to attack him.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
[For a complete transcript of the Interview with Vincent Bugliosi, see 22 CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER 22, June 2, 2008, print edition only.]</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-37370125719712668562011-09-06T21:43:00.000-05:002012-01-25T13:18:44.422-06:00The Bush Tax Cuts destroyed the American Economy<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><b>Opinion of the Editor 'James'</b></span><br />
<br />
The Clinton administration left office while at the same time leaving the country in an envyable fiscal position. The U.S. had no deficit and was on track to have no debt at all. With that said, George W. became President and passed his enormous tax cuts in June of 2001. The tax cuts in 2001 were $1.3 trillion dollars, which esentially put the country in reverse and undid the successes of Bill Clinton with the economy in a very short period of time.<br />
What people may not remember is that George W. introduced his tax cuts just three months before 9/11. Then because of 9/11, the United States went to war, and on a global scale. To show how morally and fiscally irresponsible George W. was, he cut taxes and then started a major war that still is in operation today. If he was a fiscally responsible and morale president, the sobering thing to do would be to resind those brand new tax cuts. If he would have said this at that time right after the start of the war, nobody would have blinked an eye. He didn't resind the tax, but instead continue to wage a very expense war at the same time.<br />
The story gets even more rediculas at this point. In 2003 George W. decided to start another war simitaniously with the war already running in Afghanistan, this time in Iraq. Ironically, not only did George W. decide to wage two wars and not resind his tax cuts, but he created another $300 Billion dollar tax cut and signed the bill on May of 2003 just months after the war in Iraq commenced. He claimed it would help boost the economy. But why did the United States let the president act morally irresponsible by cutting taxes after starting yet another war? George W. didn't have the funds to pay for the war, but he took advantage of the American people and first tricked them that the second war in Iraq was necessary because Sadaam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, when it was later proven that they did not have any weapons of mass destruction. He convinced the country that U.S. tax cuts was more important than funding the war or protecting the American people both at home and abroad.<br />
Was he out of touch with the problems that this country was now facing or what. It was ok that the Federal government continue to wage war without no longer having the funds to do it, but he doubled-down on his stupidness by creating more tax cuts that crippled the economy almost immediately. President George W is so proud of what he accomplished as far as his 'Bush Tax Cuts'. Then, he gets re-elected, because the country had blindfolds on. The country belived in President Bush and what he was doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, and none of these followers could or would ever had believed that this war would be waging even today. Now his party has the outright gaul to say that President Obama is the cause for why this country is in debt. What George W. and his pea-brain followers do not know is that the only way to reverse the damage George W. has created is to introduce new taxes. The sad thing is that if George W. would have resinded his 'Bush Tax Cuts' after the war he had started, we would not be in such a fiscal nightmare, and our national credit rating would still be AAAA.<br />
<br />
Need I say more. If anyone believes that President Obama is at fault with his method of balancing the budget, just take one step back and realize about what was said here. Understand how the country went into debt in the first place and than unless taxes are collected, the U.S. debt will never go down. Yet, the conservative republicans believe that there should never be new taxes. All of the republican presidential candidates believe in that fact.<br />
<br />
One thing is for sure. George W. proved himself time and time again that he hadn't a clue as to what was going on in the world, not even at home, as his two wars were much more important than health care and the well being of the American people. George W. continued to put American soldiers in harms way just for his pushing of soldiers in a war that still hasn't been won ten years later.<br />
<br />
George W., the epitimy of failure as a president of the United States, and believes with his heart and soul that he was a great war time president, but only in his pea-brain mind could such a belief exist.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-64543510119093485832011-09-05T19:33:00.002-05:002012-01-25T13:18:10.472-06:00George W - A Disgusting President with NO SHAME<br />
<b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Opinion of the Editor 'James'</span></b><br />
<br />
In a recent report, it says that George W. was troubled to make the decisions he had to make. That was evident when his secret service told him again that a second plane struck the world trade center. At that moment in time, he realized when White House Chief of Staff Andy Card's of Massachusetts whispered again in his ear while at the gradeschool in Florida. George W. was literally frozen with fear and disbelief. But for a long moment that seemed to be an eternity, George W. just sat there in front of the children, and did not react. Eventually he did make an announcement at the school about the planes flying into the world trade center and that he had to return to Washington D.C. immediately, even though his Secret Service refused to take him immediately back to Washington. In mid-air they were diverted to a plane un-announced.<br />
Then when George W. heard about the plane that turned around and started heading towards Washington which eventually crashed in Shanksville PA, he then ordered planes to intercept and shoot down if necessary any planes that did not respond with the orders to land as immediately as possible because orders were now given by the President that all planes must land immediately.<br />
Today in a CNN report, he claims that he was very troubled to send military jets armed with missles to shoot down comercial aircraft with civilians on board just because the plane may pose a threat to the United States.<br />
But this is the same man that initiated a war in Iraq, and is responsible for killing 4000+ American troops, and now George W's supporters want to blame our present President Barack Obama. What a sense of mis-justice. Everything George W. stood for was bad for the country. It is a wonder how George W. sleeps at night. Does he even feel any sense of remorse or regret for sending American troops into harms way to fight his war that shouldn't have started in the first place. He received permission from the Congress to attack Iraq and begin the hunt of Osama bin Laden on unjust grounds, stating that there were weapons of mass destruction, and there wasn't any to be found, not even a trace.<br />
To be honest, I don't feel any safer now that I was then, so what good has his war on terror done. Yes it was done for a good cause, but at what price. For him, it's ANY price for freedom from the tyranny of Al-Qaeda even at the cost of more American lives, as if not enough people died on that fateful day on 9/11.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-21907436015473605262011-03-30T11:33:00.049-05:002012-01-25T13:20:16.592-06:00Bush Lied about 911 Attack and Got Caught<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><b>Fact and Opinion by the editor 'James'</b></span><br />
<br />
Here are two shocking videos of George W. as he accounts for what happened when he was present at the elementary school the morning of September 11th and a third video who claims conspiracy on 911. Obviously, it was an outright lie, and possibly a cover-up of facts we may never know. This video shows him at that devastating moment when he actually found out about the 2nd airplane hit, his inability to take action, and in a sense, his inability to comprehend what his staff had just told him. At that moment in time, what was more important, talking to the children in class, and listening to their stories, or tending to the crisis at hand? One of the more damning bits of evidence of U.S. government complicity in 9/11 is that George Bush has informed us, on more than one occasion, that he saw the <u>first</u> (1st) WTC tower aerial impact, on TV, before he entered that Florida classroom at 9 a.m. (<a class="maincol" href="http://911blimp.com/cached/firsttold.htm" target="_blank" title="the old cooperativeresearch page has this great map...">cached timeline</a> <a class="maincol" href="http://911blimp.com/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml" title="click for visual time graph in pop-up window">visual timeline</a>)<br />
However, the <b>only <i>known</i></b> video of that event spent the day at Ground Zero, in the <span title="Jules Naudet">videographer</span>'s camera. <a class="maincol" href="http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/first.plane.hits.gp.med.html" title="(requires cookies) note the 9/12 date in the address of CNN's web page">It</a> was first broadcast about 15 hours after it happened. <br />
<br />
Check out the following links and watch the videos that support proof that Bush lied about 911. The last video shows the 911 conspiracy, than shows the destruction of the towers were not completely caused by the airplane hits, rather than internal explosives placed inside the building. The third building, World Trade Center #7, went down as did the Twin Towers and it wasn't even hit. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sulDYYAiCU&NR=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr></wbr>v=-sulDYYAiCU&NR=1</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://911blimp.com/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml">http://911blimp.com/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX_UKdqoa_o">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX_UKdqoa_o</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-38216374771287934302011-03-28T17:38:00.021-05:002011-03-29T10:53:03.109-05:00The Military Service of George W. Bush<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCTpmbI70ngJhdpX1YDnu-5edvf6XjVvQU6k6NSQR282WXOcB-CcE0vHiaxT-wtYLug29PLN0tvQVLDLPNMW2RDTJ_vp44QRvmQMV49_XlytA5QOhSTavy304xnPSgbe_lvkNzVLCXNkA/s1600/wherewasbush_small.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCTpmbI70ngJhdpX1YDnu-5edvf6XjVvQU6k6NSQR282WXOcB-CcE0vHiaxT-wtYLug29PLN0tvQVLDLPNMW2RDTJ_vp44QRvmQMV49_XlytA5QOhSTavy304xnPSgbe_lvkNzVLCXNkA/s320/wherewasbush_small.jpg" width="260" /></a> <span style="font-size: large;"><b>FACT :</b> <b><span style="color: red;">George W. took tests to enter the Guard, and despite scoring low on the entrance exam, Bush was accepted.</span></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>FACT: <span style="color: red; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="color: red;">George W. never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972.</span></b></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: black;">FACT:</span> <span style="color: red;">George W. was given gratuitous points so that he could fulfill requirements. </span></b></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">FACT:</span> </span></b></span><b style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;">George W. failed an annual physical examination and no longer allowed to fly as of August 1, 1972.</span></b><br />
<br />
People may just not know, but George W. displayed terrible accountability during his tenure in the Texas Air National Guard. To me, it is hard to imagine that a future President of the United States would have displayed such unaccountability towards his duties as a reservist in the Texas Air National Guard, and then become the President. Do you think he was a good role model? Records show that George W. graduated from Yale University (commendable), and he became eligible for the draft so that it was no secret that his ulterior motive would be so that it would minimize his chances of being dispatched to Vietnam. <i><b>He took tests to enter the Guard, and despite scoring low on the entrance exam, Bush was accepted.</b></i> George W was given a honorable discharge in 1973, and many believe since he signed a 6-year obligation that the rules required that he attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. He was assigned to the Houston Air National Guard base between 1968 and 1973, as he graduated from flight school in November 1969, following his fathers footsteps as a pilot. Then he decided to go further with 6 months of training in the F-102 fighter-interceptor. For almost 2 years until May of 1972, he flew frequently with his unit.<br />
In May of 1972, he moved to Alabama to work on Winston Blount's Senate Campaign. Three months later, George W. failed an annual physical examination and no longer allowed to fly as of August 1, 1972. Since then, here are the following <span style="font-size: large;">FACTS....</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b>1) No duty with the National guard between April 16 and October 28, 1972.</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b><br />
</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b>2) No duty in December 1972, nor in the months of February and March in 1973.</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b><br />
</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b>3) No military records that show that he served ANY military unit in Alabama.It is a requirement of members of the National Guard that they accumulate a minimum of 50 service points in a year. (Each full day of weekend training is worth two points).</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b><br />
</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b>4) He accumulated only 41 points and awarded an additional 15 'gratuitous' service points - enough to get him across the 50 service points threshold.</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b><br />
</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b>5) Last day of service was July 30, 1973 when he was originally supposed to serve through November 1974.</b></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b>6) He was honorably discharged early to enable him to attend Harvard Business School.</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b><br />
</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b>7) During his last two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills.</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b><br />
</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b>8) Bush never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972.</b></span><br />
<br />
Prior to both of his terms as President, he was questioned about his service, whether he completed his military service in the National Guard. The Boston Globe reported that "there is no evidence that he appeared for duty for a year just before his 1973 discharge from the Texas Air National Guard" In 2004 during his re-election campaign, his lack of record in the military service surfaced again.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b><i>In summary from most accounts, Bush appears to have received preferential treatment to get into the Air National Guard and avoid the draft after he graduated from Yale University in 1968. He was initially regarded as a good pilot, but his performance faded over his final two years in the Guard and he was suspended from flight status. He did not fly for the remaining 18 months he served in the Guard, though he was obligated to do so. And for significant chunks of time, Bush did not report for duty at all. His superiors took no action, and he was honorably discharged in 1973, six months before he should have been.</i></b></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-81603242913837821972011-03-27T20:49:00.001-05:002011-03-27T20:50:15.115-05:00The 911 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush<div style="color: red;"><b>Unbelievable stories are out there for the taking, the following article written by Cheryl Seal on June 12, 2002. In the article, Cheryl Seal details 9/11 Evidence that may hang George W. Bush, less than one year after the planes struck and took town the Twin Towers in New York City. </b></div><br />
<h1>The 911 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush </h1><span class="byline"><b>Wednesday, 12 June 2002, 2:37 pm</b><br />
<b>Article: Cheryl Seal</b></span> <br />
<br />
<center><h3>The 9/11 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush </h3><br />
<i> By Cheryl Seal</i><br />
<small> Also published - 02 June 2002 <br />
<a href="http://web11.superb.net/www.nodomain.com/editorials/smoking_gun.html"> http://web11.superb.net/www.nodomain.com/editorials/smoking_gun.html</a></small></center><b> The Case Against G.W. Bush: a Preliminary "Hearing" in the Court of Common Sense</b><br />
At the very least Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. But the evidence indicates his guilt involves more than just a huge intentional sin of omission – this now seems certain. So it is ulcer-fomenting to watch him, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and their PR army try to sell America yet another Big Lie – that they had no idea such a thing as 9/11 could happen...they could never have imagined it in their wildest dreams...they had no specific warnings...there was nothing unusual about the summer 2001 warnings, etc, etc, ad nauseam. I have compiled some material that clearly shows that the above litany is blatantly, arrogantly false. But first, let's hold a preliminary hearing in the "Court of Common sense".<br />
<br />
<div class="related-stories" id="related-stories-container"><div style="text-align: center;"></div><h3 style="text-align: center;">Related Stories on Scoop</h3><div></div><ul style="text-align: center;"><li><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00231.htm">The George W. Bush Legacy Project</a> 22/07/2008</li>
<li><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0509/S00292.htm">The Fundamentalist Shadow of George W. Bush</a> 19/09/2005</li>
<li><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0412/S00132.htm">Paul Levy: The Madness Of George W. Bush</a> 13/12/2004</li>
<li><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0401/S00113.htm">George W. Bush And The Stealing Of America</a> 26/01/2004</li>
<li><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0307/S00200.htm">Scoop Link: CBS News - George W. Nixon</a> 25/07/2003</li>
</ul><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;">Results powered by <a href="http://search.scoop.co.nz/">search.scoop.co.nz</a> More Related Stories <a href="http://search.scoop.co.nz/search?q=related:HL0206/S00071">>>></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div>To see through a wall of propaganda and determine what's really going on, one must tune out the spin completely and take a good, objective look at what has been DONE and what the parties involved have to GAIN by their actions. Let's look at the well-documented facts: <br />
First, when Bush, Rice and the other top Reichmeisters discarded the warning on August 6, Bush's approval ratings had sunk to just 49% – this is the red zone for a president. As any political expert or presidential historian: Hit 45%, and impeachment may soon loom on the horizon. <br />
Second, Bush's actions throughout his entire life show a clear and consistent pattern: without exception, he has always chosen the path that will benefit himself and his corporate friends the most and will do so in the face of even the most outraged criticism. <br />
Third, the stolen election of 2000 proves that Bush was willing to participate in a very daring, very large scale crime in pursuit of power. <br />
Fourth, Bush's father's approval ratings went from shaky to astronomical within a month of declaring war on an "evil terrorist" leader back in 1991. This lesson could hardly have been lost on Bush, Jr.: Start a war and the emotions of the public can be whipped up to a point that will push presidential approval ratings way, way up. <br />
So, given the above facts as "evidence," what do you imagine a self-serving man who has faced no serious opposition from Congress, the press, or the American public would be likely to do? A bookie would most certainly lay odds that Bush would stand aside and allow an event like 9/11 to happen. <br />
Another action that must be considered in the cold hard light of day is Bush's behavior after 9/11. He seized upon national fears, worked at intensifying them, and immediately, without waiting for Congress or serious discussions with other nations, called for an attack on Afghanistan and a global war on terrorism. At the same time, he worked through John Ashcroft with stunning swiftness to dismantle civil liberties. These are not the actions of a leader who wants to keep his nation calm, reassured, and standing tall in its principles in the wake of tragedy. They are the actions of an opportunist who knows, from watching his father's presidency, that the window of opportunity for consolidating his power will be narrow: Bush Sr.'s approval rating high lasted only a few months. <br />
Last, why would Bush admit to having been warned about 9/11 in the first place? In the corporate and political world, this admission is a strategy that has been used over and over by creeps who are guilty of huge crimes and know the heat is on. By confessing to a lesser charge, they try to draw the heat away from the main, more dangerous issue. Ken Lay, the head of Anderson, and every criminal who has ever copped or tried to cop a plea bargain have used this ploy. If Bush were innocent of any complicity in 9/11, why should he make ANY statement? It is always the guilty who feel the need to make statements: "I am not a crook!", "I never had sex with that woman!" Or how about that row of tobacco industry CEO's who all swore that none of them knew their product was harmful or addictive? <br />
Therefore, based on the evidence, I would say we have a phony president who is as guilty as hell, who knows that someone has the goods on him and is breathing down his neck. He is gambling that by making a preemptive strike while he still has control of the media, he can spin a protective wall around himself. Thus, we have Dick Cheney appearing on 5/19 on Meet the Press, being "interviewed" about the 9/11 flap by his friend and neighbor Russert. Yep, that's right –both interviewer and interviewee live in the feudally exclusive Kalorama suburb of D.C., where houses START at around $1 million. In fact, on the same program, Russert had the arrogance to even mention how he'd seen his buddy out taking the air on his new "It" scooter. How cozy! And this is what is being served to America in the name of a free and honest press. Ya got a problem? Just pick a pal in the press corps and tell him what questions you want him/her to ask you so you can spin them in just the way you want. <br />
Russert asked Cheney how he responded to charges that the information existed in several reports which showed that a WTC-type attack was a possibility. Cheney responded –incredibly!– that reading all those reports weren't his concern. There's just too darn many of them. Russert let this ridiculous response go totally unchallenged and unqualified. <br />
Here are the questions that are missing –the questions a real journalist would have asked: "So then, Mr. Cheney, just what are your criteria for a report that is important enough for you to read? How do you prioritize what you read or what those under you are directed to call to your attention? What reports on this matter DID you read?" <br />
It is insulting to America's intelligence that such questions are not being asked. It's like a grand jury that refuses to ask a murder suspect questions like "Where were you on the night of such and such? What was your relationship to the victim?" but instead says, "Well, here's what we heard from the police that someone thinks you may have killed someone. Go ahead and explain yourself. Don't worry –we won't interrupt you or ask you any uncomfortable questions. And, by the way, your good pal who lives down the block volunteered to serve as jury foreman!" <br />
Here's one last FACT to consider. The GOP spent $40 million to pursue an ultimately merit-less case against Clinton that involved diddling an intern and some questionable real estate deals. Since Bush took office, not one dime has been spent by Congress to investigate Cheney and his secret energy dealings, Bush's stolen election, Tom Delay's boiler room scams that have bilked doctors out of millions, the mysterious wild trading of American and United Airlines stock the week before 9/11 or any of the other crimes that were far more serious than Clinton's offenses. Meanwhile, the GOP –so eager to spend millions to investigate an office romance– has worked overtime to block the initiation of any serious investigation into the biggest crime to have ever been perpetrated on American soil that claimed nearly 3,000 lives. WAKE UP AMERICA!! <br />
<b>"Vague Warning" or Blueprint for Disaster? </b> <br />
The story Bush wants the world to buy is that the warnings he received were vague, routine, too general to act upon. Condi Rice wants us to believe that no one in the administration could have dreamed the hijackers would fly into a landmark building. But, as they say in show biz, this is "lies, lies, and damn lies." <br />
Since 1993, scores of people, collectively, in the White House, Pentagon, State Department, FBI, and CIA have know that an attack like 9/11 was not only a possibility –but an increasingly likely probability. Because I am not writing a book here, I will confine myself to summarizing the most obvious pieces of evidence that Bush and his team had to work with. However, they are enough to convict him in any court of opinion. <br />
<b> Terrorism 2000 Report</b> <br />
Don't confuse this 1993 study with the report turned out by the Bush administration in April 2001 under the same title. The 2001 release, a summary of terrorist activity in 2000, lifted the title of the original document, no doubt as a smokescreen to confuse anyone who might be seeking the 1993 document through a search engine or library archives. <br />
In 1993, the Pentagon commissioned, via the Department of Defense's office of Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, a think tank-style study of the ways terrorists could execute large-scale acts of terrorism on the US. Participants in the $150,000 study consisted of a panel of 41 intelligence/security experts that included former ranking CIA, FBI, State Department and Rand Corporation officials, as well as an ex-KGB general and Israeli intelligence agent. <br />
