BLAIR MUST RESIGN IF NO WMDs ARE FOUND

Jul 12 2003

EXCLUSIVE: Glenda Jackson attacks PM


By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor

TONY Blair must quit if weapons of mass destruction are not found in Iraq, former minister Glenda Jackson said yesterday.


In one of the strongest attacks on Mr Blair's leadership yet by a former member of his Government, Ms Jackson said time was running out.


As several senior Labour figures raised doubts over his future, she said: "He must resign if they are not found. This is most certainly a resigning matter. British troops died for goodness sake.


"Now he is saying that only weapons 'programmes' will be found.


"Does that mean we went to war because Saddam Hussein could launch chopped up pieces of paper - effectively confetti - within 45 minutes?....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13169843_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-BLAIR%2DMUST%2DRESIGN%2DIF%2DNO%2DWMDs%2DARE%2DFOU ND-name_page.html (http://)


People sending this kind of information around until they can't ignore the truth. They knew it was all lies but, the public didn't. When too many people started calling Parliament about it and the media THEN they have to look at it and act like they're outraged and someone has to pay now.

If we didn't send this stuff around, they would just ignore it.

But, if sh*t is rubbed on their faces, they'll attack each other. I love watching it, too. Cheney's next.

*ush will let everyone else fall on the sword before he's the only one left. And, ultimately, the buck stops with him so, he can't hide.


THIS is one more example that it DOES get some results to spread info:


Retired CIA call for the resignation of the Vice President

In open letter format, "VIPS", a group of retired CIA veterans call for the resignation of Cheney, the appointment of Brent Scrowcroft to head an investigation of the the faulty intelligence on Iraq, the immediate return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq, and for UN peace-keeping troops to enter


POWERFUL stuff.

http://iraq.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4107.htm (http://)

quote-
Equally important, it was Cheney who launched (in a major speech on August 26, 2002) the concerted campaign to persuade Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein was about to get his hands on nuclear weapons—a campaign that mushroomed, literally, in early October with you and your senior advisers raising the specter of a “mushroom cloud” being the first “smoking gun” we might observe.

That this campaign was based largely on information known to be forged and that the campaign was used successfully to frighten our elected representatives in Congress into voting for war is clear from the bitter protestations of Rep. Henry Waxman and others. The politically aware recognize that the same information was used, also successfully, in the campaign leading up to the mid-term elections—a reality that breeds a cynicism highly corrosive to our political process.

The fact that the forgery also crept into your state-of-the-union address pales in significance in comparison with how it was used to deceive Congress into voting on October 11 to authorize you to make war on Iraq.


Oooohhhhhhh!! And, this guy is a heavyweight attacking the V.P. publically. He wants him in jail.



I Stole This From Another Poster But, It's Good:


"The subpoena power is about to roll over **** Cheney and the the pointing of fingers is already starting.

**** Cheney is spoiled goods. Even the Supreme Court, as I have posted here, will not rule in his favor on hiding his Energy Meeting Minutes and Members from the American Public.

And with the threat of subpoena power hanging over the Vice President's office and staff, the Bushies are beginning to sweat like Nixon. They want to dump him fast before the lawsuit gets further along. That's why you see Brent Scrowcroft, of all people, getting out in front of the Dump Cheney Campaign...to control it.

As the old saying goes, when one is being run out of town with a gang of theives, get to the front immediately and pretend that you are leading a "parade".

Only two major problems: **** and Lynn Cheney. They will not go quietly into the dark. They will not fall on their swords like the C.I.A. Director just did. No. They know too much.

**** Cheney knows that, as I have posted before, that "the House of Saud holds the mortgage to the House of Bush" and that old man Bush and Osama family have long, long intimate relations. Cheney despises the Idiot Prince and will not allow himself to be "Agnewed" as Nixon's first Vice President.

Cheney will not step down. Lynn Cheney will make Martha Mitchell look like a choir girl on Easter in comparison when it comes to spilling the proverbial beans in leaked confessions to the public and press.

The only thing that is satisfying is watching all of these priviledged caucasians doing the Texas Two Step.

Whoever first said that "white men can't dance" had not yet witnessed this pair of Bush and Cheney on the ballroom floor.

Could someone request that the DJ turn the music up louder. This is getting too good to miss."


Yeah, He's Going DOWN!!!! YEEEEEAH, Baby!!!!!!!!! (oh, behave)


Just working our way to the top. NOW, is the time to send everything you get to everyone. Pour it on, dogpile these criminals.


Democratic Presidential Candidate Bob Graham

''If the standard of impeachment that the Republicans set for Bill Clinton a personal, consensual relationship was the basis for impeachment, would not a president who knowingly deceived the American people about something as important as whether to go to war meet the standard of impeachment?''

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/195/nation/Graham_s_criticism_of_Bush_mis:.shtml (http://)



So, don't be fearful to speak out. They have some heavyweights coming at them from the front.



Ex-UN inspector Ritter Bush based war on ''a lie''

UNITED NATIONS, July 14 ? Time has shown that the United Nations did a good job disarming Iraq while U.S. President George W. Bush went to war based on ''a lie,'' former U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter said on Monday.

''The inspectors went in, got good cooperation, got immediate access to the sites they needed to get to, and they found nothing -- nothing related to weapons of mass destruction programs,'' said Ritter, a former U.S. Marine and senior weapons inspector turned anti-war activist.

''And yet, we heard over and over again that 'The president knows that these weapons exist, the president knows that this is a threat that can only be responded to by the United States acting unilaterally,' because the United Nations was unable or unwilling to complete the (disarmament) task mandated by the Security Council,'' he told reporters at U.N. headquarters.

''The entire case the Bush administration made against Iraq is a lie,'' he said. <cut

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters07-14-160759.asp?reg=MIDEAST

Spanking that *ss!!

If George Bush fails to be reelected, we may look back on last Thursday, July 10, 2003, as the day the shadow of defeat first crossed his political horizon. To be sure, Bush looks strong. The CBS News poll released that evening had his approval rating at 60 percent, with solid support from his own party, a 26-point lead among independents and a near- even split among Democrats. Two-thirds of those surveyed could not name a single one of the nine Democrats vying for the right to oppose him.

But the CBS Evening News that night was like Karl Rove's worst nightmare, and the other network newscasts -- still the main source of information for the largest number of Americans -- were not much better.

The headlines announced by John Roberts, substituting for Dan Rather on CBS, were: "President Bush's false claim about Iraqi weapons; he made it despite a CIA warning the intelligence was bad. More Americans say U.S. is losing control of Iraq. Also tonight, food lines in America; they're back and getting longer." ---

Some may say: Well, it's one day's news, or dismiss it all as media bias. But that does not dissolve the shadow that now clouds Bush's bright hopes for a second term.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3987342.html (http://)

This is better than watching porn.



Well, maybe I could do both...



Some (100) 9/11 Families Choose Lawsuits Over Federal Fund

This is because of all the emails they've received telling the the truth. These people are so angry, they have a list of hundreds of questions they want to ask about 9/11 and now they're attacking the government because they're sick of the bull.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&ncid=716&e=22&u=/usatoday/20030714/ts_usatoday/5320123 (http://)


The U.S. government made two promises to the families of those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks: A special Justice Department (news - web sites) fund would compensate their financial losses, and official investigations would uncover the security failures that enabled al-Qaeda to kill 3,027 people.

Uncle Sam asked one thing of the families in return: Don't drag the battered airlines and their affiliates into court. Many members of Congress wanted to avoid the sad spectacle of victims' families suing another hard-hit group.

Nearly two years later, many families of 9/11 victims are rejecting that guidance.

With the Dec. 22 deadline to apply for government payments nearing, the relatives of 1,995 deceased victims have submitted claims. The families are lining up for settlement checks that are averaging nearly $1.5 million, and they are agreeing not to sue airlines, airports, security companies or other U.S. entities that might be faulted in the fatal hijackings.

Meanwhile, with official findings of blame for the attacks slow in coming, hundreds of victims' survivors are spurning the government cash and flocking to federal courts. Undeterred by the difficulty in proving that anyone was culpably negligent -- or by roadblocks set up by Congress and the Bush administration -- the determined survivors are seeking money and facts on their own.

''Someday, please God, I will see my son again,'' says Kathleen Ashton, of Woodside, N.Y., whose son, Thomas Ashton, 21, died at the World Trade Center. ''I need to be able to look at him and say, 'Tommy, I did the right thing.' The right thing is not to take the (government) money. The right thing is to try to get answers, to see what sort of lapses allowed the murderers to do what they were able to do.''

more



Blix Slams UK Iraq WMD Claim

Another heavy, attacking the liars, openly:


Sunday, July 13, 2003 Posted: 1255 GMT ( 8:55 PM HKT)



Blix: "They over-interpreted the intelligence they had."



LONDON, England -- Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said it was "highly unlikely" that Saddam Hussein could have deployed weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes.

Blix told the Independent on Sunday newspaper that the claim, made in the British government's September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons program, was a "fundamental mistake."

"I don't know exactly how they calculated this figure of 45 minutes in the dossier of September last year. That seems pretty far off the mark to me," Blix said.

