Send Email to the Editor at BushDecisionPoints@gmail.com

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Book review: 'Decision Points' by George W. Bush



The following is an excerpt from an article on November 10, 2010 Los Angeles Times along with my comments (in red) on the article as stated by George W.
  The former president delivers an unexpectedly engrossing rehash of what he considers to be the pivotal moments of his eight years in office.



George W. Bush
Former U.S. President George W. Bush waves while signing copies of his
new memoir "Decision Points" at Borders Books on November 9, 2010 in
Dallas, Texas. (Tom Pennington / Getty Images /November 9, 2010)


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."

The following is a comment by the Editor 'Bush Decision Points' regarding Bush's statement above...

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. Mr. George W. you knew about the possibility of an attack.  

Here is the proof, and I plan to publish articles to prove it..



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. 


Bush is singularly unapologetic and clear about the fact that he personally ordered the torture of key Al Qaeda members, who CIA 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.


The following is a comment by the Editor 'Bush Decision Points' regarding Bush's statement above...

The 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. 


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 Saddam Hussein'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 Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.


The following is a comment by the Editor 'Bush Decision Points' regarding Bush's statement above...

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. 
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. 

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Charge George W. Bush with war crimes?





Editor's note: 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 FrumForum.
Washington (CNN) -- Charge George W. Bush with war crimes?
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.
Now they have changed their focus, filing actions in foreign courts. Last week, these Bush opponents filed an action in Switzerland in advance of a Bush appearance at a charity fundraiser in Geneva.
Shortly after the filing, the Bush appearance was canceled. 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.
American presidents are subject to law, of course: American law.
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.
This law was adopted in conformity with U.S. obligations under the 1986 Convention Against Torture, 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.)
This use of law as a weapon of politics is an assault upon the basic norms of American constitutional democracy.
--David Frum
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?
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.
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.
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.
So when people file actions in Switzerland 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.
They want Switzerland to say the following:
"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.
"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.
"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."
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.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.

Ron Paul Enters Evidence of Bush War Crimes in a Congressional Record on January 11, 2011

In a classified document, there is proof that the United States approved of Saddam Hussein's Kuwait Invasion. Then in an effort to discredit Saddam 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. 

(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 )


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.


CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL: Classified Cable Proves US Ok’d Saddam’s Kuwait Invasion

January 31, 2011 posted by Gordon Duff · 
RON PAUL

HOW THE 20-YEAR WAR STARTED

ANOTHER “WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY”PROVEN TRUE….

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.”
[Congressional Record: January 26, 2011 (House)] [Page H503]
“The SPEAKER pro tempore.
Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how did the 20-year war get started?
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. 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.
Amazingly, the released cable was entitled,
“Saddam’s Message of Friendship to President Bush.” (published below)
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.”
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. The shock and surprise was how quickly the tables were turned and our friend, Saddam Hussein, all of a sudden became Hitler personified.
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.
{time} 1440
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.
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.
Today, the conflict has spread through the Middle East and Central Asia with no end in sight.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
THE FOLLOWING WAS LEFT OUT OF HIS SPEECH, BECAUSE RON PAUL ONLY HAD 5 MINUTES TO SPEAK, AND RAN OUT OF TIME....
Historian Mark Zepezauer 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.
Iraq invaded Kuwait after it broke off negotiations.
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.
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.
“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,” Ramsey Clarke 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.”
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.
Over 500,000 people were slaughtered 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,” Hans Von Sponeck said. Sponeck was a UN Assistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq.
Bush’s son re-invaded Iraq under completely bogus circumstances. George Bush Junior killed or contributed to the death of more than 1.4 million human beings, according to Just Foreign Policy. “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.
The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. 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. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US-led invasion. 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.

And yet Bush and his son are considered by the establishment and millions of Americans to be esteemed elder statesmen, not war criminals.