One of the problems the team brainstormed over was the various ways an airplane could be used to destroy national landmarks –in fact, the WTC was most certainly on the panel's list of possible targets. One conclusion reached by the team as a future trend in terrorist activity was that extremists would seek to maximize their impact by escalating their attacks from one-at-a-time truck bomb/suicide bomber events to multiple, simultaneous targeting, thereby touting their power and stretching the victim governments' ability to respond. <br />
The possible terrorist scenarios the team outlined scared the socks off folks in the government. One high-level official described it as "too outrageous." As a result, the team's report, Terrorism 2000 (a reference to terrorism in the new millennia) was blocked from public release. Even a toned down version that had been proposed as a way to raise public awareness and improve national preparedness was killed! A draft of the report was nonetheless passed on through the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is absolutely no doubt that this information was available to everyone in the Bush Administration, including Ms. Rice. It should have been required reading –especially since many of the predictions made by the report had already come true before 9/11. <br />
<b> Four instances of planes used as weapons before 2001 </b> <br />
1994: A Federal Express Flight engineer was apprehended as he tried to storm the cockpit of a DC-10. The engineer, despondent over his impending firing, had planned to crash the plane into a Fed Ex building in Memphis. <br />
1994: A pilot stole a Cessna and tried to crash it into the White House. He instead hit a tree on the White House grounds, not far from Clinton's bedroom. <br />
1995: An Islamic fundamentalist group hijacked an Air France flight and loaded the plane with 27 tons of fuel in Marseilles as a way to turn it into an incendiary bomb when they crashed it into the Eiffel tower. This plan was thwarted when Special Forces stormed the craft before it could leave Marseilles. <br />
1995: Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to planting timed explosive devices on eleven US airline flights in an attempt to create a "multiple attack" event (as outlined in the "too outrageous" Terrorism 2000 report). The same terrorist group also planned to crash on airplane into CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and another into the Pentagon (but Condi didn't dream anyone would ever try such a thing in 2001?). This scheme was not a wild and fevered plot. It was in the advanced planning stages –to the point where specific flights had already been selected. Murad himself was going to be the suicide pilot who hit the CIA headquarters. Where did he get his pilot training? In a US flight school. <br />
<b> The specifics of the "vague warning" </b> <br />
The most glaring lie Bush is using in his current spin is his claim that the warnings he received were too vague to act upon. However, the facts all by themselves scream "liar!" <br />
From April, 2001 right up to the day the WTC and Pentagon were slammed, urgent warnings of impending large-scale attacks by terrorists had been issued to the Bush administration from multiple sources. Germany, Egypt, Russia and Israel all delivered alerts that accurately foretold the scale of the attack and that it would involve a prominent landmark of some type. This would automatically put the WTC and Pentagon on the short list, especially as both landmarks had been targeted before (as mentioned above, the Pentagon attack was averted). <br />
The German intelligence agency BND warned the US and Israel both in June that Middle Eastern terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." This is hardly vague, and hardly refers to an "overseas danger" to Americans (which of our prominent landmarks is in Europe or Asia, pray tell?). <br />
On June 13, Egypt sent an urgent warning that a plane stuffed with explosives could be used as a weapon against George Bush. It was assumed, incorrectly at that time that the target could be the G-8 summit in Genoa, held in June 2001. <br />
Vladimir Putin was so certain of the information he received in the summer of 2001 of an impending attack that he personally instructed Russian intelligence to tell Bush "in the strongest possible terms" (his own words on September. 15, 2001) of an impending attack involving airports and government. The Russians told the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been specially trained to execute suicide missions. It was around the same time that the FBI was receiving tips about suspicious Arabic men in US flight schools. <br />
In August, 2001, the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad warned the CIA and FBI that as many as 200 al Qaeda members were infiltrating the US and planning "a major assault on the US" against "a large-scale target" in a setting where Americans would be "very vulnerable." <br />
The NSA cracked bin Laden's encryption code by February 2001 <br />
Even before April, the Bush administration HAD TO KNOW something was up and probably had info that was even more specific than the warnings given above. According to UPI correspondent Richard Sale, by February 2001, the National Security Agency had broken Osama bin Laden's communications encryption system. We know that the encryption was broken because the Bush administration reported AFTER 9/11 that it had intercepted encrypted calls bin Laden made to his mother two days before the attack, saying "In two days, you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for a while." If this message was intercepted before the attack, what others were intercepted as well that the Bush administration did NOT reveal? Most likely six-months'-worth of terrorist planning. <br />
The CIA knew of suspicious airline stock trades by September 7 <br />
Last but not least, the CIA knew a week before the attack WHICH airlines were most likely to be hijacked. The Agency maintains an advanced program called Promis, which monitors unusual stock market activity, SPECIFICALLY as a way to anticipate potential terrorist attacks. Promis provides 24-hour continuous real-time data on stock market activity and the FBI and Justice Department have both admitted that Promis was up and running all through the summer and fall of 2001. So there is no doubt whatsoever that as early as September. 7, the CIA knew that something was going down and knew which airlines were being targeted. Even a third-grader could have put this information together with the long litany of warnings above from foreign sources and come up with the conclusion that an American or United Airlines craft was going to be hijacked in the near future and most likely used to crash into a landmark, quite possibly the World Trade Center. <br />
<b> More smoking facts</b> <br />
According to the official government web site of the Military District of Washington the Pentagon ITSELF planned in detail how it would respond to just such a scenario from October 24-26 2000. And this was no low-level exercise, since it took place in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room. This story was run in Unknown News and picked up the same day by Democrats.com which fortunately, kept a copy because within 24 hours, the story –along with the entire Military District website– was scrubbed by the White House! <br />
The model used in this simulation and the response plan was developed by Don Abbott, who is the founder of FieldSoft, a company that makes emergency-response software programs and systems, including FdonScene. This program, according to the FieldSoft site, "is the first –and only– fire service, software application specifically designed for incident commanders and their staff in-the-field. The commercial off-the-shelf software (COTS) product is designed to support in field operations for any type of emergency response. Basically, FDonScene is an automated COTS tool that actively facilitates control and coordination of people, procedures, events, and other resources with the touch of a finger.The application is specifically designed for fast, simple and easy use by the incident commander, as well as members of the command staff." <br />
Bush was without doubt very familiar with FdonScene because it was first endorsed by the Texas Fire Chiefs Association while he was governor (1998). And, as the FieldSoft brochure mentions, "FieldSoft has engineered software necessary to integrate FDonScene with a consequence management system under development by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)." So this is definitely a program well known to and used by the military. <br />
Now, in light of this, consider this fact: By a "miracle" of coincidence, the FdonScene program had been set up and made ready to go for use by the emergency response teams at the WTC disaster just a few days before the disaster, as if in anticipation. The brochure boasts: "Over 700 victims passed through the Atlantic Highlands Ferry Port in New Jersey following the September 11, 2001 WTC attack. Two fire departments, three local police departments, as well as representatives from county, state, and federal agencies were on hand to assess and assist the victims as they embarked. Emergency units on the scene included 40 ambulances, an FD communications unit, a decontamination unit, and 10 pieces of fire apparatus. A communications unit member on scene at the Port, who had seen a ninety minute demonstration of the software a few days earlier, brought a trial copy of FDonScene on line and used it to track people, resources, and events. A second person watched how the software was being used, and took over operation of it a few hours later. Overall, the software was operated successfully for 14 hours." Nowhere can any reference to WHO the "unit member" was, or who the "second person" was. <br />
In another FieldSoft "success story" for a different product, the same ominous vagueness is found: "The Organization of American States (OAS) planned a major meeting in a North American city. Intelligence gathering operations revealed that anarchists planned to disrupt the meeting. The local police service evaluated a number of software systems that could be used to help manage law enforcement activities from the joint operations center (JOC). PDonScene was elected 3 weeks prior to the opening ceremonies." The software was configured and in place at the JOC as delegates commenced OAS activities. PDonScene was used throughout the 4 day event to manage hundreds of local, provincial, and federal law enforcement officers. The software helped law enforcement managers successfully manage peaceful labor –and not so peaceful anarchist– demonstrations by thousands of people, at several different venues throughout the community. "We [the agency] purchased the software because operation of it looked simple," stated a JOC Staff Sergeant. That Sergeant went on to say that "we found it [PDonScene] exceptional in that it showed the situation in real time with both [officer] names and call signs". <br />
July: Shortly after the Bay of Pigs crisis, the Kennedy administration allowed the FAA to pass a rule that permitted commercial airline pilots to be armed. The rule was passed to protect flights from possible hijacking by Cubans. Although no airline ever availed themselves of this right, it seems very strange that the rule was rescinded in July 2001, right at the HEIGHT of the most serious terrorist warnings to be issued by intelligence sources in decades. It seems, instead, that this should have been the time for the Bush administration to insist that pilots be armed! Just like the timing of everything that happened in the second half of 2001, we sniff something a lot more foul than politics <br />
Mid-August: A flight school in Minnesota flight reported Zacharias Missouri to the local FBI office after Missouri requested training in how to fly a jet, but not in how to land or take off. Although Moussaoui was arrested, agents did not search his computer and thus missed vital clues. <br />
Early September: (from a letter from a reader): I was listening to "The Connection" on PBS this morning. The subject was terrorism (of course). During the show, a man called in who said his wife was a VP at an all-girls college. Just before 9/11, a Saudi prince called up and said to cancel his daughter's registration for the fall and send him a refund. On 9/11, at 9:30, Saudi security was there to pick up 3 princesses from the school. The man said his wife called the FBI, but they didn't pay any heed to her. Hopefully, you will hear that from this link. <br />
This incident most certainly was reported to the FBI after September 11 and most clearly indicated there could be a Saudi connection. Yet the Bush administration has refused to pursue an active investigation of Saudi ties to September 11 and instead focused entirely on Afghanistan –though NONE of those responsible for September 11 came from Afghanistan, and, as it turns out, none trained there, they all trained in Europe or the US. However, there was nothing in it for Bush to bomb Saudi Arabia –we already get their oil! <br />
<b> Bin Laden's hunter O'Neill was killed at WTC: Was he also a casualty of the Bush administration?</b> <br />
Until he resigned, in August of 2001, John O'Neill was the director of antiterrorism for the FBI's New York office. O'Neill had worked on the investigations of the first WTC bombing in 1993 and the attacks on the American embassies in Africa in 1998. He became one of the world's top experts on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. O'Neill believed that "All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization can be found in Saudi Arabia." Yet the Bush administration blocked O'Neill's efforts to investigate the Saudi ties to bin Laden. The main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism, asserted O'Neill, were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it. <br />
For example, Bush blocked an FBI investigation of the bin Laden family and kept his family's business ties to the bin Ladens as secret as possible. Among these business dealings were bin Laden investments in the Carlyle Group and connections between bin Laden and George W. Bush's first oil companies. It must have truly enraged O'Neill if he knew that Osama bin Laden had flown to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by local CIA agent Larry Mitchell on July 12. <br />
O'Neill was very well aware of the warnings that came out in the summer of 2001. But it was obvious that he was considered more of a liability than an asset to the oil-obsessed Bush administration. Back in 2000, O'Neill had been investigating the bombing of the SS Cole, for which he was sure bin Laden was responsible. However, the US ambassador to Yemen, one Barbara Bodine, hamstrung FBI efforts at every turn, publicly calling O'Neill a liar, refusing to allow his men to be armed with more than small handguns and, in general, crippling the investigation. Although Bodine claims she was trying to keep diplomatic relations running smoothly, her history shows otherwise: <br />
Barbara Bodine has served primarily under rightwing old boys and in areas where their oil interests are being served. Under Reagan she served as Deputy Principle Officer in Baghdad, Iraq. Under Bush, Sr., she served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Kuwait and was there during the Gulf War. She has also worked for Bob Dole, and far more ominously, for Henry Kissinger. Now, under Bush, Jr., she is in Yemen impeding an FBI investigation that focused on the son of a Bush family business associate. <br />
What makes Bodine's actions toward O'Neill particularly despicable is that she was said to be in part to blame for the Cole disaster. Even though she had been warned that the risk of attacks on Americans in the Yemen area were extremely high at that time, the Cole entered port under the lowest grade of security permitted in the Middle East with no warning to the destroyer. A top military analyst for the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency quit in protest the day after the bombing because of Bodine and General Anthony Zinn's decision to allow the Cole to come into the port. <br />
In July, Bodine had O'Neill and the FBI barred from Yemen. About that time, O'Neill's name had been proposed by Richard Clarke as Clarke's successor as terrorism czar at the National Security Council. But a very mysterious incident that had happened nearly a year before was dredged up and used to blow that possibility out of the water. In November of 2000, at a retirement seminar in Tampa, O'Neill left his briefcase for a few moments in the convention room to go around the corner to use the phone. When he returned in a few minutes, the brief case, containing some papers considered classified, was gone. It soon turned up, but the incident was seized upon as an excuse to guarantee O'Neill would not get promoted. Was it a real theft? Or a set up to squeeze out the man who asked too many questions about Saudis and oil? O'Neill had finally had enough and quit. <br />
Meanwhile, from February through August, the entire time that the danger from bin Laden was the greatest, Bush was focusing most of his efforts on persuading the Taliban to allow him and his oil pals put a pipeline through Afghanistan. Bush wanted to swipe the oil-rich Caspian region from Russian control. Back when Bush thought he could cut a deal with the Taliban, he did not consider them "evil." In fact, back when he smelled an easy deal in the wind, Bush described the Taliban's repressive regime as "a source of stability in Central Asia" that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline. So, in Spring of 2001, in Texas oil wheeling-dealing style, Bush handed $43 million in taxpayer dollars over to the Taliban to sweeten the pot. Still, however, there was no deal. <br />
Laila Helms, the niece of former CIA director Richard Helms, worked as a public relations coordinator for the Taliban at this time. According to Helms, the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden or provide the coordinates of his whereabouts. However, apparently under Bush's orders, the State Department refused this deal –a deal that would have removed Bush's best trump terrorist card from his stacked deck. Instead, on August 2, State Department officials met with Taliban reps in Islamabad and there delivered this ultimatum: give us what we want for the oil companies and we will "carpet your with gold." If you don't, "we will bury you beneath a carpet of bombs." The Taliban still held out. <br />
Four days later, Bush was given the warning that could have, if acted upon, saved 3,000 American lives and the thousands of civilian lives lost in Afghanistan since October. Instead, he chose to ignore it. <br />
In early September, O'Neill took a job at the WTC as head of security there. Right before the disaster, he told friends he felt sure an attack was imminent and that he feared that terrorists would try to finish the job they had begun in 1993 to destroy the WTC. John O'Neill was in the first tower when it was hit. He was on his way into the second tower to help evacuate people when he was killed. <br />
O'Neill must have sensed –the best detectives have that uncanny "sixth sense"– that something very big, very horrendous might go down and that he might not survive. In June and July, 2001 he met with French intelligence analyst Jean-Charles Brisard (in June in Paris and in July in New York City). O'Neill confided much of what he knew about the bin Laden situation and Bush to Brisard –a fellow intelligence officer, but one who was not under the Bush administration's thumb. Brisard and his associate Guillaume Dasquié, an intelligence analyst and the editor of Intelligence Online, dedicated their book "Bin Laden: the Forbidden Truth" (released in France in November 2001) to O'Neill. The book has been vigorously avoided by US publishers and everyone in the mainstream US press except Paula Zahn, who has presented excerpts of it. <br />
History will be kind to John O'Neill. It will not be kind to George W. Bush. <br />
<b> The Pentagon Tragedy: A Plot that Keeps on Thickening</b><br />
One of the things that has bothered me since the morning of 9/11 is how little attention the Pentagon tragedy received. All you could hear screamed from the media and White House for months was WTC! WTC! WTC! Heroes of Flight 93! Heroes of Flight 93! It was an endless litany –education through repetition. In fact, 9/11 became synonymous, almost forcibly, with the WTC. Yet, over 200 people died at the Pentagon, including the ill-fated passengers on Flight 77, right at the heart of the city. Why so little focus on this tragedy? I believe that of all the events of 9/11, the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon was the most telling, it was the hottest, smokiest of the smoking guns. The key to the whole mystery may well lie in this five-sided building built by FDR's administration. First, here's a little long-overdue background on the Pentagon. <br />
<b> The history of the Pentagon</b><br />
When war broke out in Europe in 1939, even before the US entered the conflict, our War Department was gearing up for the possibility. However, there was no real home for the Department of Defense –it was scattered across DC in 17 different buildings. Back then, there wasn't a whole lot of red tape to cut through –when the green light was given to come up with a place to put the DOD, by God, they came up with a plan in four days! In this relative blink of an eye, Brigadier General Brehon B. Somervell developed a scheme for a three-story humongous complex capable of housing 40,000 workers (it later grew to five floors after WWII broke out). But, Somervell's plan for a five-sided structure was not, as one might expect, symbolic, or an effort to create a stylized giant chevron. Instead, it was the most practical idea that suggested itself: the 67-acre site chosen (a former Deptartment of Agriculture Farm on the Potomac) was bound on five sides by five existing roads. Voila! The Pentagon. Cost estimates for the original project was $35 million –about what a couple of out buildings for storing old munitions might cost now! Believe it or not, the project was considered highly controversial. Some complained that it took up land intended for the expansion of Arlington Cemetery. Others said the DOD shouldn't be housed outside the District of Columbia, while some (we jaded 21st centurians would have to laugh at this) complained that the cost was too high. <br />
One problem Congress wrangled over was what to do with the building once WWII was over. Although some wanted to turn it into a warehouse, most people assumed that the building would become a veterans' hospital. It is very telling that no one believed there would be a need for 40,000 defense department workers after the War. That was because no one foresaw that war was soon to become a way of life –in one form or the other– for Americans. This shift to an all-war (ours or someone else's we supply weapons for) all the time focus can be traced to the Cold War mentality that many in high places locked into during the 1950s and never left (and has never allowed the rest of us to leave). <br />
In any case, the classic monster of a building (over 5 million square feet!) that we call the Pentagon was begun in 1941 a few months before Pearl Harbor (the appropriations bill was signed by FDR in August 1941). Spurred to heroic efforts by the declaration of war in December, the construction crews –13,000 men at one point– completed the building in an astounding 16 months. As with all government projects, the final cost was nearly three times higher than first estimates (it came in at $83 million). Because a war was on, reinforced concrete was used instead of steel in most of the building's structure (in contrast to the WTC, which was a mass of steel beams). There were no elevators –instead, concrete ramps go between levels. The finished building consists of five nested concentric pentagons (called rings), with a 5-acre courtyard at the heart. The building is really a small town –with its own shopping concourse, banks, and even its own subway station. In 1993, the Clinton administration decided to upgrade the Pentagon, for many reasons, not least of which was the growing concern over terrorist attacks. In addition to new plumbing, the upgrade included putting in heavy duty fireproofing in the walls, reinforcing the walls, and improving security in general. The final reconstruction strategy called for the work to be divided into five "wedges," each wedge encompassing a corner and a rectangle of the Building. The first wedge to be tackled was the one facing west, covering 1.2 million square feet. By September 2000, work on this wedge was about 70% complete. The wedge was supposed to have been completely done by July 2001, but, as with rebuilding any old "house," more problems kept being uncovered. For example, all sorts of interesting goodies were found in the walls: a secure vault no one knew about, old whiskey bottles (hmm, wonder who went to such lengths to hide their booze!), and other items. Then of course, there were supports that needed more reinforcement, asbestos to be removed, etc. Among the improvements made to Wedge One: Blast resistant windows and brick backup walls behind the building's limestone outer facade. These inner walls contain a metal fabric mesh similar to the mesh used in vehicle air bags. This mesh was designed specifically to CONTAIN DEBRIS FRAGMENTS in the event of a blast. <br />
<b> The bloody morning of September 11. </b> <br />
On the morning of September 11, 2001, about 20,000 people were at work in the Pentagon. Almost no one was in Wedge one, except workers who were moving furniture in –the last step before the wedge was reopened for business. When the news of the planes hitting the WTC came, Pentagon personnel were horrified and clustered round radios and television sets to follow the coverage. One man remembered remarking to another worker that he feared the Pentagon was vulnerable to all types of terrorist assaults. Then, at 9:43, there was a huge explosion and fire and smoke rose from wedge one. By evening, it would be known that at least 180 people had been killed, including the 64 passengers on Flight 77. <br />
So, what is wrong with the whole Pentagon disaster picture? For starters, here are a few interesting facts: <br />
As mentioned earlier, the Bush administration had PLENTY of information that would lead them to believe the Pentagon and other major national landmarks were at high risk of a terrorist attack, especially in the summer and fall of 2001. Many warnings had come over the previous 8 years that the Pentagon could be a target of a terrorist attack, not only that but part of a multiple-strike terrorist attack. In fact, this possibility seemed so plausible that in November 2000 a disaster response exercise was held by the Military District of DC that simulated a plane hitting the Pentagon. So, September 11 finds Bush and several other key administrators safely removed from DC –Bush, at a Florida elementary school, is strategically NOWHERE NEAR a national landmark that morning. John Ashcroft has stopped flying on commercial airliners and is in the wilds of Missouri, via private jet, fishing. Cheney is at an "undisclosed location" (his bunker, probably). Jeb Bush, from September 7, has the Florida National Guard on standby. A collection of top CEOs of companies based at the WTC are attending a charity event at Offutt Air Base in Omaha at 8:00 AM on 9/11 (rather odd time, doncha think?) –the same base to which Bush flees later in the same day. Rumsfeld is at the Pentagon –but in the wedge FURTHEST from what will be the point of impact. <br />