"I think that was a fundamental mistake.

more.....

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=82ef9d7ba603481d (http://)

Fight the power.



Just Watch Them Unravel And Fall Apart At The Seams


Agencies hit by row over Iraq weapons (MI6 vs CIA)

British intelligence says it was barred from passing on Niger uranium claims

Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday July 14, 2003
The Guardian

Relations between British and American intelligence agencies, a central pivot of "the special relationship", are in disarray over disputed claims about Iraq's attempts to procure weapons of mass destruction.

In a dispute with serious political repercussions for Tony Blair and George Bush, the CIA and MI6 have made it clear that they do not believe each other's intelligence, notably about a claim that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from the west African state of Niger for nuclear weapons.

While George Tenet, the CIA's director, is expressing doubts about the claim, MI6 is adamant it is accurate.

Documents claiming that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger have turned out to be forgeries. But British intelligence sources said yesterday that MI6 had separate information to back the claim. MI6 was provided the information by a third party which insisted that neither the source nor the intelligence could be passed on.

"Certain protocols have to be observed," an intelligence official said yesterday. He added that if Britain failed to respect such protocols, sources would refuse to provide MI6 with intelligence again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,997704,00.html (http://)

YES! In-fighting. The best kind of situation. Sun Tzu says that if your opponent is fighting amongst themsleves, LET THEM.

That's what they do to us, let the gangs keep each other busy. That and, black on black crime, in general.

But, since THIS beast WILL grow new heads when we chop them off, I guess we just need to treat it like we treat hair or grass.

It has to be done, endlessly for as long as you live. Don't let it daunt you.


At this point, the soldiers are calling for Cheney's resignation. Them, and others:

Cheney under pressure to quit over false war evidence
* Anger grows on both sides of Atlantic at misleading claims on eve of Iraq conflict *
The Independent, July 15 2003


**** Cheney, the US Vice-President and the administration's most outspoken hawk over Iraq, faced demands for his resignation last night as he was accused of using false evidence to build the case for war.

He was accused of using his office to insist that a false claim about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium from Africa to restart its nuclear programme be included in George Bush's State of the Union address - overriding the concerns of the CIA director, George Tenet.

Mr Cheney was also accused of knowingly misleading Congress when the administration sought its authorisation for the use of force to oust Saddam Hussein.

The allegations against Mr Cheney have come most vocally from a group of senior former intelligence officials who believe that information from the intelligence community was selectively used to support a war fought for political reasons. In an open letter to President George Bush, the group have asked that he demand Mr Cheney's resignation.

...

As the clamour for a full inquest into the African uranium claims grew on both sides of the Atlantic, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, was accused by MPs of lacking "credibility" after he admitted knowing a month before the war that documents making the assertion were forgeries. Mr Straw said in a statement he had known that letters given to the UN nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, about the Niger claim were fake as early as February.

Mr Straw also claimed that the Government's case for military action was not based on "intelligence reports".

Labour MPs, including Tam Dalyell, the father of the House, asked why Mr Straw had not told MPs that the documents were fake in advance of the vote to approve military action on 18 March. "He now says the Government knew it was a forgery in February. Why didn't he tell us before Parliament voted for war?" he said. "Also if the case for war is not based on intelligence, what is it based on?"


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=424786 (http://)



Use This Thread As A Scorecard Of Evil

We're winning. Bit by bit.

Everytime someone reads about yet ANOTHER attack upon this administration, please post it here so people can see the DAMAGE that an INFORMED public will do to a tyrant and his criminal family and friends.


This morning, Chris Matthews from Hardball just said "The President's not telling the truth." 9:40 am.



RESIGNATION TO COLIN POWELL FROM U.S. DIPLOMAT

This is GOOD! The heat is turning up. More and more heavies are stepping into the ring. Send this to everyone you know.



LETTER OF RESIGNATION TO COLIN POWELL FROM U.S. DIPLOMAT JOHN BRADY KIESLING
>
>
>EDITOR'S NOTE: What follows is a letter of resignation written by John
>
>Brady Kiesling, a member of Bush's Foreign Service Corps and Political
>
>Counselor to the American embassy in Greece. Kiesling has been a diplomat
>
>for twenty years, a civil servant to four Presidents. The letter below,
>
>delivered to Secretary of State Colin Powell, is quite possibly the most
>
>eloquent statement of dissent thus far put forth regarding the issue of
>
>Iraq. - wrp
>
>
> t r u t h o u t | Letter
>
>U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling
>
>Letter of Resignation, to:
>
>Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
>
>
>ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003
>
>Dear Mr. Secretary:
>
>
>I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of
>
>the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S.
>
>Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage
>
>of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my
>
>country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to
>
>understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats,
>
>politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S.
>
>interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its
>
>values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.
>
>It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I
>
>would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish
>
>bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is
>
>what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature.
>
>But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by
>
>upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of
>
>the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.
>
>The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with
>
>American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war
>
>with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has
>
>been America1s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days
>
>of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective
>
>web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current
>
>course will bring instability and danger, not security.
>
>The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to
>
>bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a
>
>uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic
>
>distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American
>
>opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger
>
>than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate
>
>for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But
>
>rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this
>
>Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool,
>
>enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic
>
>ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind,
>
>arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The
>
>result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of
>
>shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that
>
>protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11
>
>did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem
>
>determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our
>
>model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in
>
>the name of a doomed status quo?
>
>We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the
>
>world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years
>
>done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S.
>
>interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims
>
>were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan
>
>is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the
>
>Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind,
>
>as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied
>
>Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the
>
>answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles
>
>in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with
>
>Micronesia to follow where we lead.
>
>We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our
>
>friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a
>
>century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified
>
>than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete
>
>solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the
>
>swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this
>
>Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has
>
>3oderint dum metuant2 really become our motto?
>
>I urge you to listen to America1s friends around the world. Even here
>
>in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and
>
>closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even
>
>when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a
>
>difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system,
>
>with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us
>
>rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will
>
>tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of
>
>liberty, security, and justice for the planet?
>
>Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability.
>
>You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy
>
>deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an
>
>ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the
>
>President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international
>
>system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties,
>
>organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more
>
>effectively than it ever constrained America1s ability to defend its
>
>interests.
>
>I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my
>
>conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I
>
>have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting,
>
>and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping
>
>policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American
>
>people and the world we share.
>
>
>
>John Brady Kiesling

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16182781.htm (http://)


NEW YORK, July 16 (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender John Kerry said on Wednesday that the Bush administration had "trafficked in untruth" about Iraq trying to acquire uranium, a justification given for the war to oust Saddam Hussein.

The Massachusetts senator said in a speech here that Americans face "an intelligence gap" over the claim, which was included in U.S. President George W. Bush's State of the Union address in January.

In that speech, Bush said that Baghdad sought uranium from Africa to make nuclear weapons. It has since been learned that the intelligence reports were partly based on forged documents.

"We need an independent commission with a mandate to investigate the truth about any intelligence mistakes, any political interference with our intelligence agencies, and a State of the Union message that trafficked in untruth at a time when at least some in the administration knew it was wrong," Kerry said.

more



Key Officials Used 9/11 As Pretext for Iraq War
Inter Press Service, July 16 2003


WASHINGTON - With demands for a full-scale investigation of the manipulation of intelligence by the administration of Pres. George W. Bush mounting steadily, it appears increasingly clear that key officials and their allies outside the administration intended to use the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq within hours of the attacks themselves.

Within the administration, the principals appear to have included Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice Pres. **** Cheney, and his national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby, among others in key posts in the National Security Council and the State Department.

Outside the administration, key figures included close friends of both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, including Richard Perle, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief James Woolsey -- both members of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board (DPB); Frank Gaffney, head of the arms-industry-funded Center for Security Policy; and William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), among others.

PNAC, which is based on the fifth floor of American Enterprise Institute (AEI) building, in downtown Washington, was founded in 1997 with the signing of a statement of principles calling for ”a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity”, signed by 25 prominent neo-conservatives and right-wingers, including, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Libby, as well as several other senior Bush administration officials.

...

It was the same people who, on behalf of their friends in the Pentagon, also mounted an almost constant campaign against the CIA, the State Department, and anyone else who tried to slow the drive to war or question the administration's assertions about Hussein's links with al Qaeda or the threat he posed to U.S. security.

Their success is beyond question. By last October, just before the House of Representatives was to vote on giving Bush authority to go to war, a survey by the Pew Research Center found that two-thirds of adult respondents believed that ”Saddam Hussein helped the terrorists in the Sep. 11 attacks.

www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19255


Dirp, Drip, Drip...

Soon the dam's gonna BURST.



The FBI Versus The CIA - This IS Getting GOOD!!

NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE


The FBI, plunging full steam into the Iraq intelligence controversy, is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into the forged documents that purported to show that Saddam Hussein’s regime was seeking to buy significant quantities of uranium, NEWSWEEK has learned.

THE PREVIOUSLY undisclosed probe is being conducted by the FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Division and, although formally labeled a “preliminary inquiry,” is described by knowledgeable sources as active and ongoing.