O 251246Z JUL 90
FM AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4627
INFO AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY CAIRO IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY KUWAIT IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY RIYADH IMMEDIATE
ARABLEAGUE COLLECTIVE
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 05 BAGHDAD 04237

E.O. 12356: DECL:OADR
TAGS: MOPS PREL US KU IZ
SUBJECT: SADDAM'S MESSAGE OF FRIENDSHIP TO PRESIDENT BUSH

¶1. SECRET - ENTIRE TEXT.

¶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.

¶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.

¶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.

¶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).

¶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.

¶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.

¶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.

¶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.

¶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.

¶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.

¶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.

¶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-

¶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.

¶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.

¶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?

¶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."

¶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.

¶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."

¶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.

¶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

¶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.

¶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.

¶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?

¶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.

¶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."

¶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.

¶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."

¶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.

¶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.

¶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."

¶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

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.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

The Blunders of President George W.

Besides the obvious blunders as President of the United States talked about time and time again on this blog, for example - 911 and Hurricane Katrina, what you may not know are some of the other things that set George W's presidency asside from others..

He voted against funding of Stem Cell Research, while President Obama supports it.

He supports water-boarding, while President Obama says it is illegal, and denounces it.

He refused to endorse the Kyoto Agreement, which is an international agreement linked to the United Nations framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding target for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period of 2008-2012.

George W. wanted to build a wall to seal the border with Mexico to put an end to illegal immigration. Granted, illegal immigration is still rampant today, but to put up a wall accross the entire southern border of the United States with Mexico, would indicate that the United States just wants to totally isolate from the Southern country of Mexico. If such a wall should exist, then the U.S. Citizens should be barred from entering Mexico just like the Mexicans would be barred from entering the U.S.

He ignored his own secret service and FBI on reports of terrorism that may develop in the United States, mainly terrorists to attack the U.S. within it's own cities. This culminated in the attack of the World Trade Centers in New York City, the deaths of thousands of Americans at the Trade Center, deaths at the Pentigon, and a plane crash in Pennsylvania, to his outward deliberate attack of Iraq and Afganistan to show that he could eliminate terrorism. He not only did not eliminate terrorism, his Army committed prosecutable acts of torture which he claims he did not know about, to thousands of Americans who lost their lives to fight his war. The two wars still active today are now responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost just because President Bush decided to commit his own acts of terrorism in other countries. But to him, that is ok for him to act as a terrorist just as long as he doesn't practice it in the United States.
In a sense, he is no better and just as guilty as Osama bin Laden. 

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Prosecute Bush for torture, HRW says

Published: Feb. 8, 2011 at 2:47 PM

NEW YORK, Feb. 8 (UPI) -- Human Rights Watch said Washington should lead the way and prosecute former U.S. President George W. Bush for authorizing tactics described as torture.
Torturer In Chief





Bush last week canceled a speaking engagement scheduled in Switzerland. Human Rights Watch said two people were planning to file complaints in Geneva against Bush for authorizing the waterboarding of terrorism suspects during his tenure.
"The threatened prosecution of President Bush in Switzerland shows that other countries will act against torture even if the U.S. doesn't," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, in a statement.
Roth said prosecuting Bush is sanctioned by Swiss law when the country permitted to do so by an international treaty.
Bush defended the use of waterboarding in television interviews while talking about his memoirs last year.
"Three people were waterboarded and I believe that decision saved lives," Bush said in an interview with NBC News.
When asked if he approved the waterboarding of al-Qaida mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Bush responded, "Damn right!"
"The U.S. record on accountability for detainee abuse has been abysmal," added Roth. "The official authorization of torture by a head of state should never go unpunished."


Sunday, February 6, 2011

Accusations against George W - Will He Ever Defend Himself With Public Statements

Maybe what could really clear up my questions and accusations made by many distinguished people would be an accurate account by George W. that would explain his actions during these times. A book documenting these statements made by George W. would be of allot more value to the people of the United States and the world, than a book that has been labeled his memoirs, called "Decision Points".  But do to his name - BUSH, and to what he was, George W. will never come clean. Instead, he plans to sit low and let history explain what actually happened. Again, stories like the one just revealed here on this blog will continue to come forward, and how long with the high courts continue to allow presidents get away with crimes they committed in office?!! As an avid supporter of President Barack Obama, to be fair, I must ask the question WHY? Why is President Barack Obama withholding evidence against George W. that must be only considered an act to protect a prior president's name to be permanently marred in history?  Many of President Obama's problems stem from the acts of prior president George W. 