So, while the Bush administration and its pals were maneuvering into the safest possible positions, the folks at the Pentagon (and the workers and "expendable" CEOs at the WTC, of course) were left to their fate, no warning given to them at all. Given the above info on the administration's awareness of the threat to the Pentagon, it seems reasonable to expect that the MINUTE the news was heard about the WTC being hit that the Pentagon should have been evacuated IMMEDIATELY as a precaution until further notice. At the very least, after the SECOND TOWER was hit! At that point, the multiple-strike scenario should have been so hideously obvious. Yet the workers were left at their posts like sitting ducks. Was this incompetence, intent to kill, or was it something else? <br />
Let's try applying a different hypothesis and see how the pieces fit. HYPOTHESIS: That person or persons unknown in the Bush administration were involved in planning the attack on the Pentagon. Let's examine the likely objectives of the Perpetrator(s) and their objectives according to this hypothesis compared to actual events. <br />
<b> A. Minimize loss of life while creating a terrorist event of frightening proportions</b> <br />
ACTUAL EVENTS: 1. Published reports following 9/11 say the number of passengers on all four hijacked flights was remarkably light –under half capacity. There were just 64 people on Flight 77. (Possible modus operandi: One writer has theorized that a computer hacker could have manipulated the bookings for these flights in such a way that they would appear to have been full after a reasonable number of people and thus no more passengers could be accepted.) <br />
2. The plane struck the almost empty, but newly reinforced, fire resistant wedge. In fact, the plane underwent an elaborate maneuver to be able to line its trajectory up with Wedge One –not only that, but to strike the newly reinforced, collapse-resistant WALL in wedge one. A suicide pilot would likely have made a beeline for the building and done a nosedive into the top, which would have caused more damage. <br />
3. No one in the Pentagon had been put on alert –from the time of the Bush's receipt of the August 6 memo to the morning of 9/11, when, for over 40 minutes, it was known that a hijacked plane-turned-bomb was in the air. <br />
CONCLUSION: In their own sick way, the perpetrators tried to keep the loss of life minimized. They kept the number of passengers on the planes to a minimum, then made sure the plane would hit Wedge One, a well-reinforced fire-resistant area where few people would be that day. In addition, they did not issue alerts because they assumed emergency evacuation might place workers in greater danger– many may actually have sought shelter, ironically, in the newly reinforced Wedge. (In an interesting side note, it has been pointed out by some observers that the planes that hit the WTC seemed to aim for the top 1/4 of the towers, as if to avoid destroying the towers and, again, in a bizarre, perverted way, to minimize loss of life). <br />
<b> B. Eliminate any trace of the plane –a challenge because of the special mesh in the new wall designed to capture any debris. </b> <br />
ACTUAL EVENTS: 1. Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, an aircraft that is about 60 feet long, with a wingspan of 125 feet. Yet, it appears to have left essentially not a trace of material inside the building. Brigadier General Arthur F. Diehl III, Air Force, gave this first hand account of the crash site: "No one could believe the catastrophic damage –it was horrible. A whole wedge had collapsed; the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five rings of the building. There wasn't a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere". <br />
2. Several accounts and filmed shots of the event suggest an explosion OUTSIDE the wedge. Construction foreman Joe Harrington, standing in parking lot near the impact point said: "It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge. It was like a Hollywood movie or something." <br />
3. Although there was seismic activity associated with the WTC event and Flight 93, both of which involved direct impacts with a solid object, no significant seismic activity was recorded for the Pentagon explosion. <br />
CONCLUSION: The plane exploded and was essentially vaporized the split second before actual impact with the wall. What actually struck and penetrated the Wedge was not the solid body of the plane but a fireball from the explosion –moving forward with the combined momentum of the moving plane and the explosion. Because the actual explosion occurred in the air and the destruction in the building was due to the fireball and to implosive forces and not a solid-solid impact, there was no seismic activity. <br />
<b>C. You do not want this airplane intercepted or shot down, because your plot would be revealed if too much evidence becomes accessible (even in the form of plane fragments). </b> <br />
ACTUAL EVENTS: 1. The transponder in this plane was turned off –a move seen by investigators as a highly sophisticated action on the part of the hijackers. This renders the plane untraceable by ground control. (I believe there was another reason for this –see below). <br />
2. Even though it was known by about 08:55 that Flight 77 had been hijacked and that the Pentagon could be a target, no defensive moves were made to protect the Pentagon. F-16s were finally scrambled into the air, but too late. These planes, by the way, were scrambled out of Langley Airforce base. While Langley is about 130 miles southwest of the Pentagon, Bolling AFB just across the Potomac from the Pentagon, is at most 5 miles southeast while Andrews is 10 miles. The Langley F-16 left the ground two minutes before the Pentagon was hit. In any case, I find it extremely hard to believe that the most important military command structure in the US is not defended by surface to air missiles! I mean, we are supposed to believe that there are antiaircraft weapons atop the White House but NOT deployed anywhere near the Pentagon? Give us a break! <br />
<b> D. You want to make absolutely sure that this is a precision hit –nothing left to chance.</b><br />
ACTUAL EVENTS: 1. Eyewitness observers say that Flight 77 performed a 180-degree "G" turn before diving for the center of the long wall of Wedge One. The plane was estimated to be rocketing at an estimated speed of 400 mph. Several experienced pilots have claimed that the final maneuver of the 757 could not have been performed by a human pilot because of the tremendous G-forces that would have been exerted, rending even the simplest movements exceedingly difficult (picture your arms each suddenly weighing about 100 pounds and each finger about 10). <br />
2. Eyewitnesses and the evidence of a security camera show a fiery explosion OUTSIDE the wall. <br />
3. The transponder was OFF. <br />
CONCLUSION: The plane was remotely controlled by a command transmitter system at least in the final minutes. There was an explosive device on board, which was detonated immediately before impact, probably remotely controlled as well. The timing, trajectory, etc, may have been generated by a software program of some sort that could work this out to the millisecond. The plane's own transponder would have had to have been turned off so that it's operation would not interfere with a second transponder placed aboard by the perpetrators –a transponder designed to pick up the signal of a command system transmitter operated somewhere in the area. Or, of course, the plane's own transponder was not actually off –it was just changed to a new setting. In any case, turning the transponder off would not have helped the hijackers to hide from the battery of sophisticated radars encircling DC, so this motivation (hiding from radars) does not make any sense. Here is a description of an advanced, "fully mobile" CTS built Systems Planning Corp, the CEO of whih is Bush's undersecretary of defense and long time Texas pal Dov Zakheim. <br />
<b> More Disturbing 9/11 facts</b><br />
While the workers in the Pentagon who were to die on 9/11 were putting in their last week, serving their country at the nation's military nerve center, one of the co-perpetrators of WTC was walking the same halls, escorted as the special guest of the Bush administration. <br />
September 4: Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, former director of the ISI (the Pakistani version of the CIA), arrives in DC In the days leading up to 9/11. Ahmad spent time in the State Department, at CIA headquarters, and at the Pentagon. Not long before arriving in D.C., Ahmad had overseen the wiring of $100,000 to Mohammad Atta, one of the hijackers aboard one of the planes striking the WTC. This revelation was made in October, after 9/11 by Indian intelligence sources and reported in the Times of India. The news was not reported by US officials or American journalists. <br />
<b> What does India know?</b><br />
September 9: While Ahmad was in DC, Commander Ahmad Shah Masood, leader of the Afghan Northern Alliance, was assassinated by persons connected to the ISI. The 47-year old Masood was a wildly popular, charismatic leader known to Afghans as the "Lion of Panjsher." His biggest goal: the true freedom and independence of Afghans. Fiercely independent and anti-interventionist, he would most certainly have opposed the Bush administration's war plans and would not have played ball with any oil pipeline scheme. The Cold War Clan (as I call the Bushes, Kissinger, Rumsfeld and the rest of the power-hungry old fossils in charge) have never had a use for charismatic leaders –look what happened to Allende...or Kennedy, for that matter. <br />
From all of the accumulated evidence, there is little doubt in my mind that Indian intelligence has the goods on the Bush administration. It was Indian intelligence that "discovered" the links between ISI's Mahmoud Ahmad and the WTC attacks. We suspect this connection was, of course, already known to the Bush administration, which, for all anyone knows, supplied the $100,000. But, according to several sources, Indian intelligence knows far more than this. One Dehli government source told a reporter with Agence France Press last October: "The evidence we have supplied to the US [re: the ISI-WTC connection] is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism." So, if India is the potential source of Bush's downfall, then what better way to silence India than to threaten her, via our now totally dependent "ally" Pakistan (complete with its fraudulently elected president), with nuclear annihilation? Alternatively, is this latest "global world crisis" merely yet another Bush-engineered ploy designed to divert attention away from the real danger –THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION? By inducing Musharraf to trump up a "confrontation" with India and convincing the world that nuclear war may be impending, Rumsfeld and Bush can appear to "ride" to the rescue...it also affords them a slick way to get US troops out of the area. In short, whatever this latest scenario is, you can be sure it isn't what it appears to be. Like everything else about this administration. <br />
<b> FINAL TIMELINE: The Events, Planes and Players of September 11. Putting It All Together</b> <br />
Psychologists say during the Vietnam war, soldiers were more prone to PTSD than their WWII counterparts in large part because of the way post-action reentry was handled. Vietnam vets were shuffled from the front right back to the states -usually alone, and expected to jump right into life, but often in an atmosphere of tension where they were viewed with suspicion and contempt. There was no time for real healing. The nation was in turmoil; home was not a peaceful place. <br />
I believe that since 9/11, Americans have been suffering from a case of collective PTSD. After 9/11, Bush immediately seized on America's fears - instead of helping the nation to heal, to be TRULY united, he whipped up anger, fanned paranoia, created a much deeper divide while forcing people to feel they must give lip service to the new "brand" of patriotism. We were wounded casualties with nowhere to go to lick our wounds, no atmosphere of hope and security to help soothe our minds and spirits. Instead, we were under constant attack - just like Vietnam vets on those endless missions in the jungle that never seemed to gain any real ground. There was one vague threat after the other; one basic right after the other stripped away leaving us to feel chronically uneasy. <br />
Then there was the war against Afghanistan. This frenzy of revenge forced us to mobilize and to push aside any misgivings or (for some of us), to suffer sleepless nights worrying about the consequences of a war we felt was wrong. The weeks, then months, following 9/11 were, in short, a period of relentless stress for all Americans. As a result, many people now say they can't really remember what the specific events were surrounding 9/11 -some can't even remember seeing the time line, though timelines were run in nearly every newspaper and magazine right after the tragedy. <br />
I think this stress-amnesia syndrome may very well be why George Bush has had such a cakewalk until recently. He took advantage of an entire nation that was numbed by shock and grief and unable to defend itself as it might otherwise have done. In short, we couldn't see the sleight of hand through the blur of tears. <br />
Now we are coming to, shaking off the fog that has confused us and seeing the facts clearly -for the first time, really, it seems. <br />
Here, presented as clearly as possible for Americans ready to look with cooler heads and drier eyes are the events, players and planes of 9/11. <br />
Who Was Responsible for What on the Day of September 11, 2001? <br />
The responsibility for protecting America's skies from terrorist attack falls upon the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD, also simply called the "Space Command."). Established in 1958, NORAD is a US-Canadian command that provides warning of missile and air attack against both member nations, according to the organization's Web site. In the Eastern US, NORAD has at its disposal, several Air Force Bases from which F-16s and F-15s can be scrambled at a moment's notice. Among these bases are Otis AFB in Cape Cod, Mass, Griffis AFB in Rome, NY, Andrews AFB just outside DC, and Langley AFB in Eastern Virginia. NORAD's mission statement on its website states: <br />
"The Northeast Air Defense Air Sector's area of responsibility covers more than one-half million square miles of airspace including that over New York City; Washington, D.C.; Chicago and other major metropolitan areas." <br />
<b> THE CHAIN OF COMMAND DURING A TERRORIST ATTACK</b>: <br />
A: The FAA reports hijackings and other threats to NORAD's First Air Force Commander, who is based in Tyndall, FLA. On Sept. 11, this was Gen. Larry K. Arnold. <br />
B: The First Air Force Commander then relays this info to The Commander in Chief (CINC) of NORAD. On 9/11, this was Gen. Ralph "Ed" Eberhardt <br />
C: In a grave situation where force seems warranted, the CINC reports to the Commander in Chief......George Bush. Also notified are Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard B. Myers <br />
The fact that NORAD was well aware that a major attack was a possibility is made obvious by the command's planning, well before Sept. 11, for a major exercise, slated for June 4, 2002. This is from a NORAD announcement: <br />
"On June 4, 2002, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) will sponsor a multi-agency, bi-national exercise, Amalgam Virgo 02, involving an airborne terrorism scenario over the United States and Canada. The exercise, which was planned prior to the events of Sept. 11, is designed to allow many US and Canadian agencies to test, improve and validate their coordination and operational procedures." <br />
Regardless of what warnings Bush may have received, NORAD was well aware of the threat to American skies. <br />
<b> The Planes and Players of 9/11</b><br />
<b> THE PLANES</b><br />
F-16: (Fighting Falcon) From USAF Fact Sheet: "The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack his highly maneuverable aircraft." The craft can go from zero to 500 mph in about 2 minutes. It's top speed is about 1,500 mph, while its typical cruising speed is nearly 600 mph. In other words, if a plane had been scrambled from Andrews, just 10 miles away as the crow (or F-16) flies, it would have been able to engage Flight 77 within 15 minutes from the time the call came in. To decide to scramble a plane out of Langley seems to indicate just one thing: help was intentionally delayed by 10 minutes. <br />
F-15 (Eagle): (from Air Force Fact Sheet): "The F-15 Eagle is an all- weather, extremely maneuverable, tactical fighter designed to permit the Air Force to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat." This plane can reach a maximum astounding speed of 1,875 mph. <br />
The time required from the notification to scramble to one of these planes being airborne and at top speed is about 12-15 minutes. <br />
<b> THE PLAYERS</b><br />
The Bush administration had in place, on Sept. 11 in the top five posts relevant to the terrorist attack, men who totally support the administration's vision for a "Star Wars" style military, for the militarization of space and the merging of the military with domestic law enforcement agencies into one big "Homeland Security" entity. The five top players were: Larry K. Arnold, First Air Force Commander of NORAD, Ralph "Ed" Eberhardt, Commander-in-Chief of NORAD, Richard B. Myers, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, and George W. Bush. <br />
<i> George W. Bush:</i> Guess we don't need to add much here, except to say that Bush did not make it plain to the public at any time since 9/11 that HE was the person that, according to the established chain of command, called the final shots on 9/11. <br />
<i> Donald Rumsfeld: </i> Of course, we know all about Mr. Rumsfeld's lust for power. He is a good pal of Ralph Eberhardt and, in fact, in May of 2001, said Eberhardt was his first choice for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld is one of the architects of the military-police complex. <br />
<i> Larry K. Arnold: </i> Has, since 9/11, helped in the push toward the militarization of America. On February 20, 2002, gave a talk on "Homeland Defense" at the SpaceComm 2002 conference in Colorado that had as its topic: "Shaping Information Operations and Space Leadership" i.e. -the extension of the military not just into the "Homeland," but into space. <br />
<i> Ralph "Ed" Eberhardt: </i> Eberhardt is a fanatical supporter of the Missile defense scheme and the militarization of space. In fact, in May, 2001, Eberhardt said in a speech that he believed control of space was America's "destiny"! Eberhardt is also an enthusiastic supporter of the merging of law enforcement and the military and making technology such as military spy satellites available to police. <br />
<i> Richard B. Myers: </i> Less than three weeks after Bush received the now- famous memo of August 6, Myers was named by Bush to the top post in the US military: Chairman of Joints Chief of Staff. This is what a non-American (and thus less spun) news source (Pravda) had to say about that appointment: "Gen. Myers was chosen for the job precisely because his views are shared by both of his bosses, President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He is considered an active advocate of deploying the National Missile Defense program. He told a news conference that he would be working on the materialization of the idea "relentlessly" and "with his sleeves rolled up." Right after 9/11, Myers was caught in a lie when he claimed that no orders were given re: launching aircraft until AFTER the Pentagon was hit, "We did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACs, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck." However, Marine Corps Maj. Mike Snyder of NORAD told a Boston Globe reporter that the command had been told about the hijacking 10 minutes before the first plane hit the first World Trade Center tower. Snyder said the fighters remained on the ground until after the Pentagon was hit, even though "fighters routinely intercept aircraft." <br />
<b> TIMELINE</b><br />
7:59: American airlines flight 11, a Boeing 767 takes off from Logan Airport in Boston with 92 people, headed for Los Angeles. <br />
8:01: United Airline Flight 93, a Boeing 757, bound for San Francisco, is delayed for 40 minutes on run way, with 45 people on Board. <br />
8:13: Boston Ground control loses contact with Flight 11 First red flag for Flight 11. <br />
8:14: United Flight 175, a Boeing 767, takes off from Logan for Los Angeles with 65 passengers. <br />
8:17: American Airlines Flight 77 (Boeing 757) leaves Dulles in D.C. headed for Los Angeles with 64 passengers. <br />
8:20: Flight 11 reaches the Hudson River in NY and stops transmitting its IFF signal. Second Red flag for flight 11. Had Bush put the airlines on high alert after August 6 when he received the warning, there is no doubt at all that these warnings would have evoked at very different response...if, indeed, the hijackers had even gotten that far (under a high alert, they very well may have been apprehended at the airports). <br />
8:24: Hijackers on Flight 11 accidentally broadcasts warning to the passengers over its radio: "Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." Third Red Flag for flight 11. <br />
8:25: Boston air traffic controllers notify other air traffic control centers of hijacking. Why wasn't NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) notified at this time? <br />
8:27: Flight 11 heads south toward Manhattan; flight attendant Betty Ong calls American Airlines reservations and reports that two flight attendants had been stabbed and a passenger had had his throat slashed. She identifies the seat numbers of the hijackers. Fourth red flag for flight 11 - this one a BLOODY RED and wildly waving, yet it will be about 10 minutes AFTER THIS before NORAD is notified. <br />
8:33: Last transmission from Flight 11: Hijacker is heard telling passengers not to move. <br />
8:38: Boston Air Traffic control notifies NORAD that Flight 11 has been hijacked. <br />
8:42: Flight 175 is hijacked. It begins to make a U-turn over New Jersey, reading for its northward assault on Manhattan. <br />
8:42: Flight 93 takes off from Newark International Airport, headed for San Francisco. <br />
8:43: FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 175 has been hijacked. <br />
8:44: Two F-15 eagles are ordered scrambled out of Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod. If NORAD had been notified (or was it??) at 8:27, when the plane was obviously hijacked and heading to NYC, an F-16 from Otis or Griffis would have been about 10 minutes from Manhattan at this point. In addition, since the WTC was high on the list of known targets, and since some of the warnings to Bush indicated airplanes could be used as "bombs," the WTC should have been given an alert and the building evacuated. If evacuation had started at 8:30, there would have been no one in the upper floors when the first plane hit and the loss of life would have been minimized. <br />
8:45: Flight 11 strikes WTC's north tower at the 80th floor. <br />
8:46: Flight 175 stops transmitting beacon signal. <br />
8:52: Two F-15 eagles take off from Otis. If F-15s had been scrambled from Otis at 8:27, they would now be in a position to engage the hijacked flight 175 headed for the WTC. <br />
8:56: Flight 77's transponder is cut. If F-15s had been scrambled from Otis at 8:27, they would now be in a position to engage the hijacked flight 175 headed for the WTC. <br />
9:00: United Airlines learns that Flight 93 flying over western PA may be in process of being hijacked. <br />
9:00: Flight 77 makes U turn and heads back for Washington. This is when the FAA should have notified NORAD, and NORAD should have ordered F-16s into the air FROM ANDREWS. If they had, by 9:15, F-16s may have been in a position to deflect Flight 77 AWAY from DC altogether. <br />
9:02: Flight 175 strikes the WTC at the 60th floor. <br />
9:16: FAA informs NORAD that Flight 93 may have been hijacked. <br />
9:17: Federal Aviation Administration closes all airports. <br />
9:24: FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 77 is hijacked. <br />
9:24: NORAD orders three F-16s scrambled from Langley. The timing here is absolutely diabolical. It is EXACTLY not enough time for either a jet from Langley, which will be 10 minutes too late, or one from Andrews, which would have had just about 3 minutes between reaching the airspace over D.C. and dealing with the incoming Boeing 757. That Langley was chosen indicates a FEAR that in that 3 minutes a good pilot from Andrews just might have succeeded in aborting the disaster, despite the split second time frame. <br />
9:25: Air traffic controllers notify Secret Service as Flight 77 makes dramatic maneuver just south of the Pentagon. <br />
9:29: Bush, at Booker Elementary school says an "apparent terrorist attack" under way. No orders are give to evacuate any buildings in D.C., or to even urge residents and workers to seek shelter. <br />
9: 40: Three F-16 fighting falcons take off from Langley. They reach Washington by 9:55, moving at least 550 mph. - the trip takes 14 minutes. The time from Andrews to D.C.: under 2 minutes. The time from Bolling: almost instantaneous Not only is this a tragedy for the victims of the Pentagon, it was unspeakably cruel to those pilots, who, thanks to their delayed orders, have to live with the crushing feeling of having been 15 minutes too late. Here is a description of Andrews from its website: "Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113th's primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency." Yet Bush chooses Langley. <br />
9:43: Plane crashes into Pentagon - a full 40 minutes after being reported hijacked and the likelihood of its being used as a weapon of mass destruction obvious. You will notice that now, everything seems to start happening - it seems as if everything were put on hold until the Pentagon was struck. <br />
9:45: White House Evacuates. <br />
9:57: Bush leaves Florida. <br />
10:05: South Tower of World Trade Center collapses. <br />
10:08: Armed agents deployed around White House. <br />
10:10: Penn plane crashes, part of Pentagon collapses. <br />
10:13-10:45: federal buildings in D.C. evacuated. <br />
10:28: WTC north tower collapses. <br />
10:46: Colin Powell heads for D.C. from Latin America. Again, notice that Powell is in Latin America, Bush is in Florida, Ashcroft in Missouri, and Rumsfeld in the part of the Pentagon most remote from the impact point. <br />