Only three months ago, FBI director Robert Mueller had brushed aside a request from Congress to probe the Niger documents after bureau officials concluded that the forgeries did not appear to be part of a broader disinformation campaign to influence U.S. policy by a foreign intelligence service.

But more recently, the Counter-Intelligence Division, overseen by its aggressive assistant director, David Szady, has revisited the matter—in part after further prodding by the office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, three sources tell NEWSWEEK.

Agents have been dispatched to Italy and other foreign countries to look into the murky origins of the documents. In addition, Szady has ordered the questioning of officials at the State Department and the CIA, a particularly awkward development given the longstanding rivalry between the bureau and the agency.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/939852.asp (http://)


"But the correspondence was on obsolete letterhead, including the wrong symbol for the presidency of Niger, and made reference to state bodies that no longer existed at the time that the letters were written. In addition, an Oct. 10, 2000, letter, allegedly signed by the foreign minister of Niger, had the signature of a man who hadn’t served in that position since 1989.

These were all conclusions that, investigators believe, should have been easily deciphered by the CIA much earlier—had it not been for the bureaucratic foul-ups that are just now coming to light." <snipped from the article>


Well, These Two Guys Will Have To Fall On Their Swords Soon...


But, we'll FINALLY make our way to *ush. He's toast, too.


WASHINGTON, D.C--A Pentagon committee led by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, advised President Bush to include a reference in his January State of the Union address about Iraq trying to purchase 500 tons of uranium from Niger to bolster the case for war in Iraq, despite the fact that the CIA warned Wolfowitz's committee that the information was unreliable, according to a CIA intelligence official and four members of the Senate's intelligence committee who have been investigating the issue.

The Senators and the CIA official said they could be forced out of government and brought up on criminal charges for leaking the information to this reporter and as a result requested anonymity. The Senators said they plan to question CIA Director George Tenet Wednesday morning in a closed-door hearing to find out whether Wolfowitz and members of a committee he headed misled Bush and if the President knew about the erroneous information prior to his State of the Union address.

Spokespeople for Wolfowitz and Tenet vehemently denied the accusations. Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, would not return repeated calls for comment. ---

http://www.freepress.org/departments.php?strFunc=display&strID=284&strYear=2003&strDept=13 (http://)


More People Wanna Join This Party


Lieberman, Dean call for CIA director's resignation
SF Chronicle (AP), July 16 2003


Two of the Democratic presidential candidates called for the resignation of embattled CIA director George Tenet on Wednesday as the rest of the field faulted President Bush for misleading the public about Iraq.

"The president has to accept some responsibility," Joe Lieberman told supporters during a campaign appearance. "This president seems to be saying, 'The buck never stops here."'

...

Lieberman's rival, Howard Dean, said he has maintained for several days that Tenet should leave.

"The reason the director should step aside is that he is now part of the shifting of the blame," the former Vermont governor said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Dean, an outspoken opponent of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, argued that Tenet shouldn't receive all the blame, and faulted the National Security Agency, State Department and the vice president's office.

...

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, during a campaign appearance in New York, focused on what he called Bush's credibility gap on national security as did John Edwards, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"George Tenet has accepted his responsibility, and that's good," the North Carolina senator told reporters outside the committee room. "But at the end of the day, the president when he speaks, has to take responsibility for what he said. The responsibility is not the CIA's, it's not anyone else's. It is the president's responsibility. And those 16 words were spoken by the president and he has to take responsibility for them."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/07/16/national1518EDT0675.DTL (http://)

This is good because people get careless or spiteful when under attack. If he gets eaten by this, he'll leak some documents for spite.

And, we can trace them back to the NEXT criminal.

Everyone at the top is in trouble and they're going down.

DEAN: "I SEEK ACCOUNTABILITY"
Tuesday July 15, 2003
By: Press Office

(July 15, 2003)

WASHINGTON--While campaigning in the nation's capital today, Governor Howard Dean, M.D. made the following statement regarding recent developments: "It only becomes more and more clear every day what a mistake this administration made in launching a pre-emptive war in Iraq. The evidence mounts that not only did the Administration mislead the American people and the world in making its case for war but that it failed to plan adequately for the peace.

"Today, we are paying the price: in lives lost, in a $100 billion price tag that only rises daily, and in the toll on our reputation around the world.

"There was a time and a place for questioning the veracity of the evidence being presented about the war. There was a time for asking the tough questions about the rationale for war, the planning for peace and the cost of the mission--and that time was before the first shot was fired. It was the duty of our elected representatives in Congress to ask the toughest possible questions about our purpose and our plans before signing a blank check for the Bush administration to wage pre-emptive war.

"Before the war began, I asked these questions and made it clear that the evidence did not support a pre-emptive war and that our failure to engage the international community would damage our credibility and security in the long-term.

"Today I ask: why are members of Congress running for president asking the tough questions today that they failed to ask before the war?

"I seek accountability. There are those in the administration who clearly misled the American people and the world. There needs to be an immediate bipartisan independent investigation and those responsible in the administration shouldn't wait for the outcome of the investigation, they should resign today. But I also seek accountability from those who voted to give the President a blank check without asking the tough questions when they needed to be asked and long after it's clear how mistaken this path was for our nation.

"The challenge now is to move forward. Our intelligence on the ground continues to be weak. Our soldiers are increasingly in harm's way. We still don't have adequate plans for securing the peace. And the administration is still not being honest about the realities of occupying Iraq and the commitment and resources necessary for the long-run.

"These are the serious questions that need to be asked: how long will we be there? How much will it cost? All of these are questions that should have been debated and discussed beforehand. That we are only debating those questions today is a failure of the leadership in Washington, both of this administration and of Congress."

www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6935&news_iv_ctrl=1301 newwindow (http://)



Aye, Dios mio!!


Wow...Buchanan going off on MSNBC

I cut this from another site:


"He's popping off saying that Condi Rice is responsible for the uranium flap...."

Get her!! Ha!


The CIA Versus The Whitehouse


They are devouring themselves:



Tenet Says WH Official Insisted Questionable Information Be Included in Sp


WASHINGTON (AP) - CIA Director George Tenet told members of Congress a White House official insisted that President Bush's State of the Union address include an assertion about Saddam Hussein's nuclear intentions that had not been verified, a Senate Intelligence Committee member said Thursday.


Sen. **** Durbin, who was present for a 4 1/2-hour appearance by Tenet behind closed doors with Intelligence Committee members Wednesday, said Tenet named the official. But the Illinois Democrat said that person's identity could not be revealed because of the confidentiality of the proceedings.

"He (Tenet) certainly told us who the person was who was insistent on putting this language in which the CIA knew to be incredible, this language about the uranium shipment from Africa," Durbin said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"And there was this negotiation between the White House and the CIA about just how far you could go and be close to the truth and unfortunately those sixteen words were included in the most important speech the president delivers in any given year," Durbin added.

more

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAP9RMP8ID.html (http://)

Juicier and juicer it gets.


The Criminal

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/jd/2003/jd030716.gif

Got them on the run!!



Now, The Troops Are Rebelling, Demoralized And Suiciding

General Unrest
New U.S. Commander Upset by Comments From Troops in Iraq

ABC NEWS
Tuesday Jul. 16, 2003 - The new U.S. war commander today took exception with American soldiers who, angry over extended tours of duty in Iraq, criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in televised interviews on ABCNEWS.

<SNIP>

"None of us that wear this uniform are free to say anything disparaging about the secretary of defense, or the president of the United States," said Gen. John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command.

But several of the wives of soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division who talked to ABCNEWS said today that their husbands spoke the truth and they wanted those views heard.

"They feel that their mission is completed. They feel that they came, did what they went over there to do. And, I mean, they're done," said Rhonda Vega, whose husband is Sgt. Felipe Vega.

Sgt. Vega, in the interview with ABCNEWS' Jeffrey Kofman, said it was not easy to maintain morale in his platoon when the Army keeps changing the orders. "They turn around and slap you in the face," he said. When asked if that's the way it feels, he said, "Yeah, kicked in the guts, slapped in the face."

Another soldier who was interviewed, Spc. Clinton Deitz, said he had a message for the defense secretary. "If Donald Rumsfeld was here," he said, "I'd ask him for his resignation."

<SNIP end>

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39282000/jpg/_39282991_111bodyafp203.credjpg.jpg


One dead per day. Target practice because someone lied to them.



Franks: 10 to 25 Attacks a Day on U.S. Troops in Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. troops in Iraq face 10 to 25 attacks a day, partly because they are hunting for Baathists, "jihadists" and fighters crossing the border from Syria, Gen. Tommy Franks, who ran the war against Baghdad, said on Thursday.

Franks, who stepped down recently as head of U.S. Central Command and will soon retire, told the House Armed Services Committee that "on a given day, there will be somewhere between 10 and 25 violent incidents" in Iraq where 148,000 U.S. troops are located.

He did not bend to Democratic attempts to label the current fighting conditions as guerrilla warfare, saying those types of operations would be supported by the people but that Iraqis did not support the violence.