President George W. himself became a war president, because he initiated military actions in two foreign lands, namely Afghanistan and Iraq. He is responsible for killing thousands of Americans in his wars, and countless civilians in the wake of his attacks on hospitals and other civilian facilities that were hit by his relentless attacks on different positions in Iraq.  In another blog, there is evidence that George W. is responsible for at least 100 war crimes as listed in a book called 'George W. Bush - War Criminal?'  Oh my.... The list just gets longer and longer.

President Bush Knew of 911 Threats by Terrorists BEFORE They Happened

People will argue that President Bush first learned about the 911 disaster inside the classroom of Booker Elementary School, but the facts state otherwise. Here is proof, from a timeline provided by historycommons.org, that shows proof that George W. did know of the disaster before entering the school. He later refuses to answer an urgent call by Condoleezza Rice but instead wanted to talk with school officials.

Captain Deborah Loewer.
Captain Deborah Loewer
Captain Deborah Loewer, director of the White House Situation Room, is traveling in President Bush’s motorcade toward Booker Elementary School, when she learns of the first WTC crash from her deputy in the Situation Room at the White House. According to some reports, as soon as the motorcade reaches the school, Loewer runs from her car to Bush’s car, and informs Bush. [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 11/26/2001; CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH, 12/7/2001] 
Note that Bush maintains that he learns of the crash at a later time.


MORE DAMNING EVIDENCE that GEORGE W. knew that an attack by airplane was likely....

the Chicago Sun-Times reported that:

“The FBI had advance indications of plans to hijack U.S. airliners and use them as weapons, but neither acted on them nor distributed the intelligence to local police agencies. From the moment of the September 11th attacks, high-ranking federal officials insisted that the terrorists’ method of operation surprised them. Many stick to that story. Actually, elements of the hijacking plan were known to the FBI as early as 1995 and, if coupled with current information, might have uncovered the plot.”

Also reported by history commons.org..

Then we found another document that discussed a second alternative to crash the 11 planes into selected targets in the United States instead of just blowing them up in the air. These included the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia; the World Trade Center in New York; the Sears Tower in Chicago; the TransAmerica Tower in San Francisco; and the White House in Washington, DC… I submitted my findings to NBI officials, who most certainly turned over the report (and the computer) either to then Senior Superintendent Avelino Razon of the PNP [the Philippine National Police] or to Bob Heafner of the FBI… I have since had meetings with certain U.S. authorities and they have confirmed to me that indeed, many things were done in response to my report.

The World Tribune similarly reports, citing an intelligence source involved in the Philippine operation, that: “The hijacked aircraft were to be crashed into structures in the United States, including the World Trade Center, the White House, Pentagon, the Transamerica tower in San Francisco and the Sears Tower in Chicago.” Paul Monk, Senior Fellow at the Australian Thinking Skills Institute and a Professor at the Australian Defense University, cites “confidential sources” in Manila and Washington detailing that: “Project Bojinka was an AQ [Al-Qaeda] plan to hijack eleven airliners simultaneously, exploding many of them at various places over the Pacific, but flying at least two of them into major federal government buildings in the United States. The flights to be hijacked were specified. They were all United Airlines, Northwest Airlines and Delta flights…


So why did George W. be allowed to just walk away from all this and brush off his hands, and not be prosecuted..    In my eyes, he is an 'accessory to the crime' because he did know of a pending disaster destined for "major federal government buildings" but DID NOTHING to prevent the pending disaster.  If your or I knew of such a pending disaster and withheld evidence that could have prevented such an attack, we could have been charged of a crime against the United States.