1:04: Bush speaks from Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. <br />
1:27: State of emergency declared in D.C. <br />
1:44: warships from VA are deployed to protect coastline. <br />
2:00: Bush at Offutt AFB in Omaha NE. - this is not revealed until almost 4:00 pm. Also at Offutt that day from 8:00 am on, are several CEOs -at a "charity event" that just happens to be held at a SECURE AIR FORCE BASE? And it just happens that several of the CEOs WOULD HAVE BEEN at the WTC had they not been at Offutt. <br />
6:54: Bush back in White House. <br />
8:30: Bush addresses nation. <br />
<b> ADDITIONAL TIMELINE NOTES</b><br />
Oct. 1: Richard B. Myers Officially Becomes the Number One Man in the US Military. <br />
April 2002: Ralph Eberhardt is proposed as "supreme commander" of Northcom, the mega-military entity pushed for by the Bush Administration. <br />
<b> Putting It All Together:</b><br />
Putting It All Together With the hotlines that exist between these offices, the time that it would take from the moment the FAA put in its call to Arnold for Bush to respond (allowing 2 minutes tops per communication) would have been roughly 6 minutes, plus or minus as minute or two. The FAA called NORAD at 8:38 am about the first hijacking. It was 6 minutes later - right within the above timing estimates made above -that two F-15s were ordered - by Bush - to be scrambled from Otis AFB. The evidence clearly shows that Bush had decided AHEAD OF TIME how to handle Flight 77. The FAA call to NORAD that Flight 77 had been hijacked was made at 9:24 -it was at 9:24 that the order to scramble planes from LANGLEY was given. <br />
This means this move had already been authorized by BUSH. How could he have pre-authorized such a response unless he had 1) been told about the plane some minutes before when it was obvious to NORAD's radar system that the plane was headed for DC (NORAD did not require an active transponder on Flight 77 to track the plane), or 2) Bush knew before 9/11 that a plane would be hitting the Pentagon at around 9:45 am. Bush also had the authority, at all times after 8:44 (when he obviously gave his first orders re: Otis) to call for an evacuation of the WTC and, at the LATEST, by 9:24 to order federal buildings and landmarks in D.C. to be evacuated. Had he made these orders, hundreds of lives would have been saved. Even if the order to evacuate the second tower of the WTC had been made by 8:50, that precious 12 minutes would have made all the difference to hundreds of WTC workers. The Pentagon workers would have had nearly 15 minutes to evacuate if a call had come in by even 9:30. <br />
Because he had seen the warnings throughout the summer, and the last, strongest one on August 6, he should have been completely prepared for every scenario he had been briefed on and read to take decisive, urgent action to save lives. But he didn't. Instead, as Pentagon workers sat at their desks or moved down the halls, oblivious to the impending danger, at 9:29, Bush had just finished reading the Hungry, Hungry Caterpillar and was getting ready to announce that an "apparent" terrorist attack was underway. Apparent? <br />
But let's take a look for a moment at the bigger picture: From the first, the plan of the Bush administration has been to extend military power into space while creating a domestic police state in the name of "Homeland Security. In this scheme, the line between military and police would be blurred. Elements of the CIA, which has traditionally worked more with the military, have now been folded into the FBI, while yet more restrictions on the power of the agencies over ordinary citizens have been removed. For a grim picture of where Bush et al were trying to take America as of August, 2001, see "The Next Battlefield," by Jack Hitt. Here's an excerpt fromthat article: <br />
"The political attention devoted to national missile defense, which is an updated version of President Reagan's Strategic Defensive Initiative, has obscured its larger purpose. According to the Strategic Master Plan, N.M.D. is but one part of a triad of technologies -along with improved space surveillance and anti-satellite offensive weaponry- that, the Air Force hopes, will lead to total "space control." George Friedman, an intelligence consultant and the author of "The Future of War," calls the national missile defense plan a "Trojan horse" for the real issue: the coming weaponization of space. The cost of expanding our space assets is only now beginning to show itself. Many of the specific systems for space have had their budgets increased in President (G.W.) Bush's first defense-spending." <br />
<b> The three major proponents of this "new military": Richard B. Myers, Ralph Eberhardt, and Donald Rumsfeld. </b><br />
However, in the summer of 2001, the American public's support for the Bush administration's schemes, in general, was weak and waning fast. In August, 2001 Bush's approval rating had slumped to under 50%. However, within just a few weeks of 9/11, with virtually no opposition from Congress, Myers had been confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. By Nov. 2001, Homeland Security had been established, and the Patriot Act been passed. By April 2002 - Rumsfeld, Myers and Eberhardt had announced the formation of NORTHCOM, the mega military complex that consolidated their power Here's an excerpt from an April 18, 2002 article in the Boston Globe: <br />
"Air Force General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was responsible for drafting the new command plan -and who calls the establishment of the new command the most significant structural change in his 37 years in uniform- said yesterday that the Northern Command (NORTHCOM) 'takes the various homeland security missions being performed by various combatant commanders and some agencies and puts them under one commander [to] bring unity and focus to the mission.' Air Force General Ralph E. Eberhardt is slated to head the new command, which will also include oversight of NORAD and the territorial defense missions of the JFCOM." <br />
In short, 9/11 was used as a springboard for the pre-9/11 Bush scheme. The steps taken in the name of Homeland security that were done in the name of 9/11 were actually already planned well before that event. It was the event that made it possible to implement them. If you want to get an idea of where this merger between the military and law enforcement is headed, how about this statement made by Ralph Eberhardt at the Space Symposium held in Colorado Springs in early 2002: "Over time we can leverage our space assets to support homeland security and law enforcement. " So, for example, does this mean the use of military satellites to spy on citizens? <br />
Now ponder this point: Since Bush took office, he has richly rewarded every single person who helped him substantially, usually with top posts or the legislation they wanted. After 9/11, we see Myers and Eberhardt moving up into top posts of incredible power. What were they being rewarded for? <br />
Now, back to 9/11. The simple fact is, if Bush had not ignored the August 6 (and earlier) warnings of terrorist strikes, and had instead acted decisively and responsibly, the scenario that unfolded on 9/11 would have been very different. First of all, on high alert, the airports may have screened passengers more carefully - some or all of the hijackers may have failed to get aboard their target aircraft. Secondly, if they had succeeded in boarding the craft, the FAA would have been in a state of readiness for a serious event. At 8:25 AM, Boston FAA would have immediately called NORAD, who would have been in readiness, perhaps even with preauthorized orders from Bush. The WTC would have been on high alert from Aug 6 on and an evacuation could have been undertaken as early as 8:30 - time enough to save countless lives. <br />
But instead, Bush did not warn the public. When called by NORAD, he failed to respond in a way designed to save lives. In short, the trail of smoke from the smoking gun leads ultimately...and unavoidably, back to G. W. Bush. <br />
<br />
Copyright © 2002 by the News Insider and Cheryl Seal. Republished with the permission of the Author.<br />
<div id="more-related-stories"></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-12385388629277298252011-03-27T20:03:00.003-05:002011-03-27T20:18:52.835-05:00911 Victim Ellen Mariani Open Letter To The POTUSThe following letter is one what is considered an Open Letter to the President Of the United States - George W. Bush. It was written on November 27, 2003, and it released details in a lawsuit by Ellen Mariani. Her husband was killed on Flight 175, the second plane to hit the World trade center towers just 17 minutes after the first plane hit. In brief, the letter explains that President Bush should be held responsible for the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the reason why. It further explains that the President knew of such attacks that could happen and that President Bush allowed them to happen so that he could begin his 'war on terror'.<br />
Under 'related stories' below, you will also find a URL about a video by Ellen Mariani.<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="story-top" style="color: #2c2c21; font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><tbody>
<tr><td colspan="2"><h1 style="color: #2d3320; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">911 Victim Ellen Mariani Open Letter To The POTUS</h1><span class="byline"><b style="margin-left: 20px;">Thursday, 27 November 2003, 1:36 pm</b><br />
<b style="margin-left: 20px;">Press Release: Ellen Mariani Lawsuit</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div style="color: #2c2c21; font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">Open Letter To The President Of The United States</div><div style="color: #2c2c21; font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">Mr. Bush,</div><div style="color: #2c2c21; font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">This ''open letter'' is coming from my heart. I want you to know that I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and that this is not an attempt to ''bash the Government''.</div><div style="color: #2c2c21; font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">You Mr. Bush should be held responsible and liable for any and all acts that were committed to aid in any "cover up" of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. As President you have a duty to protect the American people. On September 11th you did not instruct your staff to issue a nationwide emergency warning/alert to advise us of the attack on America. We had to receive the news of the attacks via the news networks.</div><div style="color: #2c2c21; font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small; line-height: normal;"></span></div><h3 style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 20px; margin-top: 5px;">Related Stories on Scoop</h3><ul style="color: #666666; font-family: helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; list-style-type: none; margin-left: 175px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><li style="color: #666666; font-family: helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; list-style-type: none; margin-left: 0px !important; margin-top: 0px;"><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0802/S00047.htm" style="color: #004477; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-decoration: none;">UQ Wire: Hence & Widows Open Letter To 911 Cmssrs.</a> 05/02/2008</li>
<li style="color: #666666; font-family: helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; list-style-type: none; margin-left: 0px !important; margin-top: 0px;"><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0311/S00224.htm" style="color: #004477; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-decoration: none;">UQ Wire: Mariani Vs Bush (Full Amended Complaint)</a> 28/11/2003</li>
<li style="color: #666666; font-family: helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; list-style-type: none; margin-left: 0px !important; margin-top: 0px;"><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0311/S00261.htm" style="color: #004477; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-decoration: underline;">911 Victim’s Wife Files RICO Case Against GW Bush</a> 27/11/2003</li>
<li style="color: #666666; font-family: helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; list-style-type: none; margin-left: 0px !important; margin-top: 0px;"><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0307/S00148.htm" style="color: #004477; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-decoration: none;">UQ Wire: Who's Who on the 9/11 Commission</a> 18/07/2003</li>
<li style="color: #666666; font-family: helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; list-style-type: none; margin-left: 0px !important; margin-top: 0px;"><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0304/S00045.htm" style="color: #004477; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-decoration: none;">UQ Wire: A 9/11 Victim Asks For Answers</a> 03/04/2003</li>
</ul><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-family: helvetica, verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.myspace.com/video/zeustn/ellen-mariani-vs-george-w-bush-2004/1332646">http://www.myspace.com/video/zeustn/ellen-mariani-vs-george-w-bush-2004/1332646</a></span></span></div><div id="more-related-stories" style="font-family: helvetica, verdana, sans-serif !important; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;"><span style="float: right; font-size: xx-small; margin-top: 3px;">Results powered by <a href="http://search.scoop.co.nz/" style="color: #004477; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-decoration: none;">search.scoop.co.nz</a></span>More Related Stories <a href="http://search.scoop.co.nz/search?q=related:WO0311/S00262" style="color: #004477; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-decoration: none;">>>></a></div><div id="more-related-stories" style="font-family: helvetica, verdana, sans-serif !important; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; line-height: normal;"></span></div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">In the months leading up to the attacks you were repeatedly advised of a possible attack on American soil. During your daily intelligence briefings you were given information that had been uncovered that the very real possibility existed that certain undesirable elements would use commercial aircraft to destroy certain "target" buildings. You never warned the American people of this possible threat. Who were you protecting?</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">When you took no responsibility towards protecting the general public from the possibility of attack, you were certainly not upholding the oath you spoke when you took office. In that oath you pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">On the morning of the attack, you and members of your staff were fully aware of the unfolding events yet you chose to continue on to the Emma E. Booker Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and "photo op". While our nation was under attack you did not appear to blink an eye or shed a tear. You continued on as if everything was "business as usual".</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">In the days following the attacks all air traffic was grounded and Americans, including myself, were stranded wherever they had been when the flight ban was imposed. I was stranded at Midway Airport in Chicago, unable to continue on to California for my daughter's wedding. Imagine my surprise when I later found out that during this "no fly" period a number of people were flown out of the country on a 747 with Arabic lettering on the fuselage. None of these people were interviewed or questioned by any local, State or Federal agencies. Why were they allowed to leave and who exactly was on that flight. We know for a fact that some of the people on the flight were members of (or related to) the royal family of Saudi Arabia and members of the Bin Laden family. Were these people allowed to leave because of the long-standing relationships that your family has with both families?</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">It is my belief that you intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen to gather public support for a "war on terrorism". These wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, have not accomplished what you stated were your goals. Why have you not captured Osama Bin Laden? Where are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? All that has happened is a bill that is passed before Congress for 87 billion dollars to rebuild what you ordered blown to bits. As an American who lost a loved one in the "war on terror" I do pray and support our troops who were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq by you. These troops have and will continue to die for your lies. As an American I can make this statement as it appears that associates of your family may stand to prosper from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq.</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">Mr. Bush the time has come for you to stop your control over us. Stop blocking the release of certain evidence and documents that were discovered by the 9/11 Investigation Commission if you have nothing to hide proving you did not fail to act and prevent the attacks of 9/11. Your reason for not releasing this material is that it is a matter of "national security". When in fact I believe that it is your personal credibility/security that you are concerned with. You do not want the public to know the full extent of your responsibility and involvement.</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">After 9/11 the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act were passed. Both of these allow the government to tap your telephone, search your home, and seize whatever they feel they need to do on a whim. They can do this without a judge's review or a warrant. I feel that this is in direct conflict with our rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following questions:</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11committee report personally censored at your request?</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">2. Where are the "black boxes" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">3. Where are the "voice recorders" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">4. Why can't we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding the doomed flights?</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the offices of the Hoffman Aviation School and order that flight records and files be removed? These files were then put on a C130 government cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they taken and who ordered it done?</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">It has been over two years since hundreds of our lost loved ones "remains" have still yet to be identified and their remains placed in a landfill at Fresh Kill. We want our heroes brought back and given a public and proud resting place where we all can pay our respects and honor them. These innocent people never had a chance as they were taken from us on that sad September Day.</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">In the court of public opinion Mr. Bush, your lies are being uncovered each day. My husband, all of the other victims and their families and our nation as a whole, has been victimized by your failed leadership prior to and after 9/11!</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;">I will prove this in a court of law!</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;"><br />
Ellen M. Mariani</div><br />
<div id="more-related-stories" style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div></div><br />
<div style="color: #2c2c21; font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.3; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 14px;"><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-75015582396209497632011-03-20T06:55:00.009-05:002011-03-20T07:02:07.995-05:00Bush InSane SpeechesHere is a speech that prior President Bush where he admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that Sadaam did not have weapons of mass destruction. But trying to follow his speech takes a little bit of skill. His wishy-washy speech is scary. Listen this video below and see what you think..<br />
<br />
<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f_A77N5WKWM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f_A77N5WKWM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<br />
How about another speech, bush accidentally admits the real Iraq War Plan..<br />
<br />
<br />
<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Soc7S-pQZ6M?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Soc7S-pQZ6M?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<br />
And if those two videos were not entertaining enough, how about this one below where Bush stumbles over his 9/11 lies at a press conference...<br />
<br />
<br />
<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b_SDGb-TJcU?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b_SDGb-TJcU?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-7947181201896501972011-02-28T11:22:00.000-06:002011-02-28T11:22:27.062-06:002001 TimeLine Under President George W.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">In George W.'s two terms in office as President of the United States, the United States faced many hardships, and a vast majority of causalities related to these hardships were a result of this President taking his soldiers into harms way. In many cases, the actions of this President were premeditated. Prior to 911 in less than 90 days in office, President George W. along with England carried out bombing raids in Iraq, in an attempt to disable Iraqi's defense network. George W. was the aggressor. Seven months later, Osama bin Laden retaliated against the United States, as the world terrorists took aim at the United States. 911 became reality, and now George W. felt he now had grounds to continue his war. George W. misled the country in a war on March 20th, 2003 as the Iraqi invasion began. Known as Operation Iraqi Freedom, the major battles lasted until May 1, 2003, the government of Iraq was toppled out in just 21 days of major combat operations. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">2001</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_20">January 20</a> – <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush" title="George W. Bush">George Walker Bush</a> succeeds <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton" title="Bill Clinton">William Jefferson Clinton</a> as the 43rd <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States_of_America" title="President of the United States of America">President of the United States of America</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_16">February 16</a> – <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis">Iraq disarmament crisis</a>: British and U.S. forces carry out bombing raids, attempting to disable <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq">Iraq</a>'s air defense network.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_9">August 9</a> – U.S. President George W. Bush announces his limited support for federal funding of research on embryonic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell" title="Stem cell">stem cells</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11">September 11</a> – Almost 3,000 are killed in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks" title="September 11 attacks">9/11 attacks</a> at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center">World Trade Center</a> in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City">New York City</a>; the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon" title="The Pentagon">Pentagon</a> in <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington,_Virginia" title="Arlington, Virginia">Arlington, Virginia</a>; and in rural <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanksville,_Pennsylvania">Shanksville, Pennsylvania</a> after <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11">American Airlines Flight 11</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175">United Airlines Flight 175</a> crash into the World Trade Center's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center" title="World Trade Center">Twin Towers</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77">American Airlines Flight 77</a> crashes into the Pentagon, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93">United Airlines Flight 93</a> crashes into grassland in Shanksville.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_7">October 7</a> – <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29">War in Afghanistan (2001–present)</a>: The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States">United States</a> invades <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan">Afghanistan</a>, with participation from other nations.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_26">October 26</a> – U.S. President George W. Bush signs the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act">USA PATRIOT Act</a> into law.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_13">November 13</a> – In the first such act since <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II">World War II</a>, U.S. President George W. Bush signs an executive order allowing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal" title="Military tribunal">military tribunals</a> against any foreigners suspected of having connections to terrorist acts or planned acts against the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States">United States</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2">December 2</a> – <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron">Enron</a> files for <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11_bankruptcy" title="Chapter 11 bankruptcy">Chapter 11 bankruptcy</a> protection 5 days after <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynegy">Dynegy</a> cancels a US$8.4 billion buyout bid (to that point, the largest <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy">bankruptcy</a> in U.S. history).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_3">December 3</a> – Officials announce that one of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban">Taliban</a> prisoners captured after the prison uprising at <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazari_Sharif" title="Mazari Sharif">Mazari Sharif</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan">Afghanistan</a> is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh">John Walker Lindh</a>, an American citizen.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_11">December 11</a> – The United States government indicts <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui">Zacarias Moussaoui</a> for involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_13">December 13</a> – U.S. President George W. Bush announces the United States' withdrawal from the 1972 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty">Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty</a>.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">2002</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-83456522900617557912011-02-27T11:18:00.006-06:002011-02-28T08:26:21.478-06:00A New York Times Report Summary of "BUSH DECISION POINTS"Parts of this report is from the New York Times by Michiko Kakutani publiched on November 3rd, 2010 called 'In Bush Memoir, Policy Interests With Personality' and reflects the views of the author of this blog.<br />