Also, while U.S. forces were seeing "increasing sophistication," including the use of mortars in attacks, there did not appear to be coordinated efforts under a command, Franks said. "It doesn't fit my own personal definition."

more

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=716&e=11&u=/nm/20030710/ts_nm/iraq_usa_attacks_dc (http://)


Franks has been indicted for war crimes in Belgium (with Cheney, Blair and others):

Rev. Al Sharpton became the first Democratic Party presidential candidate to call for President Bush's impeachment on Wednesday, saying that if Bush "knowingly lied" about Iraq's nuclear weapons program he "absolutely should be impeached."

"If they knowingly told information that was not true, there certainly should impeachment hearings," Sharpton told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

The outspoken Democrat continued, "If had knowledge, or the vice president had knowledge, and knowingly brought America to war on false or flawed knowledge and they knew it, they absolutely should be impeached."

...more...

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/9/220939 (http://)

It's coming from all sides.


Across The Atlantic, They're Raising Hell, Too

Yesterday, in another damaging broadside, Richard Butler, who was executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission to Iraq from 1997 to 1999, said that anyone who had claimed that there was a link between Niger and Iraq should resign.

Referring to Australian politicians who had made similar claims, only to withdraw them and apologise later, Butler said: 'In the justification for the war, these claims were false and known to be false.

'A Minister who misleads Parliament must accept responsibility for it and resign. Ministers must be held responsible, not public servants.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,997243,00.html (http://)

I hope people are sending this info around, to keep up the heat. Your enemies are self-destructing, this is the time.

LONG LIVE THE INTERNET!!




CIA Versus The White House - Part 3

Source: Tenet admits never seeing final draft of Bush speech

CIA chief testifies for five hours before Senate panel

During five hours of testimony Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, CIA Director George Tenet admitted he never saw the final draft of President Bush's State of the Union address before it was delivered, a source who attended the hearing told CNN.

This source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told CNN White House Correspondent Dana Bash that Tenet said some of his deputies did see the draft of the speech beforehand. Tenet even talked extensively about who the CIA talked to at the National Security Council, the source said.

The source did not provide the names of those Tenet mentioned in the closed hearing.

<snip>

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, the vice chairman of the committee, said: "I think that responsibility has to be taken by a lot more than George Tenet."

"I think we have to face up to that. I think there are others in the administration who knew something about this," Rockefeller said.

www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/17/white.house.tenet/index.html newwindow (http://)


Drip, Drip, Drip...



Cut from someone else's post:



I hope you realize that you're partially responsible for this turnaround


The small, adamantly vocal minority that has kept the flame of truth burning on the internet and in the alternative media is a crucial part of the recent tarnishing of Bush's image.

Through 2 1/2 years of chatting, blogging, letter-writing, demonstrating, editorializing, talking, arguing, and fighting for the truth, you have kept a (heretofore) underground chronicle of the adminstration's lies and deceptions.

With your tireless efforts, you have created and maintained the fertile soil of research and information that is essential for the mainstreamers who are only now picking up on what you've always known: these thugs are a danger to the world and to the essence of America.

Thank you.

Pete

Police were called to Senate to prevent fist fight today

Democrats were removed from Senate floor. Carl Levin was removed from Senate floor. Holy @#%$! On C-Span now. This is really sounding bad.

Don



So, the dems and the repubs are fighting and had to be seperated. This is "Art Of War" at it's best.



Zogby Poll: Chimpy drops to 53% Approval Rate -- Lowest since 9/11

Bush Job Performance Slips to 53% Positive, 46% Negative; More Voters (47%) Say It's Time for Someone New Than Say He Deserves Re-election

President George W. Bush's job performance rating has slipped to 53% positive, his lowest since the terrorist attacks in 2001, according to a poll of 1,004 likely U.S. voters by Zogby International. His negative rating reached 46%, just under his pre-9/11 unfavorable of 49%.

Voters rate only President Bush's performance in the war on terrorism positively, 59% - 40%. Opinion is split on foreign policy, 49% positive compared to 50% negative. His performance on health care is rated 36% positive, 61% negative; the environment, 31% positive, 65% negative; taxes, 45% positive, 54% negative; and jobs and the economy, 33% positive, 66% negative.

For the first time, more likely voters (47%) say it's time for someone new in the White House, compared to 46% who said the President deserves to be re-elected.

MORE...


http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=721 (http://)



This Getting To Be So Ugly That It's Beautiful:



John Dean calls for Special Prosecutor to investigate *ush!!

<edit>

Could Bush, and his aides, be stonewalling because it is a crime to give false information to Congress? It wasn't a crime in President Polk's day. Today, it is a felony under the false statements statute. (ooh, he said the "C" word...)

This 1934 provision makes it a serious offense to give a false information to Congress. It is little used, but has been actively available since 1955. That year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Bramblet that the statute could be used to prosecute a Congressman who made a false statement to the Clerk of the Disbursing Office of the House of Representatives, for Congress comes under the term "department" as used in the statutes.

Two members of the Bush administration, Admiral John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams, learned about this false statements law the hard way, during the Iran Contra investigation. Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanors for false statements to Congress, as did Robert McFarlane. (Both were subsequently pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.) Poindexter and Oliver North fought the charges, and won on an unrelated legal technicality.

Later, one of McFarlane's lawyers, Peter W. Morgan, wrote a law journal article about using the false statements statute to prosecute executive officials appearing before Congress. Morgan was troubled by the breadth of the law. It does not require a specific intent to deceive the Congress. It does not require that statements be written, or that they be sworn. Congress is aware of the law's breadth and has chosen not to change it.

Maybe presciently, Morgan noted that the false statements statute even reaches "misrepresentations in a president's state of the union address." To which I would add, a criminal conspiracy to mislead Congress, which involved others at the Bush White House, could also be prosecuted under a separate statute, which makes it a felony to conspire to defraud the government.

more...

writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030718.html newwindow (http://)



This is a powerful man who many listen to and he's building the legal grounds to go after these criminals.



The Dems Versus The Repubs On CSPAN - Tooth & Nail!!

I cut someone else's post, I love it:


"It's eloquence overwhelms me, like your intelligence does"


"You're big enough to make me you little wimp? Come over here and make me, I dare you!"

"you little fruitcake, you little fruitcake, you're a little fruitcake"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

PETE @#%$ STARK! 70+ year-old Republican-***-Chewer! My kind of Democrat!


We've needed the democrats to stand up to the republicans but, everyone was afraid to end up like my hero, Cynthia McKinney.

NOW, that all the lies have been exposed and there's no Saddam, No Bin Laden, No Weapons, No Jobs, No Healthcare, No surplus, etc., they're growing balls again.

Better late than never.

This is how we will win, doggy-style (as in, "dogpile" these criminals).


I've been showing people here, by example how to fight and get results to SOME degree, at least, instead of doing nothing, instead of being scared or angry.

Maybe, it's not the best way but, it's working better than just being angry or doing nothing. And, saying they'll be replaced is too true.


So will that roach you killed last week. So what? Spray again.

And, again.

Or, live with them as they get bolder and bolder and take more and more.


Blair in E Asia silent on quitting over Iraq expert's death


HAKONE, Japan (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair dramatically refused to say whether he might quit over the death of a former UN arms inspector at the center of allegations that Downing Street misused intelligence and exaggerated the threat of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


Caught out at the start of an East Asia tour by the worst crisis in his six years in power, a visibly exhausted Blair said nothing when asked, point-blank, at a press conference if he had "blood on his hands" and might resign.

Instead, he stared silently out across the room full of journalists and TV cameras for several tense seconds and then with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi at his side, left the room.

Minutes before, Blair reiterated the stance he took earlier Saturday on the startling death of David Kelly, 59, a Ministry of Defense consultant on biological weapons and former UN arms inspector in Iraq -- that an independent judicial inquiry must be allowed to run its course and find out the truth.


more

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1504&ncid=1504&e=1&u=/afp/20030719/ts_afp/iraq_weapons_britain_030719124035 (http://)


http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030719/capt.1058608909.britain_iraq_kelly_lmc101.jpg


After HE loses all credibility, it'll really hurt the thugs over here. He was was what made them credible at all. We would've NEVER been able to wage this wage witout Brittain. If HE is invalid, *ush and HIS team are invalid.


That's how you kill a giant. A piece at a time.

A BIG mistake for them. Turn on the soldiers, you turn on their families (i.e., the american people).

I love it. The beginning of the end.


snip>

The retaliation from Washington was swift.

CAREERS OVER FOR SOME
"It was the end of the world," said one officer Thursday. "It went all the way up to President Bush and back down again on top of us. At least six of us here will lose our careers."

First lesson for the troops, it seemed: Don't ever talk to the media "on the record" -- that is, with your name attached -- unless you're giving the sort of chin-forward, everything's-great message the Pentagon loves to hear.

snip>

After this one-two punch, it was perhaps natural that on Thursday, the same troops and officers who had been garrulous and outspoken in previous visits were quiet, and most declined to speak on the record. During a visit to Fallujah, a small city about 30 miles west of Baghdad, military officials expressed intense chagrin about the bad publicity.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/07/18/MN248299.DTL (http://)



http://home.earthlink.net/~macenstein/oneweekendamonth.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030716/lthumb.1058361751.iraq_attacks_dlm105.jpg


I Took Bush's Place in Vietnam - MUST READ

I Took Bush's Place in Vietnam
July 19, 2003
By Jack Balkwill

"I rode a tank in the generals' rank
when the blitzkrieg raged
and the bodies stank"

—Mick Jagger, "Sympathy for the Devil"

Bush is a coward. I am the one who took his place in Vietnam, so I should know.

(snip)

During the Vietnam War, when Bush deserted from the Texas National Guard, the National Security State found itself to be one short on cannon fodder, so they sent me. A member of the peasant class, I was expendable. Bush loved the war up to the point of actually risking his own “investment class” ***, to employ a favorite term of his father. He supported the war mind you-- has always enjoyed killing, setting the all-time execution record for governors, though brother Jeb has competed well in Florida.

I was at Fort Meade, Maryland for three months prior to being sent to Vietnam. My military bosses assured me they had friends in the Pentagon who could keep me from going to war. A lieutenant was dispatched to the Pentagon with a full-time job of wandering the halls in pursuit of this. The friends proved to be less powerful than believed, and I became an advisor to combat units for US Army Vietnam and Military Assistance Command, traveling all over the country to daily witness the hatred, greed and delusion of war, the lowest activity of my species.

(snip)

I have been under fire for days at a time, with such fear beyond fear that it really requires a new word. Those who order wars never see the bleeding or hear the screams. I have seen rivers of blood and have given thanks for the insane roar of battle when it hid the screams of my comrades, to keep me from going entirely mad. But Bush can order a war casually, just before his golf game.

In a nightmare I faced Bush and said “You cowardly son of a *****, I took your place in Vietnam.” I could see in his glazed, alcoholic eyes the denial which kept him from understanding. His handlers convinced him that if he put on a flight jacket and flew to an aircraft carrier, he must be a hero (even if it cost $800,000 as it underscored the hypocrisy of his “fiscal conservative” claim, habitually unnoticed by corporate media as the national debt soars).

On 9/11, when the nation needed leadership, Bush hid at an Air Force Base. The most protected person on the planet went into hiding, not because he was in danger, but because he is a coward. I cannot imagine another president who would have hid like that. Even the spineless Nixon would have seen it is the job of a president to go to the White House and assure the masses that everything is under control.

...more...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/07/19_vietnam.html (http://)


http://www.silenceissedition.com/ (http://)


ush was AWOL from the National Guard. Every officer who could tell you that is now DEAD (I provided a list elsewhere). He was a CHEERLEADER in college, never a warrior, a competitor, a MAN.

He's run every company he's every run into the ground and sold his shares for alot before they went under AND left with a FAT pay-off. Martha Stewart is a joke. And, The president of Enron is his BEST friend. I have proof of all of this, some posted here already.

Send this info around.



Condi Is SOOOOOOO GONE!!

We're hurting them before the can spin their way out of this. Like tripping someone then, kicking them in the *ss when they try to get up.

I hate MSNBC, they promoted this war with by promoting the lies. We were sending this stuff around 8 months ago but, the media had a blackout on anything against *ush. Now, TOO MANY politicians have this info and too many independent media sources have it so, they HAVE TO join the bandwagon.

THIS IS WHY you have to send this stuff around, americans get their opinions from the media and THIS hurts them so badly. Millions are being bombarded with the ugly truth and are starting to feel like Skinzz feels now - "Hey, waitaminute..."


MSNBC:

Bush reportedly never read section on doubts over uranium assertion

July 18 — While the report establishes that the CIA feared that Saddam Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons, it also reveals plenty of doubt. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.

WASHINGTON, July 19 — Responding to allegations that it falsified some of its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration on Friday released parts of an intelligence assessment from October that cited “compelling evidence” that Iraq was trying to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. The document included a notation from the State Department calling an assertion at the center of the controversy “highly dubious,” but a White House official said Bush never read that section of the report, according to the Washington Post.

THE WHITE HOUSE has been under pressure to explain how a sentence accusing Iraq of seeking uranium from Africa made its way into the president’s State of the Union address in January. The accusation, which later turned out to involve the West African nation of Niger, has since been discredited.

CIA Director George Tenet accepted responsibility for allowing the president to make the false accusation, saying his agency approved the sentence in reviewing the final draft of the speech. But NBC and other news organizations have detailed how the CIA had serious reservations about the allegation and tried as long as three months in advance to have it removed from other presidential addresses.

MANY QUALIFIERS REPORTEDLY UNREAD

But the report is studded with qualifiers and notations of disputed intelligence about a wide range of the evidence on which the White House based its contention that Iraq posed an extraordinary threat that needed to be addressed immediately.

For example, while it states that “Iraq ... is likely to have a [nuclear] weapon by 2007 to 2009,” that assessment is offered with only “moderate confidence.” Other accusations cited by the administration are offered with “low confidence” — including the key contention that Iraq would ever use chemical or biological weapons at all, even in desperation.

The Washington Post reported Saturday that a senior administration official briefing reporters on Friday said that neither President Bush nor his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, had read the full briefing document. “They did not read footnotes in a 90-page document,” the Post quoted the unidentied official as saying. “The president of the United States is not a fact-checker,” the official also reportedly added.

CLAIM CALLED ‘HIGHLY DUBIOUS’

Even though Bush and numerous other U.S. officials asserted before the war that such weapons posed an imminent threat, the report stresses, in boldface type, that the intelligence community has “low confidence” in its assessment of when and how Saddam might use such weapons of mass destruction.

And it declares that “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [conventional and biological weapons] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington with a stronger cause for making war.” That sentence, too, is stressed in boldface. (and, they just ignored it. we got their *sses. who falls on their sword NEXT?)

Meanwhile, on the key question at the heart of the discredited allegation in Bush’s State of the Union address, the document says there was “compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program.”

But on the specific allegation in Bush’s speech that it was seeking such materials from Africa, the document appears to offer little support.[b] (as in, they LIED about all of it)

While it does mention reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from three African countries — Niger, Somalia and “possibly” Congo — it does so in the main body of the assessment, </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> (as in, not TRUE) Moreover, [b]it includes a footnote from the State Department that says “claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are ... highly dubious.” (he lied, people died. we got him.)

The State Department was also allowed to insert a longer passage saying it doubted that Saddam was pursuing an “integrated and comprehensive” program to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.

Furthermore, the intelligence assessment also appears to call into question Bush’s accusation that Saddam could try to help arm the al-Qaida terrorist network with chemical or biological weapons, saying that it had “low confidence” in that scenario. (they are being stripped NAKED before the whole world and, it is so ugly)

NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell reported Friday that some U.S. intelligence officials had been concerned about the White House’s strong attempt to defend its position in the past week. The allegation of possible links between Saddam and al-Qaida had been one of the prime arguments the administration used to persuade Congress to authorize the war in Iraq, and the intelligence officials feared that public acknowledgment of the low level of confidence in that conclusion could be embarrassing.

(ha, ha, ha. so, the intelligence community is against *ush now and the more he tries to pin it elsewhere, the more documents that will be "leaked" incriminatiing him. this has a life of it's own, now. everyone is trying to save themselves and it'll take several HIGH RANKING people to take the fall to save *ush and they ain't willing to be fed to the wolves for him. we'll end up getting them all.

this is like a bank robbery that goes wrong (or, any other crime) that involved alot of people and one got caught. they start cutting deals and turning on each other. we'll mop this mess up soon.)

DOUBTS OVER BUSH’S CASE

The controversy over Bush’s claim about uranium has undermined the administration’s efforts to quiet rising doubts about his justifications for going to war. The United States said military action was justified, in part, because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but no such weapons have been found.

The CIA acknowledged last week that it had its doubts about the information, but Bush administration officials repeatedly sought to include the assertion in public statements aimed at vilifying Iraq, sources told NBC News.

The CIA sometimes succeeded in getting the information removed from such statements, the sources said. Most notably, Tenet himself persuaded the White House to strike it from a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati in October, fully three months before he used it in his State of the Union address.

(so, basically, they fought over the lies and some were even removed but, THEN *ush put the lies BACK IN when he spoke to the american people. the state of the union address is mandated in his job, he HAS to talk to the american people. to LIE in THAT most important speech of all speeches is HIGH TREASON. we got him on that one alone but, there's MORE.

the CIA is singing like a canary. DON'T piss off the CIA...)

NBC News has previously reported that Robert Joseph, the National Security Council’s senior director for proliferation strategy, and the CIA’s weapons proliferation director, Alan Foley, argued about whether the reference should have been in the speech.

Sources have told the network that, after Foley objected to the first draft of the passage, Joseph came up with the suggestion of attributing it to the British, asking Foley whether that would make it technically correct.

Because British intelligence officials had made the information public, Foley acknowledged that the passage was factually accurate, even though the CIA did not think the assertion was true, according to the sources.