<br />
<br />
In a serious attempt to criticize the book "Decision Points" in a good light, I have come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible due to the light of history and what is shared in the book by the previous Republican President to be able to give George W. any high marks for the works called his 'memoir'. It is nothing more than a dogged work of reminiscence by an author not naturally given to introspection. The memoir lacks the emotional precision and evocative power of his wife Laura's book, "Spoken From the Heart," that was published in 2007. After reading George Bush's memoirs, there are some touchy private moments with him and his family, but at the end, you will understand that this is not a book about George W's heart. The tone of the book is more casual than any past 'memoir of ANY U.S. President. It starts out with what you might consider an evangelical, 12-step confession, for example "Could I continue to grow closer to the Almighty or was alcohol becoming by god?", not to sidestep away from the off-color jokes. He portrays himself as a regular guy.<br />
Along the way Mr. Bush acknowledges various mistakes. On his administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina he says, “As leader of the federal government, I should have recognized the deficiencies sooner and intervened faster.” On Iraq he says he regrets that “we did not respond more quickly or aggressively when the security situation started to deteriorate after Saddam’s regime fell,” that “cutting troop levels too quickly was the most important failure of execution in the war,” and that he still has “a sickening feeling every time” he thinks about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.<br />
<br />
Still, he insists that “removing Saddam from power was the right decision”: “for all the difficulties that followed, America is safer without a homicidal dictator pursuing WMD and supporting terror at the heart of the Middle East.”<br />
<br />
In the course of this book Mr. Bush hops and skips over many serious issues raised by critics, including the cherry-picking of intelligence by administration hawks in the walk up to the invasion of Iraq; the push for aggrandized executive power by the White House in the war on terror; and the ignoring of advice from the military and the State Department on troop levels and postwar planning.<br />
<br />
The former president does not address the role that the decision to divert resources to the war in Iraq played in the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, instead arguing that “the multilateral approach to rebuilding, hailed by so many in the international community, was failing.” He tries to play down the problems of Guantánamo Bay, writing that detainees were given “a personal copy of the Koran” and access to a library among whose popular offerings was “an Arabic translation of ‘Harry Potter.’ ” And he asserts that “had I not authorized water-boarding on senior al Qaeda leaders, I would have had to accept a greater risk that the country would be attacked.”<br />
<br />
In summation, after reading the book, I was saddened to realize that this man actually was our 43rd President, after knowing what I've learned not by just reading his memoir, but by coming in contact with so many other news articles. What was this man thinking during his two terms in office? What was the country thinking allowing this man to wage wars, and demonstrate his own forms of terrorism to the international community. Wake up people. This man IS responsible for thousands of American deaths, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.<br />
George W. vowed to topple terrorism. Was he successful? Absolutely not, yet he takes credit for not allowing terrorists to attack the United States since 911. Is he taking the blame for all the American deaths during his watch? But he fails to realize that it was because of his lack of listening to his own intelligence agencies, that this country was attacted on 911 and thousands of people were innocently killed on American soil. And then, why attack Iraq, and spend people lives in a war to topple a dictator named Sadaam Hussein because you have strong proof that he had weapons of mass distruction. Why not go after the man known to be in Afghanistan named Osama bin Laden, who is the number 1 terrorist and responsible for the 911 attacks? What was Bush thinking? We are gridlocked in a war in Iraq, with a U.S. President who vowes to leave Iraq soon and now is taking the heat for George W.'s mistakes.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-50968938931274301052011-02-25T12:00:00.010-06:002011-03-02T18:43:24.303-06:00Kieth Olbermann - "Shut the Hell Up" to George W. Bush<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdk03fcxpoC6rwe2jEoAb0-Cabfw49ngXlzVtuJ5B-HdBGvY_USdeI8XYChzCovRe4k6UAxyH4kDn0WYKbfBQe-7_jo8VYPBj2DKC39a0ukNgtW9v-kEYXZAgeplm1a4g6m1jieihBR_w/s1600/Keith_Olbermann_-_small.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdk03fcxpoC6rwe2jEoAb0-Cabfw49ngXlzVtuJ5B-HdBGvY_USdeI8XYChzCovRe4k6UAxyH4kDn0WYKbfBQe-7_jo8VYPBj2DKC39a0ukNgtW9v-kEYXZAgeplm1a4g6m1jieihBR_w/s1600/Keith_Olbermann_-_small.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Political Commentator Keith Olbermann</td></tr>
</tbody></table>As an avid watcher of the news, I must say upfront that I have definitely missed the straight talk reporting by someone who speaks from the gut, no more than MSNBC's Mr. Keith Olbermann. Immediately below is his transcript, along with links to two videos that make up the transcript by Keith Olbermann displayed below, as he went through one of his liberating rampages on his show on May 15, 2008. The topic, of course the one and only Mr. George W. Bush. You have to love Keith Olbermann, for his outright candid, straight-talk reporting from the heart, but at the same time, you need to listen closely to truly understand how this person called the 43rd President of the United States lasted for 8 years in office, got under his skin.<br />
<br />
Questions to Bush in <b><span style="color: blue;">BLUE</span></b> <br />
Olbermann comments in <i><b>Black</b></i><br />
Responses by Bush in <b style="color: red;">RED</b><br />
<br />
Mr. Keith Olbermann.....speaks..<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Finally tonight as promised, a special comment, on two topics allot of us had foolishly thought and not have naively hoped we would not again would have to address, and a third topic nobody thought a president would ever seriously mention in public, unless perhaps he was just hit in the head with something, and was not in full possession of his faculties. How he expressed his empathy for the families of the dead in Iraq by giving up golf!! The president has resorted to the sleaziest fear mongering and mass manipulation of an administration of a public life dedicated to realizing the lowest of our expectations. And he has now applied these poisons to the 2008 presidential election, on behalf of the party at whose center where he and Mr. McCain work. Mr. Bush had predicted that the election of a Democratic president could <span style="color: red;">"eventually lead to an another attack on the United States"</span>. This ludicrous, infuriating, holly-er than now, and most importantly boneheadedly wrong statement came yesterday during an interview with Politico.com and online users of Yahoo. The question was phrased as follows..</i></b><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">"If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what's the worst that could happen, what's the doomsday scenario?"</span></b> <b style="color: red;">And the President replied, "Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States. The biggest issue we face is -- it's bigger than Iraq -- it's this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives." </b><br />
<br />
<b style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Mr. Olbermann... </span></b><br />
<b style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;"> </span> </b><br />
<i><b>Mr. Bush, at long last has it not dawned on you that the America that you have now created includes cold blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives. There are those in or formally in your employ who yet may be charged some day with war crimes. Through your haze of self congratulation and self pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve YOUR political objectives. This ideological struggle you speak of Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country. It is a struggle for Americans that cherish freedom, ours and everybody elses, and Americans like you sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like 'Patriot Act' is a brand name or 'Protect America' is a brand name.<br />
Wait, there's more. you also said</b></i> <b style="color: red;">"Iraq is the place where al Qaeda and other extremists have made their stand -- and they will be defeated."</b> <b style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;"><i>They made no stand in Iraq sir, you allowed them to assemble there. As certainly if that were the plan, the borders were left wide open by your government's pharisaical post-invasion strategy of</i> </span>"They'll greet us as liberators"</b><i><b>, and as certainly if that were the plan, the inspiration for another generation of terrorists, in another country was provided by your government's pharisaical post-invasion strategy of letting the societal infrastructure of Iraq dissolve, to be replaced by an American vice-royalty. Enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind your skirts, sir... </b></i><br />
<i><b>Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush. It was a Yahoo user who brought up a second topic upon whose introduction Mr. Bush should have passed or punted or gotten up and left the room claiming that he heard Dick Cheney calling him.</b></i><br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Do you feel, asked an ordinary American that you were misled on Iraq?</b><br />
<br />
Bush's Response:<b> <span style="color: red;">"I feel like -- I felt like, there were weapons of mass destruction. You know, "mislead" is a strong word, it almost connotes some kind of intentional -- I don't think so, I think there was not only our intelligence community, but intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was."</span></b><br />
<br />
<i><b>Flawed... You Mr. Bush and your tragically know-it-all minions through out every piece of intelligence that suggested there were no such weapons. You Mr. Bush, threw out every person who even suggested that the sober, contradictory, reality based intelligence needed to be listened to and damn fast. You Mr. Bush, are responsible for how intelligence communities all around the world shared the same assessment. you and the sick-a-vance you dredged up put behind the most important steering wheel in the world. Propagated, palpable nonsense and shoved it down the throat of every intelligence community across the world, and punished everybody who didn't agree it was really chicken salad. And you Mr. Bush threw under the bus all of the subsequent critics who bravely stepped forward later just to point out how much a self fulfilling proficy you had embraced and adopted this country's policy, in-lu of say 'common sense'. The fiasco of pre-war intelligence sir is YOUR fiasco. You should build a great statue of yourself, turning a deaf ear to the warnings of the realists, while you were shone embracing the three card monte dealers, like Richard Pearl and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. That would be a far more fitting to your legacy Mr. Bush, and this presidential library that you are constructing is a giant fable about your presidency, an edifice you might claim was built by weapons of mass destruction, because there will be just as many inside your presidential library as there was inside Sadaam Hussein's Iraq.<br />
Of course if there is one over riding theme to this presidents administration, it is the utter, always failing, inability to know when to quit when it is behind. And so Mr. Bush answered yet another question about this laye</b></i>r<b><i>ed, nuanced wheels within wheels garbage heap, that that constituted his excuse for war.</i></b><br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">"And so you feel that you didn't have all the information you should have or the right spin on that information?"</b><br />
<br />
<b style="color: red;">"No, no, I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction"</b><br />
<br />
<i><b>People!! What people... The insane informant curve ball. The Iraqi snake oil salesman Ackmed Chalibe, the American snake oil salesman Dick Cheney.</b></i><br />
<br />
<b style="color: red;">"I was told by people they had weapons of mass destruction, as were members of Congress, who voted for the resolution to get rid of Saddam Hussein and of course, the political heat gets on, and they start to run and try to hide from their votes."</b><br />
<br />
<i><b>Mr. Bush.... You destroyed the evidence that contradicted the resolution you jammed down the congress's throat, the way you jammed it down the nations throat, when required by law, to verify that your evidence was accurate you simply re-submitted it with phrases mounting to</b></i> <b style="color: red;">"See, I done proved it"</b> <i><b>virtually written in the margins in crayon. You defied patriotic Americans to say the emperor has no clothes, only this time with the stakes as you and your mental dwarfs in your employ put it, be a mushroom cloud over an American city. And as a final crash of self indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderess deceit, has even begun to cost your political party seeming perpetual congressional seats in places like North Carolina and last night Mississippi. You can actually say with a straight face sir, that the members of Congress, the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes? Will you great the political heat and try to run and hide from your presidency? And your legacy... 4000 Americans you were sent to protect are dead in Iraq with your own feeble and pathetic answer being, I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction.</b></i><br />
<i><b><br />
Then came Mr. Bush's final blow to our nation's solarplexes, his last re-opening of our wounds, his last remark that makes the rest of us question not merely his leadership, or his judgement, but his very suitability to remain in office</b></i>.<br />
<b><br style="color: blue;" /><span style="color: blue;">"Mr. President, you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?"</span></b><br />
<br />
<i><b>YES, began perhaps the most startling reply of this nightmarish blight on our lives as Americans on our history.</b></i><br />
<br />
<b style="color: red;">"Yes, it really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."</b><br />
<br />
<b style="color: black;"><i>Golf sir!! Golf sends the wrong signal to the grieving families of our men and women butchered in Iraq. Do you think these families Mr. Bush, these lives blighted forever care about YOU playing GOLF? Do you think sir that they CARE about you? You Mr. Bush who let their sons and daughters be killed. Sir, to show their solidarity with them, you gave up GOLF? Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn't give up your pursuit of this insurance scam, profiteering morally and financially bankrupting war. Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn't even give up talking about Iraq, a subject about which you have insensitively proved without pause or backwards glance, that you may literally be the least informed person in the world. Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn't give up your presidency. In your own words.. </i>"Solidarity, as best as I can, is to stop a game"</b><b style="color: black;">?</b> <i><b>That is the best you can ? Four thousand Americans give up their lives and your sacrifice was to give up GOLF?!?!?<br />
Golf..Golf and still it gets worse. It proves that the presidents unendurable sacrifice, his unbearable pain, the suspension of getting to hit a stick and a ball together was not even his own damned idea.</b></i><br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">"Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?</b><br />
<br />
<b style="color: red;">"I Remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf -- I think I was in Central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it anymore to do."</b><br />
<br />
<i><b>Your one, tone deaf, arrogant, pathetic, embarrassing gesture, and you didn't think of it yourself. The great Bushian sacrifice. An Army private looses a leg, a marine looses half of his scull, 4000 of their brothers and sisters loose their lives and you loose GOLF!!! And they have to pull you off the golf course to get you to do just that. If it's even true. Apart from your medical files which beautifully record your torn calf muscle and the knee pain which forced you to give up running at the same time, it is a coincidence no doubt the bombing in Baghdad which killed Sergio Veera DeMayo at the U.N.and interrupted your round of golf was on August 19th 2003, and yet there is an Associated Press accounted you and photographs playing golf as late as Columbus day of that year, October 13th, two months later.</b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you. Six and a half years after you yoked this nation and your place in history through the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people. But the war in Iraq is NOT ABOUT YOU. It is not Mr. Bush about YOUR GRIEF, when American after American comes home in a box. It is not Mr. Bush what your adult brain has produced in the way of arronoid delusions of risks that do not exist, ready to be activated if some Democrat, and not your twin Mr. McCain succeeds you. The war in Iraq, your war Mr. Bush is about how you accomplished the derangement of two nations and how you helped funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to lascivious and parreneal thirsty corporations like Hallibert and Blackwater, and how you sent 4000 Americans to their deaths, FOR NOTHING!!!<br />
It is not Mr. Bush about your golf game, and sir if you have any hopes that next January 20 will no be celebrated as a day of soul drenching heart felt thanksgiving, because your faithless stewardship of this presidency will have finally come to a merciful end.</b></i><br />
<i><b><br />
This last piece of advise. When somebody asks you sir about Democrats who must now pull this country back together, from the abyss you have placed us at, when somebody asks you sir about the cooked books and faked threats that you have voiced on a sincere and frightened nation, when somebody asks you sir about your gallant, noble, self abnegating sacrifice of your golf game so as to sooth the families of the war dead. </b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>This advise Mr Bush... SHUT THE HELL UP..</b></i><br />
<br />
<br />
Video Part One : By Keith Olbermann<br />
<br />
<div style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr8nrRZOpXw&playnext=1&list=PL692D08A1ED7041C9">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr8nrRZOpXw&playnext=1&list=PL692D08A1ED7041C9</a></div><br />
Video Part Two : By Keith Olbermann<br />
<br />
<div style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrDnpYDQauw&playnext=1&list=PL692D08A1ED7041C9">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrDnpYDQauw&playnext=1&list=PL692D08A1ED7041C9</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-89730614195497321372011-02-23T19:38:00.011-06:002011-02-24T09:37:40.737-06:00Bush's Book "Decision Points" May Put Him in Prison For Crimes Against HumanityPresident George W. in an attempt to have himself re-habilitate his character in time, wrote his memoirs called 'Decision Points', but because of the book, it may seem to be just a matter of time that the book may be responsible for him going into prison for crimes against humanity.<br />
<br />
The following is a transcript of the video below, and I suggest that you read this very closely. If you don't believe what you read, just listen the video and then speculate of what may be the future of George W. Bush.<br />
<br />
Here is the transcript of the video in its entirety..... <br />
<br />
<b>Policies changed significantly, especially during the George Bush era, especially following the 911 attacks. After staying out of the limelight since leaving office almost 2 years ago, America's 43rd President is now having his own say on his time in office. In his memoirs 'Decision Points', he reveals his thoughts on the most historic and contraversial parts of his presidency. Now to discuss those, let's now talk to the former Democrat member of Congress, Tom Andrews.</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>Thank you very much for joining us... Now Tom in his book, George Bush said that the invasion of Iraq was right, because it was about changing the regime, persuing weapons of mass destruction. What do you think about the strength of that case?</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Answer by Tom Andrews:</span> <i><b>Well, there is no strength, I mean, you know it is rather extraodinary. Former President Bush was on national television last night here in the United States, and he said his lowest moment, the lowest of the low, as he described it, was when a rap artist, Kenya West, accused him about not caring about black people, during the Katrina debocle, and the failure of the U.S. government to respond to that hurricane disaster. When in fact, you have a war against Iraq, a violation of international law, an invasion that killed thousands of American soldiers, over 100,000 Iraqis, all to go after weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. And to make it worse, you had American soldiers, 700 of them lost their lives in Iraq, because in this war of choice, this administration didn't think it was important enough to provide them with the protective armor, that if they had it, they would be alive today. And in this interview, based on this book, the President said his lowest moment was when he was criticized by an American rap artist for his handling of the Katrina disaster. Um, I don't think that anyone buys this. The Iraq war, a vast number of Americans believe that now it was a tragic mistake, and the fact that it was done in a way that it was done, makes it even worse. </b></i><br />
<br />
<b>Well, he seems that he is trying to highlight this Katrina incident, and he admits to some of the mistakes made during his presidency, and this is appearently something that he has kept in his mind. Do you welcome his honesty on this, and why do you think he is bringing this up as his priority?</b><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Answer by Tom Andrews:</span><b style="font-style: italic;"> Well, I think what he is trying to do is to re-habilitate himself. and as we saw in the last election, members of his own political party, ran away from George W. Bush. He has a very low opinion rating, certainly one of the lowest, in fact THE lowest of opinion ratings from Americans of any president in modern American history, and I think he is trying to spin his administration and his legacy, perhaps to get a better judgement from historians </b><i><b>that what the American people are giving him now. But even in those instances in which he admits wrong-doing, let's take Katrina for example, what he admits to doing wrong was not stopping in New Orleans on the flight back from his ranch in Texas from his vacation, on his way to Washington. That's what he thinks is his biggest mistake with respect to Katrina, and then telling the man in charge that he was doing a hell of a job. I mean, this doesn't even begin to recognize the fundamental failure of leadership, of competency, and of ability to set priorities that this administration failed to do in New Orleans, and certainly in Iraq, and to mention only two.</b></i><br />
<br />
<b>Ok, now let's go on to a very sensitive point on the interrogation of terror suspects. Bush says legal advisors told him that simulated drowning was legal, and he believes that it helped prevent terror attacks. And now do you agree that this method can be justified if it helps save lives?</b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Answer by Tom Andrews:</span><b style="font-style: italic;"> No. First of all, it is illegal. You can get an attorney to say anything you want, but the fact of the matter is, it is illegal. Secondly, it violates international law, it violates the Geneva Convention, and thirdly, it puts American soldiers at risk. So when they find themselves, God forgive in enemy's hands, then they are faced with the prospect of the same treatment given to them, that George Bush was authorizing, given to those the United States brought into custody. So whether you look at it from the point of view of international law, or the point of view of the.......</b>(<b>The audio disappears at this point in the video. There were 17 seconds left to the video)</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-iLgsLuFKI">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-iLgsLuFKI</a><br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-92000555290382865782011-02-21T01:05:00.008-06:002011-02-21T01:23:08.659-06:00George W. doesn't mention Scott McClellan in His BookI guess the President had his reasons. In a story that surfaced on January 28th, 2011, George W. purposly left out his former press secretary Scott McClellan from his memoirs called 'Decision Points'. Why so? According to George W. he claims that "He was not a part of a major decision. This is a book about decisions," in an interview that George W. had with CSPAN. But the fact is that he was his Press Secretary from 2003-2006 and he vigorously defended George W. in his decision to fight in Iraq.<br />
Maybe it's because George W. couldn't take punches himself. Just two years after leaving the Administration, Scott McClellan wrote his own memoir called "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Washingtons-Culture-Deception/dp/1586485563"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">What Happened Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception.</span></a>" Now doesn't the title tell all. It is a book which highly criticized how George W. ran his administration. I would imagine that there were not too many kind words in the book.<br />