(oooh, caught manipulating the truth... AGAIN)

www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?vts=071920030805 newwindow (http://)

He's getting it from his OWN party and now his rivals want some of that *ss. We need him to fall so we can really tear into *ush's credibility. He's what made *ush legit to the world. Both of them have been named war criminals OFFICIALLY and if they lose credibility, we can try them at the Hague.



Snip:

TONY Blair was branded a "psychopath" yesterday in a magazine owned by Chancellor Gordon Brown's closest political ally.

In what was being seen by Downing Street as an open declaration of war, ex-minister Geoffrey Robinson's New Statesman dedicated an entire edition to the Prime Minister's potential demise.

The onslaught even forced Mr Blair's official spokesman to deny the Premier had gone "potty".

The magazine said: "He is a man who doesn't really know who he is. More technically, he is diagnosed as a psychopath capable of reinventing himself with remarkable dexterity, like an actor."

It added: "What most people call spin - the routine lubricant of all political gearboxes - is, in Blair's case, eloquent self-delusion on a heroic scale."

The Mirror...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13190359_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-BLAIR%2DS%2DA%2DPSYCHO%2DCLAIM%2DHIS%2DLABOUR%2DRI VALS-name_page.html (http://)


Blair paying price for support of U.S.

LONDON -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair may be warmly welcomed in the United States. But his unwavering support of the Bush administration, particularly with respect to Iraq, is costing him at home.

Blair has been beset by two of the same issues that have dogged President Bush -- allegations that he exaggerated intelligence reports to justify the invasion of Iraq, and public doubts fueled by the war's ambiguous and difficult outcome.

But lately American officials have dumped two new troublesome issues into the prime minister's lap.

They have in effect repudiated a British-supplied intelligence report contending that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, tried to buy uranium for its nuclear weapons program from the West African country of Niger. This is awkward for Blair, who still maintains the information was accurate.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0703/18britblair.html (http://)

(They are now betraying Tony Blair and feeding him to the wolves. I LOVE IT!!!)



NPR/ATC: McGovern calls for Cheney's resignation

He's getting it from all sides. When the bully on the block is down, everyone likes to rush in and get their kicks in. Like in the movie "Friday"...


Analyst: Cheney Pressured CIA on Iraq Arms Intelligence
NPR's Robert Siegel speaks with Ray McGovern, a retired CIA
analyst and member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity (VIPS). McGovern says Vice President **** Cheney put
pressure on the intelligence community, and in particular, the
CIA, to produce evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing
or had acquired material for making nuclear weapons.

http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfId=1337947 (http://)


He's being shanked from all sides.



Faked intelligence on Iraq part of a pattern of White House

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A leading Democrat in Congress accused the White House of a broad pattern of dissemblance in making its case for waging war on Iraq (news - web sites).

Carl Levin, senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), refuted White House claims that now-discredited reports that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear material from Africa was an isolated case of Washington using dodgy pre-war intelligence.


"The misleading statement about African uranium is not an isolated incident. There is a significant amount of troubling evidence that it was part of a pattern of exaggerations and misleading statements," he said in comments delivered from the floor of the US Senate.


"The President's statement that Iraq was attempting to acquire African uranium was not a 'mistake.' It was not inadvertent. It was not a slip. It was negotiated between the CIA (news - web sites) and the NSC," he said, referring to the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) and National Security Council.


"It was calculated. It was misleading," said Levin.
(snip/...)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030715/pl_afp/us_iraq_weapons_lead&cid=1521&ncid=1478 (http://)


This is good! Because he points out that the Nigerian lie is only the tip of the iceberg. And, he's heavy enough to make many listen to what WE'VE been saying for YEARS now.



Lou Dobbs Poll - CNN

Who is responsible for the WMD intelligence controversy?

CIA 3% 25 votes

President Bush 82% 603 votes

Democrats 14% 100 votes

British 1% 5 votes


www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/


So, this means that MANY of the people who voted for him think he's a criminal (finally).



He's Making More Enemies Than He Can Keep Up With

This is what war looks like to families, and once again, * wasn't there:

Zachary McCrory, 6, watches the graveside service for his grandfather, Sgt. Roger Dale Rowe, as his grandmother and Rowe's wife, Shirley Rowe, left, holds the U.S. flag given to her on Friday, July 18, 2003, in Bon Aqua, Tenn. Rowe, a Tennessee Army National Guardsman, was killed by a sniper July 9, 2003, as he drove a tanker fuel truck in Iraq (news - web sites). Rowe died five days before his 55th birthday, making him the oldest American casualty since the start of the war in Iraq. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030718/168/4q50g.html&e=8 (http://)



When The NY Times Prints It, Most Americans Believe It


This has turned into a feeding frenzy:

NYT: Scant evidence of Iraq WMD, and Bush admin knew

July 20, 2003
In Sketchy Data, Trying to Gauge Iraq Threat
By THE NEW YORK TIMES


This article was reported and written by James Risen, David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker.

WASHINGTON, July 19 — Beginning last summer, Bush administration officials insisted that they had compelling new evidence about Iraq's prohibited weapons programs, and only occasionally acknowledged in public how little they actually knew about the current status of Baghdad's chemical, biological or nuclear arms.

Some officials belittled the on-again, off-again United Nations inspections after the Persian Gulf war of 1991, suggesting that the inspectors had missed important evidence. "Even as they were conducting the most intrusive system of arms control in history, the inspectors missed a great deal," Vice President **** Cheney said last August, before the inspections resumed.

In the fall, as the debate intensified over whether to have inspectors return to Iraq, senior government officials continued to suggest that the United States had new or better intelligence that Iraq's weapons programs were accelerating — information that the United Nations lacked.

"After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more," President Bush declared in a speech in Cincinnati last October. "And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."

more.............

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/international/worldspecial/20WEAP.html?amp;ei=5062&en=28360ecb210885f6&partner=GOOGLE&ex=1059278400&pagewanted=print&position= (http://)

The Brits are VERY upset and they think his death is WAY to convenient and they won't even wait for an investigation, they want Blair gone and they want an investigation and they KNOW that this man was killed because he was a weapon insoector that disagreed with the Uranium story.

The other two leading inspectors are Scott Ritter and Hans Blix and, BOTH of them are attacking.
-----------------------------------------------




Dr. David Kelly, the last person killed by this war. I figure he was silenced because he was a link to the lies as a weapons inspector.

Thing is, the Brits are different than americans,maybe their tv shows aren't as good so they have more time to be outraged. ALL OF THEM want to know about this "coincidence" of him committing "suicide" while this "war" is being investigated.

They want Blair's head, without even waiting for proof. I love it.


Saturday July 19, 2003 17:49 - (SA)

LONDON - Glenda Jackson, a former minister in Tony Blair's government, on Saturday urged the British prime minister to resign over the death of arms expert David Kelly.

<snip>

Jackson said the judicial inquiry announced by Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon into his death would paralyse the government while Blair remained in office.


http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/zones/sundaytimes/newsst/newsst1058629764.asp (http://)


CBS News | Senate Dems Blame Bush, Not CIA | July 16, 2003 22:18:59 (http://darker0darker.tripod.com/sendem.html)

Above Original

The story was changed and the title also was changed after a few hours. It's now changed 3 times.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml


Soldier Suicides

THIS is just another coffin nail for the bastards. The families will leave their side and join our side and people won't attack THEM (just like the 9/11 families) because of the nature of their angst:


ABC World News Tonight - Wednesday, July 16,2003

Place in program: Top of the program, a segment discussing Gen. John Abizaid's press conference, and troop morale. After the segment, this exchange took place:

Peter Jennings: One other very delicate point today about morale... suicides.

Martha Raddatz: Yes, Peter. ABC News has confirmed that of those deaths in Iraq, at least five are suspected suicides. These are figures we've been trying to get for several days now, something the Pentagon really does not want to talk about. It's a very delicate subject, as you say.

Peter Jennings: Thank you, Martha.

------------------------------

The US currently has about 150,000 troops in Iraq. They've been there since March 19th so that's about 4 months. There have been five deaths attributed to suicide. That works out to a rate of about 7 per 100,000. According to the info I've found we would actually expect about 11.73 deaths per 100,000.

http://amsa.army.mil/1Msmr/2003/v09_n01_Article2.htm (http://)



CIA Did Not OK Claim-Hussein Could Launch in 45 Minutes

The CIA is leaking documents everywhere. This is truly turning out to be a "perfect storm":

-------------------------------
The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation.

The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public "dossier" on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair -- and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable.


(so, you can plainly see that Kelly was murdered to keep this as silent as possible. But, too many people have this information and it now has a life of it's own. we're gonna win this one.)

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17424-2003Jul19.html?nav=hptop_tb newwindow (http://)



For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 28, 2002

Radio Address by the President to the Nation


THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On Thursday, I met with Democratic and Republican members of Congress to discuss the threat posed by the Iraqi regime. The security of our country is the commitment of both political parties, and the responsibility of both the President and the Congress. We are united in our determination to confront this urgent threat to America.

We're moving toward a strong resolution authorizing the use of force, if necessary, to defend our national security interests against the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. And by passing this resolution we will send a clear message to the world community and to the Iraqi regime the demands of the United Nations Security Council must be followed: the Iraqi dictator must be disarmed. These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced.

The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.

more

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020928.html newwindow (http://)


So, he blamed it on the Brits. But, David Kelly would've told the truth. Now, he's dead. Conveniently. TOO CONVENIENTLY.

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/img/2003/dancart1716.jpg

And, guess what?


Condi is taking the blame, just as I predicted. She's gone. So gone.


Then, we can work our we up to the top...

It seems that she's still got some life in her, she's blaming her assistant. Don't worry, the assistant will leak something.

NO ONE goes quietly into that good night, no, they rage, rage for the dying of the light...

----------------------------------------------------


NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The No. 2 official at the National Security Council is
taking responsibility for U.S. President George W. Bush's controversial and
discredited claim in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Africa,
MSNBC reported Tuesday.
In a rare, on-the-record briefing with journalists, Stephen Hadley, National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's deputy, said he was responsible for failing
to adequately vet the 16-word claim in Bush's State of the Union address.
Hadley's admission follows CIA Director George Tenet's acknowledgment last
week that the CIA should've removed the statement from the State of the Union
text.



But, this has FINALLY made it to the White House:



WOLF BLITZER: Welcome back. On this historic day, there's yet more news coming out of the White House. For that, let's turn to our White House Correspondent, Suzanne Malveaux. Suzanne, you have some additional breaking news unfolding right now. What's going on?

SUZANNE MALVEAUX: Wolf, it really was an extraordinaty briefing. For more than an hour, the White House - the bottom line is the White House is sharing responsibility for the flap over the President's State of the Union Address, that 16 word statement that has become so controversial, that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Africa. Well, Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, as well as the Director of Communications Dan Bartlett, uh, letting us in on the details in these communications.

Well, what happened is that over the weekend, the White House discovered two memos from the CIA that were sent to the National Security Council. In these memos, it states concerns that the CIA had over that statement that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Africa. Now, this was over the Cincinnati speech, a speech the President gave in October. That was taken out of the Cincinnati speech because of these concerns, it was put back in the SOTU Address.

Now, Hadley said he did not recall those memos. Had he recalled those memos that he got from the CIA during the speech writing process, it would have sent red flags, he would have told the President, no, we cannot have this in the speech. He also said that National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice also taking personal responsibility for this snafu, for this flap. The White House still insisting, however, bottom line, that the information was technically accurate, but yes, the White House now sharing that responsibility with the CIA that that should have never been included in the speech. Wolf?

WOLF: Alright, Suzanne Malveaux. Important information coming from the White House. Thanks Suzanne. We'll be getting back to you as usual.

uppin

NOW MSNBC is reporting that the bodies of Usay and Quday--sons of Hussein--have been identified! Apparently some Iraqi informant has stepped forward to report this. Do you think this is true or just another spin to rally the troops and Americans who are holding on to their support of the Bush administration?

Oh, and I almost forgot--this so-called informant stands to claim the $30 million dollar reward for reporting this information? :eek: Whose to say that this isn't a plan that Bush has to pay someone off or take the money and stash it somewhere for emergencies in the event he gets caught hood-winking the American public and needs to do something drastic?

Peace

I think the government should make the photos of the dead bodies and the DNA results public....it's one thing for them to claim the DNA is conclusive and shows those two animals are dead, another for the public to see those conclusive results....

Remember "Chemical Ali"? Supposedly they had killed him too......they said that all with their chests puffed out, only to retract the statement when it was obvious they were lying and he was still roaming the streets....but they were CERTAIN and tests had shown that they had killed him!!!

I'd want to know where the original DNA samples came from....with all the techniology, all the sophisticated covert gadgets AND operations that the US, and Zionists, have at their disposal, u're telling me they couldn't get Satan and his two lil "Nicky"s, but they have DNA on all three of them??

HA!

But yes, for me to believe that they got those two animals, I'd want to see pictures, and I'd want to see the results of the DNA tests --- I'd also like an explanation as to how they got the original DNA samples....

Peace

I'm with you Matchbook Lady. Apparently the US is supposed to have pictures of the two allegedly dead sons to show to the Iraqi people because, like us, they are demanding PROOF!

Also, wasn't the US intelligence reports stating that their BEST sources and technology spotted these men entering a building IN Baghdad, and immediately deployed a missile attack and destroyed that building with much speculation following and "soft" reporting that they had been killed ALONG with their notorious daddy?

Yes, how did they manage to get samples of the family's DNA and they couldn't manage to get close enough to him to kill him? Hmmmm....

"u're telling me they couldn't get Satan and his two lil "Nicky"s, but they have DNA on all three of them??"


Always smart (if not cynical).

Thanks for uppin' this thread, mami.

Besos.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20030724/capt.sge.kim61.240703155435.photo00.default-385x264.jpg

Qusay



http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20030724/capt.sge.kim61.240703155435.photo01.default-280x376.jpg

Uday



"Shut up, watch the pictures, and pay no attention to 9/11 report which is being released today!

The pictures were intended to convince Iraqis the Hussein brothers are dead. Why are they shown on American TV?

This is what is NOT being shown:

3 dead and 9 wounded GIs this morning in Iraq.

the 9/11 report.

The Bush regime is trying to distract us again!"

IndianaGreen



http://www.mirage-solutions.com/images/bushb.jpg


Section III, Article 34 of the 1st Geneva Protocol says:

Art. 34. Remains of deceased

1. The remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities and those or persons not nationals of the country in which they have died as a result of hostilities shall be respected, and the gravesites of all such persons shall be respected, maintained and marked as provided for in Article 130 of the Fourth Convention, where their remains or gravesites would not receive more favourable consideration under the Conventions and this Protocol.

2. As soon as circumstances and the relations between the adverse Parties permit, the High Contracting Parties in whose territories graves and, as the case may be, other locations of the remains of persons who have died as a result of hostilities or during occupation or in detention are situated, shall conclude agreements in order:

(a) to facilitate access to the gravesites by relatives of the deceased and by representatives of official graves registration services and to regulate the practical arrangements for such access;

(b) to protect and maintain such gravesites permanently;

(c) to facilitate the return of the remains of the deceased and of personal effects to the home country upon its request or, unless that country objects, upon the request of the next of kin.

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html

These pics are on the front page of yahoo and our government is openly gloating about it.



Silence of the grave

Saddam's two slain sons can tell no tales

Leader
Thursday July 24, 2003
The Guardian

As Jack Straw says, it would have been preferable had Uday and Qusay Hussein not been killed. Many may feel that Saddam's odious sons richly deserved their fate at the hands of US special forces in Mosul. But had they been taken alive, they might in time have provided invaluable information about Iraq's arms programmes, the whereabouts of any extant weapons of mass destruction, the former regime's view of al-Qaida or, for example, Saddam's past dealings with US governments. They might even have revealed their father's whereabouts.

A public trial in which the two men were called to account for their crimes might have proved a cathartic moment for the Iraqi nation, demonstrating that war can bring justice. None of this is now possible. It is unclear how hard US forces tried to obtain a peaceful surrender. Little thought seems to have been given to mounting a siege or subduing the men by non-lethal means after they initially opened fire. It is disappointing that the many sensitive questions upon which the two men might have shed light remain unanswered as a result.

Uday and Qusay's deaths have a symbolic value for the Bush administration akin to the toppling of Saddam's statue during the final assault on Baghdad. Demoralised US soldiers who would rather go home may now feel a bit better about their mission. Ordinary Iraqis may feel greater confidence that the Saddam era really has ended.

It is possible that the promised, large reward for the Mosul informant who tipped off the Americans may encourage the betrayal of Saddam himself. For George Bush, facing rising Democratic party criticism of his pre-war intelligence claims and falling public support for his costly and confused postwar policy, the killings are undoubtedly politically opportune. He will chalk them up as another signal victory in his "war on terror".

If Mr Bush were a fighter pilot (which he sometimes seems to think he is), he would paint two silhouettes on his fuselage with crosses through them. This is the simplistic approach ridiculed by Democrat **** Gephardt when he warned this week that "foreign policy isn't a John Wayne movie, where we catch the bad guys, hoist a few cold ones, and then everything fades to black".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1004709,00.html


Link to slide show (http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/world/0307/gallery.hussein.bodies/frameset.exclude.html)

One-third of Germans under age 30 believe the U.S. government may have sponsored the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, according to a poll.

And about 20 percent of Germans in all age groups hold this view, according to a survey of 1,000 people conducted for the weekly Die Zeit.

The poll also said 68 percent of all Germans felt the media had not reported the full truth behind the attacks, in which some 3,000 people were killed when hijacked planes were crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. ---


BERLIN, Germany (Reuters) (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/24/german.poll.reut/index.html)


So, Germany knows the truth, too. These pigs are running out of anyone who will believe their lies anymore. And, that's when all this ends for them, when the lies no longer work.


Check out this euro-poll:


http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3131040

An ICM poll in the Guardian newspaper showed public trust in Blair -- once one of the most popular prime ministers in British history -- slumped by 12 points in the past month to 39 percent.