As proof of this, McClellan just about says that Bush's administration did deceive the American public which led to the invasion of Iraq. He said "his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war."<br />
<br />
Of course you may guess that I will critique these statements made by George W, and right from the start, George W. claims that his book was about decisions. Pardon me for mentioning, but I'm at a loss for words by that statement. What decisions? I read the book from cover to cover, more than once just to make sure I didn't miss any decisions. Yes there were some, but what the book demonstrates is that the President failed to make decisions that would keep terrorism from the United States, and it showed his indecision to act prior to the attack. He beat around the 'BUSH' sort of speaking on many points in his book.<br />
In the first several dozen pages, he creates his character prior and then into the marriage with Laura. He highlights his decision to become an owner of 'the Texas Rangers' baseball team. He explains how while dating Laura that he was frequently 'drunk'. All of these were decisions that he made, but which one of them actually explains what he accomplished during his eight years in office as the 43rd President of the United States?! Give me a break.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b><br />
</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b><i>George!! I would think that Scott McClellan's book would be more down to earth than your own book. I just might get more substance out of his book than yours.</i></b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b><i>There must be a reason why you left Scott McClellan out of your book, other than just because you believed that the three years he served you as press secretary, that he was irrelevant. Maybe you need to be enlightened as to read what the job of Press Secretary does. Is he supposed to make critical decisions that a President should make? Should he advise you on policy, in the United States and abroad? </i></b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b><i><br />
</i></b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"> That is part of your job George W.</span></i></b></span><br />
<br />
So what truly is the job of a Press Secretary of the President of the United States?<br />
<br />
The main job of a Press Secretary is to be a spokesperson for the government administration. The Press Secretary is responsible for collecting information about actions and events within the president's administration and around the world, and interacting with the media, generally in a daily press briefing. The information includes items such as a summary of the President's schedule for the day, whom the president has seen, or had communication and the official position of the administration on the news of the day. He wasn't supposed to make the decisions, but he was to inform the American people of the Presidents actions, issues and policies of the administration. So yes, he didn't make any of the decisions, but he was part of the Bush Administration and you would think that he would have just a little bit of respect for that. Most likely, they parted ways in 2006 because he may have criticized George W. in what he was doing, for example, the way he was handling the war, and how he was promoting terrorism in his own way.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-16420573512172938192011-02-20T17:31:00.000-06:002011-02-20T17:31:59.773-06:00Court papers: 92 interrogation tapes destroyed by CIA (to cover-up torture)<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;"><b>Were there videotapes of terror-suspect interrogations, which could implement George W. Bush for extreme torture to prisoners? The following document claims that there was, as a March 2009 CNN report shows that the CIA must have had something to hide. According to the report below, there were <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">92 videotapes made in 2002</span> of terror-suspect interrogations that were <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">destroyed</span>. They were ordered to be destroyed under the order of Jose Rodrigues, then head of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, with approval from lawyers. </b></div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">March 2, 2009</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;"><b>WASHINGTON (CNN)</b> -- The CIA destroyed 92 videotapes of terror-suspect interrogations, according to a court document filed by the government on Monday. The disclosure marks the first time the specific number of tapes has been made public.</div><div class="cnnStoryPhotoBox" style="clear: left; float: left; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 18px; margin-top: 2px; width: 292px;"><div class="cnnImgChngr" id="cnnImgChngr" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><img alt="A former CIA officer says the destroyed tapes showed harsh interrogations, including the use of waterboarding." border="0" height="219" src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/03/02/cia.tapes.destroyed/art.cia.logo.afp.gi.jpg" style="display: block;" width="292" /><div class="cnnStoryPhotoCaptionBox" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(232, 232, 232); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-color: rgb(232, 232, 232); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1px; border-right-color: rgb(232, 232, 232); border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(232, 232, 232); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><div class="cnn3pxTB9pxLRPad" style="padding-bottom: 3px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; padding-top: 3px;"><div style="color: #666666; font-size: 10px; line-height: 13px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">A former CIA officer says the destroyed tapes showed harsh interrogations, including the use of waterboarding.</div></div></div><div class="cnnWireBoxFooter" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: url(http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BR._bg.gif); background-origin: initial; background-position: 100% 0px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; height: 4px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden;"><img alt="" height="4" src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif" style="display: block;" width="4" /></div></div></div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">The tapes were made in 2002 and showed the interrogations of two suspected al Qaeda leaders, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. According to former CIA officer John Kiriakou, some of the videos showed harsh interrogations, including the use of waterboarding, which is said to simulate drowning and is considered by most people to be a form of torture.</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">Government officials have said the tapes were destroyed in November 2005 at the orders of Jose Rodriguez, then head of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, with the approval of NCS lawyers.</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">The tape destruction is under investigation by John Durham, a federal prosecutor.</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">The disclosure of the number of tapes involved came as part of a federal court proceeding in New York involving an American Civil Liberties Union motion to hold the CIA in contempt of court for destroying the tapes.</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">Durham had requested and received a stay on the ACLU motion while his investigation was under way.</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin wrote in a letter to Judge Alvin Hellerstein that Durham had not requested a continuation of the stay after it expired February 28.</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">"The <a class="cnnInlineTopic" href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Central_Intelligence_Agency" style="color: #004276; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;">CIA</a> can now identify ... 92 videotapes were destroyed," wrote Dassin.</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">He also told the court the CIA is collecting information describing each of the destroyed tapes, as well as written accounts of the tapes and the identities of the people who viewed or possessed the recordings. "The CIA intends to produce all of the information requested to the court and to produce as much information as possible on the public record to the plaintiffs, Dassin wrote.</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">But the <a class="cnnInlineTopic" href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/American_Civil_Liberties_Union" style="color: #004276; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;">ACLU</a>, in a written statement, said the government's letter proves the CIA is in contempt. "The large number of videotapes confirms the agency engaged in a systemic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order."</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">CIA spokesman George Little said the agency has cooperated with the Justice Department investigation.</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">"If anyone thinks it's agency policy to impede the enforcement of American law, they simply don't know the facts," he said in response to the ACLU.</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">Then-CIA Director Mike Hayden wrote in a December 2007 memo to staff that the tapes were made as "an internal check" on the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques and the decision to destroy them was made "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquires."</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">Hayden said there were detailed written notes on the interrogations.</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">The prosecutor's spokesman would not comment on the status of Durham's criminal investigation into the tape destruction.</div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;"><div class="cnnInline" style="display: inline; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 12px;">"That investigation is ongoing so we are not commenting on any specific aspects of it," spokesman Tom Carson said.</div></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-38149381017334897502011-02-19T13:21:00.000-06:002011-02-19T13:21:01.767-06:00U.S. HAD "STEADY STREAM" OF PRE-9/11 WARNINGS<div style="color: #222222;">The following is an update presented on Sept 18, 2001, a year after the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City.</div><div style="color: #222222;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: #222222;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Online News Hour Update</span></div><div style="color: #222222;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #222222;"><span>Sept. 18, 2002, 2:15pm EDT</span><b><br />
</b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br />
</b></span></div><div style="color: #222222;"><b>U.S. intelligence agencies provided "a modest, but relatively steady stream" of intelligence information that terrorist attacks inside the country were a possibility, a congressional investigator told lawmakers Wednesday.</b></div><div style="color: #222222;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="color: #222222;"><b></b></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"><b>Eleanor Hill, staff director for the joint House-Senate inquiry into alleged intelligence failures ahead of the Sept. 11 attacks, released a 30-page statement Wednesday that found information on possible terrorist strikes continued to filter through the nation's intelligence system in the months directly before the attacks.</b></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">Some of that information specifically mentioned potential attacks by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network -- the group the U.S. blames for the Sept. 11 strikes that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania.</span><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">But, Hill's statement said, details were spotty and sources were often questionable.</span><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">"They generally did not contain specific information as to where, when and how a terrorist attack might occur and generally are not corroborated by further information," Hill's statement said.</span><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">Hill's report details a July 2001 briefing for senior government officials that said a review of five months of intelligence information indicated </span>"that [Bin Laden] will launch a significant attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks... The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests."<div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div>"Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning," it said.<div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">Hill's report also said the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, reported at least 33 communications between May and July 2001 suggesting a </span>"possible, imminent terrorist attack."<div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">Such intelligence information dated back as far as 1998, Hill's report said, citing intelligence information in the fall of 1998 saying bin Laden's </span>"next operation could possibly involve flying an aircraft loaded with explosives into a U.S. airport and detonating it"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"> and a separate dispatch warned of a bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York City and Washington, D.C. areas.</span><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">A joint Congressional hearing on the possible intelligence failures heard testimony Tuesday from members of Sept. 11 victims' groups urging the investigation into what the government knew before the attacks continue.</span><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">"Our intelligence agencies suffered an utter collapse in their duties and responsibilities leading up to and on September 11th," Kristen Breitweiser, founder of the September 11th Advocates group told the committee. "And it goes without saying that the examination of the intelligence agencies by this committee does not detract, discount or dismantle the need for a more thorough examination of all of these other culpable parties."</span><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the investigation was a "search for the truth, not to point fingers or to pin blame."</span><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">But Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said he thought the Sept. 11 attacks indicated a gap in U.S. intelligence efforts.</span><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"></div>"We know now that our inability to detect and prevent the Sept. 11 attacks was an intelligence failure of unprecedented magnitude," he said. "Some people who couldn't seem to utter the words 'intelligence failure' are now convinced of it."</b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-15765241495407458192011-02-19T12:55:00.004-06:002011-02-19T13:02:04.961-06:00Book review: 'Decision Points' by George W. Bush<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
<br />
The following is an excerpt from an article on November 10, 2010 Los Angeles Times along with my comments (<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b>in red</b></span>) on the article as stated by George W.<br />
The former president delivers an unexpectedly engrossing rehash of what he considers to be the pivotal moments of his eight years in office.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<img alt="George W. Bush" height="281" src="http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-11/57495750.jpg" width="400" /><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11px;">Former U.S. President George W. Bush waves while signing copies of his</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11px;">new memoir "Decision Points" at </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11px;">Borders Books on November 9, 2010 in</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11px;">Dallas, Texas.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11px;"><span class="credit" style="font-weight: normal !important;">(<span class="photographer">Tom Pennington / Getty Images</span> /<span class="dateMonth">November </span><span class="dateDay">9</span><span class="dateYear">, 2010</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11px;">)</span><br />
<br />
<div class="date" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 3px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span></div><div class="date" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 3px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Nearly midway through "Decision Points," Bush writes that, "History can debate the decisions I made, the policies I chose, and the tools I left behind. But there can be no debate about one fact: After the nightmare of September 11, America went seven and a half years without another successful terrorist attack on our soil. If I had to summarize my most meaningful accomplishment as president in one sentence, that would be it."</span><br />
<div style="color: #930000; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11px; font-style: italic;"><span class="dateString" style="display: inline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>The following is a comment by the Editor 'Bush Decision Points' regarding Bush's statement above...</b></span><br />
<div style="color: #930000; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11px; font-style: italic;"><span class="dateString" style="display: inline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span></span></div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="display: inline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">No doubt that history will debate the decisions George W. has made. Unfortunately for him, history will not be so kind. As George W. states, the "most meaningful accomplishment as president in one sentence, that would be it". He is referring to the 7 1/2 years without another successful terrorist attack. Pardon me George W. but most presidents in history have prevented terrorist attacks. Some were not so lucky, and neither were you. The only difference here is that because of your failure to act, the terrorists had the opportunity to strike. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Mr. George W. you knew about the possibility of an attack</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="display: inline;"><span class="dateString"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">. </span></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
<br />
Here is the proof, and I plan to publish articles to prove it..</span></b><br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b>Bush Knew AND Bush lied before and after 9/11: White House quietly acknowledged that the threats are not urgent and that they are partly motivated by political objectives. Hosni Mubarek, the recently deposed leader of Egypt also warned Bush of an imminent attack just 12 days before Sept. 11, 2001. We now know that Bush and his supporters knew that the terrorist attack was coming, and we're learning more every day about just how much they really knew. Bush's people spent quite a bit of time trying to blame the FBI, CIA, and others for either massive intelligence failures, or a failure to more fully inform Bush, or both. Additionally, Cheney advised Bush not to hand over any of the intelligence briefings prior to September 11, 2001, he has also refused to cooperate with the idea of convening an independent commission to investigate those terrible events.</b></span> </span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
<br />
Bush is singularly unapologetic and clear about the fact that he personally ordered the torture of key Al Qaeda members, who <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/espionage-intelligence/cia-ORGOV000009.topic">CIA</a> interrogators were convinced held information of other planned terrorist attacks. (Bush also continues to insist that water-boarding is not torture.) When then-CIA Director George Tenet asked whether he had permission to water-board Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, Bush replied, "Damn right." Bush writes that about 100 "terrorists" were placed in the CIA interrogation program and that about a third "were questioned using enhanced interrogation"; three were water-boarded. All, according to Bush, gave up usable intelligence that thwarted other acts of terrorism. Other reports have contradicted that assertion, but Bush is firm on the point.</span><br />
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>The following is a comment by the Editor 'Bush Decision Points' regarding Bush's statement above...</b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><br />
</b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">T<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b>he fact that George W. did personally order the torture of key Al Qaeda members, who CIA interrogators were convinced held information of other planned terrorist attacks, it another reason why George W's. torture methods should be used on him, so that America can find out exactly what he knew. Of course, Barack Obama has more common sense, and torture and water-boarding will not be used on Bush. Still, he did know about the possible attacks but will not admit to it, rather he unquestionably claims credit for no other future attacks. He says that is his greatest accomplishment. All of his failures that he cannot hide could have all been accomplishments, for example, helping the people of New Orleans overcome the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, instead of not doing much to help the flooded city. I can go on and on here. </b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
Similarly, he writes that his stomach still churns over the fact that he and the rest of the country were misled by faulty intelligence concerning <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/arts-culture/saddam-hussein-PEHST000983.topic">Saddam Hussein</a>'s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, but that the nation and world still are better off with the Iraqi dictator deposed. His only real regret, in fact, is that he failed to act more rapidly and decisively when <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/disasters-accidents/meteorological-disasters/hurricanes/hurricane-katrina-%282005%29-EVHST0000123.topic">Hurricane Katrina</a> devastated New Orleans.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>The following is a comment by the Editor 'Bush Decision Points' regarding Bush's statement above...</b></span></span></div><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><br />
</b></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b>George W. feels he was misled, and for this I'll give him the 'shadow of a doubt'. But I truly believe that George W. had more motives and in a sense, allowed the 911 attacks to happen because then he wanted to show the country he could take control and muster up an offensive against Saddam Hussein. George W. and the CIA definitely knew that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, but he needed a reason to retaliate against a man who caused his father so many problems concerning Kuwait, that he decided to take the matter up under his watch and finish what his father started. What a prime opportune time to get the country to back you in an attack after the event of 911. President George W. used the American people. </b></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b>George W. feels that because the Iraqi dictator is gone, the nation and the world is better off today. That may be the case, but did that give him the right to carry on what his father George H.W. started, and that was to continue to kill thousands of Iraqi citizens to get to one man?! To be a commander and chief with those notions, it's almost hard to believe that he didn't start a world war. Tensions in the Middle East during his Presidency were at a 'boiling point', and it wouldn't have taken much to get countries to retaliate against the United States. As far as hurricane Katrina goes, at least he does admit fault for not acting rapidly and decisively. The only problem with that statement is that during his whole 8 years as president, he failed to act rapidly and decisively on most every domestic front, because he was too busy concentrating on his self made war in Iraq and Afghanistan. </b></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><br />
</b></span></span></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-54622257100844694582011-02-15T22:44:00.001-06:002011-02-16T14:28:07.530-06:00Charge George W. Bush with war crimes?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Utkal, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"></span><br />
<div class="cnnByline" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br />
</div><div class="cnn_strytmstmp" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 11px/14px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 1px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwr4ReyGrNb2ZkIjPGL8-FZ2t-IzaDZq4E_cHrjc2qJXhJHS6fV042MWVTn9uuklhP6jQL2G4CJGV_RvY4uBj-_e12yNMqoHezfUfH187lLncr7Jux3Tkrj-Hnbllt5mR3sVuFob0u294/s1600/tzleft.david.frum.ckennedy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwr4ReyGrNb2ZkIjPGL8-FZ2t-IzaDZq4E_cHrjc2qJXhJHS6fV042MWVTn9uuklhP6jQL2G4CJGV_RvY4uBj-_e12yNMqoHezfUfH187lLncr7Jux3Tkrj-Hnbllt5mR3sVuFob0u294/s1600/tzleft.david.frum.ckennedy.jpg" /></a></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Utkal, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"></span><br />
<div class="cnn_strylftcntnt" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; clear: left; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline;"></div><div class="cnnEditorialNote" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><em style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-style: italic; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><b style="margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">Editor's note:</b> David Frum writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002, he is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again," and is the editor of <a href="http://www.frumforum.com/" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="new">FrumForum</a>.</em></div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><b style="margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">Washington (CNN)</b> -- Charge George W. Bush with war crimes?</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Some Bush critics have for years demanded a prosecution of the former president. They had hoped that the incoming Obama administration would put Bush on trial. No luck.</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Now they have changed their focus, filing actions in foreign courts. Last week, these Bush opponents <a href="http://fidh.org/IMG/pdf/FINAL_7_Feb_BUSH_INDICTMENT.pdf" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="new">filed an action</a> in Switzerland in advance of a Bush appearance at a charity fundraiser in Geneva.</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Shortly after the filing, the Bush appearance <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-cancels-swiss-trip-rights-activists-vow/story?id=12857195" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="new">was canceled</a>. Bush is in no danger of going to a Swiss jail, obviously. But it's important that all Americans understand: This use of law as a weapon of politics is an assault upon the basic norms of American constitutional democracy.</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American presidents are subject to law, of course: American law.</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">In the case of torture -- the offense of which Bush's critics accuse the president -- the relevant law is the War Crimes Act of 1996, which provides penalties up to the death penalty for abuse of military detainees.</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">This law was adopted in conformity with U.S. obligations under the 1986 <a href="http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="new">Convention Against Torture</a>, which called upon all signatory states to "ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law." (It's often said that the convention "bans" torture, but that is not correct: It creates an obligation on member states to ban torture by their own nationals.)</div><div class="cnn_strylftcntnt" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; clear: left; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="cnn_strylctcntr cnn_strylctcquote" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #666666; font: bold 24px/27px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 244px;"><div class="cnn_strylctcqcntr" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 24px; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 20px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 27px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><div style="background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: url(http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/3.0/mosaic/60x50_quote_marks.gif); background-origin: initial; background-position: 100% 100%; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 24px; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 20px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">This use of law as a weapon of politics is an assault upon the basic norms of American constitutional democracy.<br />
<span style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #999999; display: block; font-family: arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 8px; vertical-align: baseline;">--David Frum</span></div></div></div></div><div class="cnn_strylftcntnt" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; clear: left; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="cnn_strylctcntr cnn_strylctcqrelt" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 166px;"><div class="cnn_divline" style="background-color: black; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; height: 3px; margin: 0px 0px 17px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><b style="margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">RELATED TOPICS</b></div><ul class="cnn_bulletbin" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; list-style-type: none; margin: 6px 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><li style="background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: 0px 5px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #333333; font: 11px/14px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/George_W_Bush" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11px; margin: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">George W. Bush</a></li>
<li style="background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: 0px 5px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #333333; font: 11px/14px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Barack_Obama" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11px; margin: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Barack Obama</a></li>
<li style="background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: 0px 5px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #333333; font: 11px/14px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Torture" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11px; margin: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Torture</a></li>
<li style="background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: 0px 5px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #333333; font: 11px/14px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Switzerland" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11px; margin: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Switzerland</a></li>
<li style="background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: 0px 5px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #333333; font: 11px/14px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Central_Intelligence_Agency" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11px; margin: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Central Intelligence Agency</a></li>
</ul></div></div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">In 2001, Bush asked government lawyers: What exactly constitutes "torture" under U.S. law? Is isolation torture? Sleep deprivation? What about putting an insect in the cell of a prisoner frightened of insects? How about waterboarding?</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Bush asked those questions precisely because he wanted to comply with the law. He wanted to go up to the limit of the law, but not beyond. That's why he wished to know where the limits were found.</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The legal answers Bush got -- and the methods his administration used -- have divided Americans for almost a decade. Republicans lost the 2008 election, and the Obama administration changed policy. Which is how we decide policy questions in the United States: by elections and alterations of government.</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">When it entered office, the Obama administration considered prosecuting the CIA officers who had done the interrogations. It seems to have considered legal action against higher-ranking officials, too. The Obama administration rejected both options.</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">So when people <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/06/bush-trip-to-switzerland-canceled-amid-threatened-legal-action/?iref=allsearch" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">file actions in Switzerland</a> against Bush, it's not merely the former president they are targeting. They are targeting the entire American legal system. They are demanding that Switzerland override an American decision about which Americans should be prosecuted for violating an American law.</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">They want Switzerland to say the following:</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">"We disagree with your attorney general's interpretation of your War Crimes Act. We are therefore arresting you in Switzerland for acts you ordered in the United States against armed military enemies of the United States.</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">"We will put you on trial in Switzerland, where none of the protections of the U.S. Constitution apply. Instead, you will be tried according to the rules of Swiss law -- even though you had no vote in the making of that law and have no legal representation in the Swiss government.</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">"Admittedly, none of the acts here have any legal connection to Switzerland at all. None of the people involved are Swiss, neither the alleged torturers nor the alleged torturees. Our involvement is purely coincidental; this action could just as easily have been brought in Luxembourg or Uruguay."</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">In other words, what the people bringing actions against Bush are calling for is a new kind of global legal regime in which law is severed from political representation. Call it human rights without democracy.</div><div class="cnnInline" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.</i></div></div><div class="cnn_strytmstmp" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 11px/14px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 1px; vertical-align: baseline;"><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Utkal, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"></span></i></b></span></div><div class="cnnEditorialNote" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font: 14px/19px arial; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 19px; padding-left: 186px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Utkal, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><b><i><br />
</i></b></span></span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858948522779668968.post-44497620708434208622011-02-15T00:03:00.021-06:002011-02-15T01:27:50.892-06:00Ron Paul Enters Evidence of Bush War Crimes in a Congressional Record on January 11, 2011<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #111111; font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 400; line-height: 18px;">In a classified document, there is proof that the United States approved of Saddam </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #111111; font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 18px;">Hussein's</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #111111; font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 400; line-height: 18px;"> Kuwait Invasion. Then in an effort to discredit </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #111111; font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 18px;">Saddam</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #111111; font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 400; line-height: 18px;"> Hussein, President George H.W. Bush orders an invasion of Iraq which triggered hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent civilians caught in the fire and bombings by the United States of various facilities in Iraq. </span></span></i></span><br />
<h1 style="color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">(The intention of this blog was not to discredit the service of President George H.W. Bush, the senior President, but to specifically highlight issues centered about George W. Bush. If incidents stated by Congressman Ron Paul on January 11, 2011 are true, then President George H.W. Bush led the way to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan )</span></h1><div style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">But with the evidence below, it is clear that George W. Bush continued with what his father George H.W. Bush started, which was so far to date a '20-year war' as outlined by Congressman Ron Paul. Immediately below, is the transcript of Ron Paul, as he recently addressed the Senate in a 5-minute time frame. Because of the time restraint, he was unable to deliver the 'meat and potatoes' of his speech, which contains damaging evidence towards George H.W. Bush. (The complete transcript of his speech, including what he did not have time to say is included in the transcript, along with George H.W.Bush's announcement to invade Iraq in 1991.</span></span></span></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span></div><h1 style="color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL: Classified Cable Proves US Ok’d Saddam’s Kuwait Invasion</span></h1><div class="date" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="time" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: url(http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/themes/news_10/images/icon_time.gif); background-origin: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 18px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">January 31, 2011</span> posted by <a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/gordonduff/" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;" title="Posts by Gordon Duff">Gordon Duff</a> · </span></div></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ScreenHunter_14-Jan.-31-19.37-640x545.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><img border="0" height="340" src="http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ScreenHunter_14-Jan.-31-19.37-640x545.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">RON PAUL</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><h1 style="color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman'; font-weight: 400; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">HOW THE 20-YEAR WAR STARTED</span></h1><h3 style="color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman'; font-weight: 400; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><em>ANOTHER <strong>“WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY”</strong></em><em>PROVEN TRUE….</em></span></h3><div style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span style="color: #993300;"><strong><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Editor’s note: Though Ron Paul totally sidesteps his previous statements on 9/11 and the role of Israel and its friends in both conflicts, choosing instead to push blame on to the Republican party and a cabal of oil companies, there are telling facts to be gleaned from the Wikileak cable meant to discredit the United States. When a reasonable and acute thinker quickly comes to the conclusion that the influence of Israel is far greater in Washington than any oil company and the rationale for targeting Iraq served only the strategic interests of Israeli expansionism and was not, in any way, related to accessing oil openly available on the world market, we can escape the artifices of Mr. Assange and his handlers along with the “soft soap” of Ron Paul and his “kow-tow” to AIPAC.”</span></strong></span></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">[Congressional Record: January 26, 2011 (House)] [Page H503]</span></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">“The SPEAKER pro tempore.</span></strong></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.</span></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><strong>Mr. PAUL.</strong> Mr. Speaker, how did the 20-year war get started?</span></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><strong>It had been long assumed that the United States Government, shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, gave Saddam Hussein a green light to attack.</strong> A State Department cable recently published by WikiLeaks confirmed that U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie did indeed have a conversation with Saddam Hussein one week prior to Iraq’s August 1, 1990, invasion of Kuwait.</span></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Amazingly, the released cable was entitled,</span></div><blockquote style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #f4f4f4; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1px; border-right-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 25px; margin-right: 25px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 20px; padding-top: 10px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">“Saddam’s Message of Friendship to President Bush.” (published below)</span></em></strong></div></blockquote><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">In it, Ambassador Glaspie affirmed to Saddam that “the President had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq.” As Saddam Hussein outlined Iraq’s ongoing border dispute with Kuwait, Ambassador Glaspie was quite clear that, “we took no position on these Arab affairs.”</span></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">There would have been no reason for Saddam Hussein not to take this assurance at face value. The U.S. was quite supportive of his invasion and war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s. With this approval from the U.S. Government, it wasn’t surprising that the invasion occurred. <b>The shock and surprise was how quickly the tables were turned and our friend, Saddam Hussein, all of a sudden became Hitler personified.</b></span></div><div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The document was classified, supposedly to protect national security, yet this information in no way jeopardized our security. Instead, it served to keep the truth from the American people about an event leading up to our initial military involvement in Iraq and the region that continues to today.</span></b></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">{time} 1440</span></div><div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The secrecy of the memo was designed to hide the truth from the American people and keep our government from being embarrassed. This was the initial event that had led to so much death and destruction–not to mention the financial costs–these past 20 years.</span></strong></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Our response and persistent militarism toward Iraq was directly related to 9/11, as our presence on the Arabian Peninsula–and in particular Saudi Arabia–was listed by al Qaeda as a major grievance that outraged the radicals (sic) who carried out the heinous attacks against New York and Washington on that fateful day.</span></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Today, the conflict has spread through the Middle East and Central Asia with no end in sight.</span></div><div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><b>The reason this information is so important is that if Congress and the American people had known about this green light incident 20 years ago, they would have been a lot more reluctant to give a green light to our government to pursue the current war–a war that is ongoing and expanding to this very day.</b></span></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The tough question that remains is was this done deliberately to create the justification to redesign the Middle East, as many neo- conservatives desired, and to secure oil supplies for the West; or was it just a diplomatic blunder followed up by many more strategic military blunders? Regardless, we have blundered into a war that no one seems willing to end.</span></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Julian Assange, the publisher of the WikiLeaks memo, is now considered an enemy of the state. Politicians are calling for drastic punishment and even assassination; and, sadly, the majority of the American people seem to support such moves.</span></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But why should we so fear the truth? Why should our government’s lies and mistakes be hidden from the American people in the name of patriotism? Once it becomes acceptable to equate truth with treason, we can no longer call ourselves a free society.”</span></div><div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><b>THE FOLLOWING WAS LEFT OUT OF HIS SPEECH, BECAUSE RON PAUL ONLY HAD 5 MINUTES TO SPEAK, AND RAN OUT OF TIME....</b></span></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span></span></b></div><div style="color: #343434; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Historian <a href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Iraq_CIAHits.html" style="color: #0066cc; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Mark Zepezauer</a> notes that the equipment to slant drill Iraq’s oil illegally was bought from National Security Council chief Brent Scowcroft’s old company. Kuwait was pumping out around $14-billion worth of oil from beneath Iraqi territory. “Even the territory they were drilling from had originally been Iraq’s. Slant-drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas, and it’s certainly enough to start a war in the Mideast,” writes Zepezauer.</span></b></div><div style="color: #343434; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Iraq invaded Kuwait after it broke off negotiations.</span></b></div><div style="color: #343434; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Bush and the United Nations ordered the systematic destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq on January 16, 1991, at 6:30 p.m. EST.</span></b></div><div style="color: #343434; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Bush ordered 110,000 air sorties against Iraq, dropping 88,000 tons of bombs, nearly seven times the equivalent of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, according to a report sent to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal.</span></b></div><div style="color: #343434; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">“The intention and effort of the bombing of civilian life and facilities was to systematically destroy Iraq’s infrastructure leaving it in a preindustrial condition. Iraq’s civilian population was dependent on industrial capacities,” <a href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/Charges-WC.html" style="color: #0066cc; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ramsey Clarke</a> and others wrote in 1992. “The U.S. assault left Iraq in a near apocalyptic condition as reported by the first United Nations observers after the war.”</span></b></div><div style="color: #343434; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The invasion, enforced blockade of Iraq and the international sanctions which decimated the war-ravaged country for over a decade prepared the people of Iraq for the transformation their modern state into a hellhole now wracked by sectarian violence.</span></b></div><div style="color: #343434; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Over <a href="http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm" style="color: #0066cc; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">500,000 people were slaughtered</a> in Bush’s war. Between 1991 and 1998, there were 500,000 deaths among Iraqi children under five years of age due to brutal sanctions imposed by the United States and the United Nations. “If you include adults, the figure is now almost certainly well over a million,” <a href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pilger_John/Paying_Price_TNROTW.html" style="color: #0066cc; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Hans Von Sponeck</a> said. Sponeck was a UN Assistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq.</span></b></div><div style="color: #343434; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span></b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #343434;">Bush’s son re-invaded Iraq under completely bogus circumstances. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">George Bush Junior killed or contributed to the death of more than 1.4 million human beings, according to</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #343434;"> </span><a href="http://sites.google.com/site/iraqiholocaustiraqigenocide/just-foreign-policy" style="color: #0066cc; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Just Foreign Policy</a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #343434;">. “Iraq deaths. The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003,” they write.</span></span></b></div><blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 5px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 30px; margin-top: 15px; padding-left: 20px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><em>The Lancet</em>, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of <em>July 2006</em>.</span> Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The death counter provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count… The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US-led invasion.</span> This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it.</span></b></div></blockquote><br />
<div style="color: #343434; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">And yet Bush and his son are considered by the establishment and millions of Americans to be esteemed elder statesmen, not war criminals.</span></b></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre;">O 251246Z JUL 90</span><br />
<div><div><pre style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">FM AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4627
INFO AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY CAIRO IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY KUWAIT IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY RIYADH IMMEDIATE
ARABLEAGUE COLLECTIVE</pre><pre style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 05 BAGHDAD 04237
E.O. 12356: DECL:OADR
TAGS: <a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/tag/MOPS_0.html" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">MOPS</a> <a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/tag/PREL_0.html" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">PREL</a> <a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/tag/US_0.html" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">US</a> <a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/tag/KU_0.html" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">KU</a> <a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/tag/IZ_0.html" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">IZ</a>
SUBJECT: SADDAM'S MESSAGE OF FRIENDSHIP TO PRESIDENT BUSH
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par1" id="par1" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>1. SECRET - ENTIRE TEXT.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par2" id="par2" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>2. SUMMARY: SADDAM TOLD THE AMBASSADOR JULY 25
THAT MUBARAK HAS ARRANGED FOR KUWAITI AND IRAQI
DELEGATIONS TO MEET IN RIYADH, AND THEN ON
JULY 28, 29 OR 30, THE KUWAITI CROWN PRINCE WILL
COME TO BAGHDAD FOR SERIOUS NEGOTIATIONS. "NOTHING
WILL HAPPEN" BEFORE THEN, SADDAM HAD PROMISED
MUBARAK.
--SADDAM WISHED TO CONVEY AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO
PRESIDENT BUSH: IRAQ WANTS FRIENDSHIP, BUT DOES
THE USG? IRAQ SUFFERED 100,000'S OF CASUALTIES
AND IS NOW SO POOR THAT WAR ORPHAN PENSIONS WILL
SOON BE CUT; YET RICH KUWAIT WILL NOT EVEN ACCEPT
OPEC DISCIPLINE. IRAQ IS SICK OF WAR, BUT KUWAIT
HAS IGNORED DIPLOMACY. USG MANEUVERS WITH THE UAE
WILL ENCOURAGE THE UAE AND KUWAIT TO IGNORE
CONVENTIONAL DIPLOMACY. IF IRAQ IS PUBLICLY
HUMILIATED BY THE USG, IT WILL HAVE NO CHOICE
BUT TO "RESPOND," HOWEVER ILLOGICAL AND SELF
DESTRUCTIVE THAT WOULD PROVE.
--ALTHOUGH NOT QUITE EXPLICIT, SADDAM'S MESSAGE
TO US SEEMED TO BE THAT HE WILL MAKE A MAJOR PUSH
TO COOPERATE WITH MUBARAK'S DIPLOMACY, BUT WE MUST
TRY TO UNDERSTAND KUWAITI/UAE "SELFISHNESS" IS
UNBEARABLE. AMBASSADOR MADE CLEAR THAT WE CAN
NEVER EXCUSE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BY OTHER THAN
PEACEFUL MEANS. END SUMMARY.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par3" id="par3" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>3. AMBASSADOR WAS SUMMONED BY PRESIDENT
SADDAM HUSAYN AT NOON JULY 25. ALSO PRESENT
WERE FONMIN AZIZ, THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE
DIRECTOR, TWO NOTETAKERS, AND THE IRAQI
INTERPRETER.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par4" id="par4" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>4. SADDAM, WHOSE MANNER WAS CORDIAL,
REASONABLE AND EVEN WARM THROUGHOUT THE ENSUING
TWO HOURS, SAID HE WISHED THE AMBASSADOR TO
CONVEY A MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT BUSH. SADDAM
THEN RECALLED IN DETAIL THE HISTORY OF IRAQ'S
DECISION TO REESTABLISH DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
AND ITS POSTPONING IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT
DECISION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR, RATHER THAN BE
THOUGHT WEAK AND NEEDY. HE THEN SPOKE ABOUT THE
MANY "BLOWS" OUR RELATIONS HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO
SINCE 1984, CHIEF AMONG THEM IRANGATE. IT WAS
AFTER THE FAW VICTORY, SADDAM SAID, THAT IRAQI
MISAPPREHENSIONS ABOUT USG PURPOSES BEGAN TO
SURFACE AGAIN, I.E., SUSPICIONS THAT THE U.S. WAS
NOT HAPPY TO SEE THE WAR END.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par5" id="par5" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>5. PICKING HIS WORDS WITH CARE, SADDAM SAID
THAT THERE ARE "SOME CIRCLES" IN THE USG,
INCLUDING IN CIA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT,
BUT EMPHATICALLY EXCLUDING THE PRESIDENT AND
SECRETARY BAKER, WHO ARE NOT FRIENDLY TOWARD
IRAQ-U.S. RELATIONS. HE THEN LISTED WHAT HE
SEEMED TO REGARD AS FACTS TO SUPPORT THIS
CONCLUSION: "SOME CIRCLES ARE GATHERING
INFORMATION ON WHO MIGHT BE SADDAM HUSAYN'S
SUCCESSOR;" THEY KEPT UP CONTACTS IN THE GULF
WARNING AGAINST IRAQ; THEY WORKED TO ENSURE
NO HELP WOULD GO TO IRAQ (READ EXIM AND CCC).
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par6" id="par6" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>6. IRAQ, THE PRESIDENT STRESSED, IS IN SERIOUS
FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, WITH 40 BILLION USD DEBTS.
IRAQ, WHOSE VICTORY IN THE WAR AGAINST IRAN
MADE AN HISTORIC DIFFERENCE TO THE ARAB WORLD
AND THE WEST, NEEDS A MARSHALL PLAN. BUT "YOU
WANT THE OIL PRICE DOWN," SADDAM CHARGED.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par7" id="par7" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>7. RESUMING HIS LIST OF GRIEVANCES WHICH HE
BELIEVED WERE ALL INSPIRED BY
"SOME CIRCLES" IN THE USG, HE RECALLED THE
"USIA CAMPAIGN" AGAINST HIMSELF, AND THE
GENERAL MEDIA ASSAULT ON IRAQ AND ITS PRESIDENT.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par8" id="par8" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>8. DESPITE ALL THESE BLOWS, SADDAM SAID, AND
ALTHOUGH "WE WERE SOMEWHAT ANNOYED," WE STILL
HOPED THAT WE COULD DEVELOP A GOOD RELATIONSHIP.
BUT THOSE WHO FORCE OIL PRICES DOWN ARE ENGAGING
IN ECONOMIC WARFARE AND IRAQ CANNOT ACCEPT SUCH
A TRESPASS ON ITS DIGNITY AND PROSPERITY.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par9" id="par9" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>9. THE SPEARHEADS (FOR THE USG) HAVE BEEN KUWAIT
AND THE UAE, SADDAM SAID. SADDAM SAID CAREFULLY
THAT JUST AS IRAQ WILL NOT THREATEN OTHERS, IT
WILL ACCEPT NO THREAT AGAINST ITSELF. "WE HOPE
THE USG WILL NOT MISUNDERSTAND:" IRAQ ACCEPTS,
AS THE STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN SAID, THAT ANY
COUNTRY MAY CHOOSE ITS FRIENDS. BUT THE USG KNOWS
THAT IT WAS IRAQ, NOT THE USG, WHICH DECISIVELY
PROTECTED THOSE USG FRIENDS DURING THE WAR--AND THAT
IS UNDERSTANDABLE SINCE PUBLIC OPINION IN THE USG,
TO SAY NOTHING OF GEOGRAPHY, WOULD HAVE MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AMERICANS TO ACCEPT 10,000 DEAD
IN A SINGLE BATTLE, AS IRAQ DID.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par10" id="par10" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>10. SADDAM ASKED WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE USG
TO ANNOUNCE IT IS COMMITTED TO THE DEFENSE OF
ITS FRIENDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY.
ANSWERING HIS OWN QUESTION, HE SAID THAT TO IRAQ
IT MEANS FLAGRANT BIAS AGAINST THE GOI.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par11" id="par11" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>11. COMING TO ONE OF HIS MAIN POINTS, SADDAM
ARGUED THAT USG MANEUVERS WITH THE UAE AND KUWAIT (SIC)
ENCOURAGED THEM IN THEIR UNGENEROUS POLICIES. THE
IRAQI RIGHTS, SADDAM EMPHASIZED, WILL BE RESTORED
ONE BY ONE, THOUGH IT MAY TAKE A MONTH OR MUCH
MORE THAN A YEAR. IRAQ HOPES THE USG WILL BE
IN HARMONY WITH ALL THE PARTIES TO THIS DISPUTE.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par12" id="par12" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>12. SADDAM SAID HE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE USG IS
DETERMINED TO KEEP THE OIL FLOWING AND TO
MAINTAIN ITS FRIENDSHIPS IN THE GULF. WHAT HE
CANNOT UNDERSTAND IS WHY WE ENCOURAGE THOSE WHO
ARE DAMAGING IRAQ, WHICH IS WHAT OUR GULF MANEUVERS
WILL DO.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par13" id="par13" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>13. SADDAM SAID HE FULLY BELIEVES THE USG WANTS
PEACE, AND THAT IS GOOD. BUT DO NOT, HE ASKED,
USE METHODS WHICH YOU SAY YOU DO NOT LIKE,
METHODS LIKE ARM-TWISTING-
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par14" id="par14" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>14. AT THIS POINT SADDAM SPOKE AT LENGTH ABOUT
PRIDE OF IRAQIS, WHO BELIEVE IN "LIBERTY OR DEATH."
IRAQ WILL HAVE TO RESPOND IF THE U.S. USES THESE
METHODS. IRAQ KNOWS THE USG CAN SEND PLANES AND
ROCKETS AND HURT IRAQ DEEPLY. SADDAM ASKS THAT
THE USG NOT FORCE IRAQ TO THE POINT OF HUMILIATION
AT WHICH LOGIC MUST BE DISREGARDED. IRAQ DOES NOT
CONSIDER THE U.S. AN ENEMY AND HAS TRIED TO BE
FRIENDS.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par15" id="par15" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>15. AS FOR THE INTRA-ARAB DISPUTES, SADDAM SAID
HE IS NOT ASKING THE USG TO TAKE UP ANY PARTICULAR
ROLE SINCE THE SOLUTIONS MUST COME THROUGH ARAB
AND BILATERAL DIPLOMACY.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par16" id="par16" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>16. RETURNING TO HIS THEME THAT IRAQ WANTS
DIGNITY AND FREEDOM AS WELL AS FRIENDSHIP WITH THE
U.S., HE CHARGED THAT IN THE LAST YEAR THERE WERE
MANY OFFICIAL STATEMENTS WHICH MADE IT SEEM THAT
THE U.S. DOES NOT WANT TO RECIPROCATE. HOW, FOR
EXAMPLE, SADDAM ASKED,CAN WE INTERPRET THE
INVITATION FOR ARENS TO VISIT AT A TIME OF CRISIS
IN THE GULF? WHY DID THE U.S- DEFENSE MINISTER
MAKE "INFLAMMATORY" STATEMENTS?
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par17" id="par17" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>17. SADDAM SAID THAT THE IRAQIS KNOW WHAT
WAR IS, WANT NO MORE OF IT--"DO NOT PUSH US TO IT;
DO NOT MAKE IT THE ONLY OPTION LEFT WITH WHICH WE
CAN PROTECT OUR DIGNITY."
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par18" id="par18" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>18. PRESIDENT BUSH, SADDAM SAID, HAS MADE NO MISTAKE
IN HIS PRESIDENCY VIS-A-VIS THE ARABS. THE DECISION
ON THE PLO DIALOGUE WAS "MISTAKEN," BUT IT WAS
TAKEN UNDER "ZIONIST PRESSURE" AND, SADDAM SAID, IS
PERHAPS A CLEVER TACTIC TO ABSORB THAT PRESSURE.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par19" id="par19" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>19. AFTER A SHORT DIVERSION ON THE NEED FOR THE
U.S. TO CONSIDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF 200,000
ARABS WITH THE SAME VIGOR AND INTEREST AS THE HUMAN
RIGHTS OF THE ISRAELIS, SADDAM CONCLUDED BY
RESTATING THAT IRAQ WANTS AMERICAN FRIENDSHIP
"ALTHOUGH WE WILL NOT PANT FOR IT, WE WILL DO OUR
PART AS FRIENDS."
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par20" id="par20" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>20. SADDAM THEN OFFERED AN ANECDOTE TO ILLUSTRATE
HIS POINT. HE HAD TOLD THE IRAQI KURDISH LEADER
IN 1974 THAT HE WAS PREPARED TO GIVE UP HALF OF
THE SHATT AL-ARAB TO IRAN TO OBTAIN ALL OF A
PROSPEROUS IRAQ. THE KURD HAD BET THAT SADDAM WOULD
NOT GIVE HALF THE SHATT--THE KURD WAS WRONG. EVEN
NOW, THE ONLY REAL ISSUE WITH IRAN IS THE SHATT, AND
IF GIVING AWAY HALF OF THE WATERWAY IS THE ONLY
THING STANDING BETWEEN THE CURRENT SITUATION AND
IRAQI PROSPERITY, SADDAM SAID HE WOULD BE GUIDED
BY WHAT HE DID IN 1974.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par21" id="par21" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>21. THE AMBASSADOR THANKED SADDAM FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS DIRECTLY WITH HIM SOME OF
HIS AND OUR CONCERNS. PRESIDENT BUSH, TOO, WANTS
FRIENDSHIP, AS HE HAD WRITTEN AT THE 'ID AND ON
THE OCCASION OF IRAQ'S NATIONAL DAY. SADDAM
INTERRUPTED TO SAY HE HAD BEEN TOUCHED BY THOSE
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par22" id="par22" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>22. AMBASSADOR RESUMED HER THEME, RECALLING THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAD INSTRUCTED HER TO BROADEN AND
DEEPEN OUR RELATIONS WITH IRAQ. SADDAM HAD REFERRED
TO "SOME CIRCLES" ANTIPATHETIC TO THAT AIM. SUCH
CIRCLES CERTAINLY EXISTED, BUT THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION
IS INSTRUCTED BY THE PRESIDENT. ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE AMERICAN PRESS;
IF HE DID, CRITICISM OF THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD NOT
EXIST. SADDAM AGAIN INTERRUPTED TO SAY HE UNDERSTOOD
THAT. THE AMBASSADOR SAID SHE HAD SEEN THE DIANE
SAWYER SHOW AND THOUGHT THAT IT WAS CHEP AND UNFAIR.
BUT THE AMERICAN PRESS TREATS ALL POLITICIANS
WITHOUT KID GLOVES--THAT IS OUR WAY.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par23" id="par23" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>23. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
VERY RECENTLY REAFFIRMED HIS DESIRE FOR A BETTER
RELATIONSHIP AND HAS PROVEN THAT BY, FOR EXAMPLE,
OPPOSING SANCTIONS BILLS. HERE SADDAM INTERRUPTED
AGAIN. LAUGHING, HE SAID THERE IS NOTHING LEFT
FOR IRAQ TO BUY IN THE U.S. EVERYTHING IS
PROHIBITED EXCEPT FOR WHEAT, AND NO DOUBT THAT WILL
SOON BE DECLARED A DUAL-USE ITEM- SADDAM SAID, HOWEVER,
HE HAD DECIDED NOT TO RAISE THIS ISSUE, BUT RATHER
CONCENTRATE ON THE FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES AT HAND.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par24" id="par24" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>24. AMBASSADOR SAID THERE WERE MANY ISSUES HE
HAD RAISED SHE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON, BUT
SHE WISHED TO USE HER LIMITED TIME WITH THE
PRESIDENT TO STRESS FIRST PRESIDENT BUSH'S DESIRE
FOR FRIENDSHIP AND, SECOND, HIS STRONG DESIRE, SHARED
WE ASSUME BY IRAQ, FOR PEACE AND STABILITY IN THE MID
EAST. IS IT NOT REASONABLE FOR US TO BE CONCERNED
WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE FOREIGN MINISTER BOTH
SAY PUBLICLY THAT KUWAITI ACTIONS ARE THE
EQUIVALENT OF MILITARY AGGRESSION, AND THEN WE
LEARN THAT MANY UNITS OF THE REPUBLICAN GUARD
HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE BORDER? IS IT NOT REASONABLE
FOR US TO ASK, IN THE SPIRIT OF FRIENDSHIP, NOT
CONFRONTATION, THE SIMPLE QUESTION: WHAT ARE YOUR
INTENTIONS?
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par25" id="par25" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>25. SADDAM SAID THAT WAS INDEED A REASONABLE
QUESTION. HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE SHOULD BE
CONCERNED FOR REGIONAL PEACE, IN FACT IT IS OUR
DUTY AS A SUPERPOWER. "BUT HOW CAN WE MAKE THEM
(KUWAIT AND UAE) UNDERSTAND HOW DEEPLY WE ARE
SUFFERING." THE FINANCIAL SITUATION IS SUCH THAT
THE PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS WILL HAVE
TO BE CUT. AT THIS POINT, THE INTERPRETER AND
ONE OF THE NOTETAKERS BROKE DOWN AND WEPT.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par26" id="par26" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>26. AFTER A PAUSE FOR RECUPERATION, SADDAM SAID,
IN EFFECT, BELIEVE ME I HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING: WE
SENT ENVOYS, WROTE MESSAGES, ASKED FAHD TO
ARRANGE QUADRAPARTITE SUMMIT (IRAQ, SAG, UE,
KUWAIT). FAHD SUGGESTFD OIL MINISTERS INSTEAD AND
WE AGREED TO THE JEDDAH AGREEMENT ALTHOUGH IT WAS
WELL BELOW OUR HOPES. THEN, SADDAM CONTINUED,
TWO DAYS LATER THE KUWAITI OIL MINISTER ANNOUNCED
HE WOULD WANT TO ANNUL THAT AGREEMENT WITHIN TWO
MONTHS. AS FOR THE UAE, SADDAM SAID, I BEGGED
SHAYKH ZAYID TO UNDERSTAND OUR PROBLEMS (WHEN
SADDAM ENTERTAINED HIM IN MOSUL AFTER THE BAGHDAD
SUMMIT), AND ZAYID SAID JUST WAIT UNTIL I GET
BACK TO ABU DHABI. BUT THEN HIS MINISTER OF OIL
MADE "BAD STATEMENTS."
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par27" id="par27" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>27. AT THIS POINT, SADDAM LEFT THE ROOM TO TAKE
AN URGENT CALL FROM MUBARAK. AFTER HIS RETURN,
THE AMBASSADOR ASKED IF HE COULD TELL HER IF
THERE HAS ANY PROGRESS IN FINDING A PEACEFUL WAY
TO DEFUSE THE DISPUTE. THIS WAS SOMETHING PRESIDENT
BUSH WOULD BE KEENLY INTERESTED TO KNOW. SADDAM
SAID THAT HE HAD JUST LEARNED FROM MUBARAK THE
KUWAITIS HAVE AGREED TO NEGOTIATE. THE KUWAITI
CROWN PRINCE/PRIME MINISTER WOULD MEET IN RIYADH
WITH SADDAM'S NUMBER TWO, IZZAT IBRAHIM, AND THEN
THE KUWAITI WOULD COME TO BAGHDAD ON SATURDAY,
SUNDAY OR, AT THE LATEST, MONDAY, JULY 30.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par28" id="par28" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>28. "I TOLD MUBARAK," SADDAM SAID, THAT "NOTHING
WILL HAPPEN UNTIL THE MEETING," AND NOTHING WILL
HAPPEN DURING OR AFTER THE MEETING IF THE KUWAITIS
WILL AT LAST "GIVE US SOME HOPE."
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par29" id="par29" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>29. THE AMBASSADOR SAID SHE WAS DELIGHTED TO HEAR
THIS GOOD NEWS. SADDAM THEN ASKED HER TO CONVEY
HIS WARM GREETINGS TO PRESIDENT BUSH AND TO
CONVEY HIS MESSAGE TO HIM.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par30" id="par30" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>30. NOTE: ON THE BORDER QUESTION, SADDAM REFERRED
TO THE 1961 AGREEMENT AND A "LINE OF PATROL" IT
HAD ESTABLISHED. THE KUWAITIS, HE SAID, HAD TOLD
MUBARAK IRAQ WAS 20 KILOMETERS "IN FRONT" OF THIS
LINE. THE AMBASSADOR SAID THAT SHE HAD SERVED IN
KUWAIT 20 YEARS BEFORE; THEN, AS NOW, WE TOOK NO
POSITION ON THESE ARAB AFFAIRS.
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par31" id="par31" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>31. COMMENT: IN THE MEMORY QF THE CURRENT
DIPLOMATIC CORPS, SADDAM HAS NEVER SUMMONED AN
AMBASSADOR. HE IS WORRIED.
ACCORDING TO HIS OWN POLITICAL THEORIZING
(U.S. THE SOLE MAJOR POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST),
HE NEEDS AT A MINIMUM A CORRECT RELATIONSHIP
WITH US FOR OBVIOUS GEOPOLITICAL REASONS,
ESPECIALLY AS LONG AS HE PERCEIVES MORTAL
THREATS FROM ISRAEL AND IRAN. AMBASSADOR
BELIEVES SADDAM SUSPECTS OUR DECISION SUDDENLY
TO UNDERTAKE MANEUVERS WITH ABU DHABI IS A
HARBINGER OF A USG DECISION TO TAKE SIDES.
FURTHER, SADDAM, HIMSELF BEGINNING TO HAVE AN
INKLING OF HOW MUCH HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT
THE U.S., IS APPREHENSIVE THAT WE DO NOT
UNDERSTAND CERTAIN POLITICAL FACTORS WHICH
INHIBIT HIM, SUCH AS:
--HE CANNOT ALLOW HIMSELF TO BE PERCEIVED AS
CAVING IN TO SUPERPOWER BULLYING (AS U/S HAMDUN
FRANKLY WARNED US IN LATE 1988);
--IRAQ, WHICH LOST 100,000'S OF CASUALTIES, IS
SUFFERING AND KUWAIT IS "MISERLY" AND "SELFISH."
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/#par32" id="par32" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">¶</a>32. IT WAS PROGRESS TO HAVE SADDAM ADMIT
THAT THE USG HAS A "RESPONSIBILITY" IN THE
REGION, AND HAS EVERY RIGHT TO EXPECT AN
ANSWER WHEN WE ASK IRAQ'S INTENTIONS. HIS
RESPONSE IN EFFECT THAT HE TRIED VARIOUS
DIPLOMATIC/CHANNELS BEFORE RESORTING TO
UNADULTERATED INTIMIDATION HAS AT LEAST THE
VIRTUE OF FRANKNESS. HIS EMPHASIS THAT HE
WANTS PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT IS SURELY SINCERE
(IRAQIS ARE SICK OF WAR), BUT THE TERMS SOUND
DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE. SADDAM SEEMS TO WANT
PLEDGES NOW ON OIL PRICES AND PRODUCTION TO
COVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS.
GLASPIE</pre></div></div><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Immediately below, George Bush Senior announces his invasion of Iraq in 1991. The war was not declared by Congress as stipulated by the Constitution. It was an executive action by Bush and the globalists with the participation of the United Nations.</span><br />
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFrnQHaQWoA&feature=player_embedded">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFrnQHaQWoA&feature=player_embedded</a><br />
<br />
Immediately below is the first 5 minutes of a speech given by Congressman Ron Paul.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JANYT8FCik&feature=player_embedded">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JANYT8FCik&feature=player_embedded</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0