It also showed Blair's personal approval rating had dropped to minus 17 -- down from plus seven on the so-called "Baghdad Bounce" in the immediate aftermath of the war.


"Minus 7?!?" That's BELOW ZERO and then some. ****. We're hurting him. Ha.



Somebody get lox and cream cheese, he's TOAST.

"you guys will not BELIEVE this! UNBELIEVABLE

just got word here at work that rumsfeld is going to hold a pentagon briefing at 2p today... originally held for 12:30p today, just changed it

why is this relevant? because the House-Senate committee is also having a 2p presser on the 9-11 report!!!

pentagon is doing this so the 9-11 presser won't get air! they knew all the networks were gonna cover the 9-11 report briefing... but now with the death pics release, pentagon knows they'll get air!

unFUCKINGbelievable, the audacity of these people!"

newsguyatl

THIS is BIG trouble for them:


July 25, 2003—A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.

The former CIA agents were asked to examine prewar intelligence last year by Rumsfeld and CIA Director George Tenet. The former agents will present a final report on their findings to the Pentagon, the CIA and possibly Congress later this year. More than a dozen calls to the White House, the CIA, the National Security Council and the Pentagon for comment were not returned.

The ad hoc committee, called the Office of Special Plans, headed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and other Pentagon hawks, described the worst-case scenarios in terms of Iraq's alleged stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and claimed the country was close to acquiring nuclear weapons, according to four of the CIA agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the information is still classified, who conducted a preliminary review of the intelligence. ---

More than a dozen CIA agents responsible for writing intelligence reports for the agency told the former CIA agents investigating the accuracy of the intelligence reports they were pressured by the Pentagon and the Office of Special Plans to hype and exaggerate intelligence to show Iraq as being an imminent threat to the security of the U.S. ---


By Jason Leopold - Online Journal (http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/072503Leopold/072503leopold.html)

This is the most powerful, far-reaching attack yet. They're in trouble. This guy lists the different lies in details and rips them apart. People are not going to ignore this. He blisters *ush on such a broad range of topics, that everyone from the elderly, to veterans, to environmentalists will be very angry with him.

Get ready for some new BIG thing to happen in this country, they'll need the distraction:


(Press release)

DEAN TO PRESIDENT BUSH: "IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH."
Friday July 25, 2003
By: Press Office

Former Vermont governor says American people should know the true intentions behind Bush administration's agenda (July 25, 2003)

Des Moines, IA--Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean made the following statement today while campaigning in Iowa:

"When George W. Bush ran for president three years ago, he promised us an era of responsibility in Washington--instead we've got an era of irresponsibility unparalleled in our history. A week after discovering that the cost of occupying Iraq will be double the original estimates, we found out that the nation's deficit is 50 percent higher than estimated just five months ago. In fact, during his two-and-a-half years in office, the President has misled us, the American people, on nearly every policy initiative his administration has put forth.

"Trust and credibility are at the very heart of the relationship between a government and its people. And that trust demands that leaders level with the people about what they are doing, the reason they are doing it and the consequences of their actions. The very soul of democracy is at risk when leaders are not straight and truthful with the people.

"By now, we all know that President Bush misled the American people on the rationale for war with Iraq. We now know that the Niger uranium claim was discredited, that evidence regarding aluminum tubes was highly questionable, and that the link to al Qaeda was virtually non-existent.

"Last week I asked sixteen questions about the war in Iraq that must be answered if the American people are to understand the truth around the rush to war and the failure to plan for peace.

"These questions are, however, only one piece of a far broader practice by this administration of misleading the American people and breaching the fundamental trust that they have placed in their elected leadership. This practice goes far beyond misleading the country and the world about the reasons for taking us to war in Iraq, this practice extends into the state of the nation's economy, its environment, its schools and beyond.

"Mr. President, today I call on you to level with the American people not just about the situation in Iraq but about the true intentions behind the agenda your Administration is pursuing:

· "You claimed that your tax cuts would create jobs. Instead we have three million fewer jobs in our economy than when you took office.

· "You claimed that we would only run deficits that were small and temporary. Instead, we now face deficits in excess of $455 billion--the largest in history--and red ink as far as the eye can see.

· "You claimed that your tax cuts would strengthen and stimulate the economy. Instead, we have record numbers of personal bankruptcies, home foreclosures, and an unemployment rate that is the highest in 9 years.

· "You claimed that the deficits were caused by the costs of 9/11, the war on terror, and homeland security. In fact, the cost of your tax cuts is three times the amount of those items--and your deficit forecasts do not even include the costs of the Iraq war.

· "You claimed that your education program would live up to its name and that No Child would be Left Behind. Instead, school districts all across the country, including in your home state of Texas, are dumbing down their tests to ensure that their schools are not labeled as needing improvement. No Child Left Behind turns out to be a huge unfunded mandate on local governments that now must raise property taxes or find other sources of revenue to meet their legal obligations under the Act.

· "You named your environmental initiatives 'Clear Skies' and 'Healthy Forests' when the truth is that Clear Skies allows more pollutants into the air and Healthy Forests is little more than a bill to reward the logging industry.

· "You claimed that national and community service was central to your vision for the country. Instead, you have sat idly by while membership in the program is threatened to be cut by 80 program.

· "And you visited soldiers wounded in Afghanistan on January 17th and had the audacity to promise to 'provide the best care for anybody who's willing to put their life in harm's way' when the previous day your Department of Veteran's Affairs cut off health care access to 164,000 veterans.

"Mr. President, it is time for the truth. It is time for the truth on Iraq but, more importantly, it is time to level with the American people on the true intentions of your administration. It is time to end the empty rhetoric and false promises. The issues at stake are too serious: the lives of our soldiers; the livelihood of our families; the health of our children; the future of our world.

"Let us instead work together to rebuild our national community-a community where we truly do not leave any child behind, where we preserve clean skies and healthy forests, and fulfill Harry Truman's dream of health care for all Americans. We must preserve the fiscal trust for our children and grandchildren and ensure that our seniors have access to the Social Security and Medicare that we promised them.

"Let's give people a reason to care about their government and to engage in politics again-to believe that their opinions matter and that their leaders listen. Let us work together to take our country back and to restore our lost idealism-to restore our moral force in the world community and to make this a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people. We can do this, and we will-one voter, one supporter at a time. We will end the empty rhetoric and make the American people believe again."

The following information contrasts the administation's assertions with what the administration has actually done:

ECONOMY

ASSERTION: President Bush: "Government cannot manage or control the economy." (President Bush's budget message, 2/3/2003)

TRUTH: George W. Bush's administration cannot manage or control the economy.

ASSERTION: "This budget . . . is a plan to speed the return of strong economic growth to generate jobs" (President Bush's budget message, 2/4/2002)

TRUTH: Since January 2001, over three million jobs have been lost. (WSJ, 7/24/03)

ASSERTION: ". . . ur budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term." (President Bush, State of the Union address,1/28/2003)

TRUTH: "... by 2013 the deficit will reach $530 billion or 3.0 of Gross Domestic product, equivalent to $2,300 for each household in America. In addition, such a policy of amassing ever greater debt over the next decade will cause the cost of annual interest payments on the debt to soar to $425 billion a year by 2013. . ." (CBPP, $300 Billion Deficits, As Far as the Eye Can See, 7/8/2003)

ASSERTION: "Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage growth." (President Bush, Western Michigan University remarks, 3/27/2001)

TRUTH: During the first quarter of this year, GDP rose at a sluggish rate of 1.4% (NYT, 6/27/03)

ASSERTION: "Now, you hear talk about deficits. And I'm concerned about deficits. I'm sure you are as well. But this nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war." (President Bush, Canton, Ohio, remarks, 4/24/2003)

TRUTH: The CBPP reports, "Congressional Budget Office data indicate that in 2003 and 2004, the cost of enacted tax cuts is almost three times as great as the cost of war, even when the cost of increases in homeland security expenditures, the rebuilding after September 11, and other costs of the war on terrorism--including the action in Afghanistan--are counted as 'war costs,' along with the costs of the military operations and subsequent reconstruction in Iraq." (Richard Kogan, "War, Tax Cuts, and the Deficit," CBPP, 8 July 2003)

ASSERTION: "The minute I got sworn in, we were in a recession. And that's why I went to Congress for a tax package." (President Bush, Canton, Ohio, remarks, 4/24/2003)

TRUTH: Bush was inaugurated in January 2001; the recession began in March 2001. He did not inherit a recession. Moreover, the tax package he took to Congress was the same one on which he had campaigned. (National Bureau of Economic Research; Richard Kogan, "War, Tax Cuts, and the Deficit," CBPP, 7/8/2003)

ASSERTION: "The growth and jobs plan I outlined earlier this year will provide critical momentum to our economic recovery. For every American paying income taxes, I propose speeding up the tax cuts already approved by the Congress." (President Bush's budget message, 2/3/2003)

TRUTH: Ten recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science said Bush's plan would not provide a short-term boost and would create long-term budget deficits. Franco Modigliani (MIT), who received the Nobel in 1985, called Bush's plan "preposterous." Daniel McFadden, the 2000 recipient, described the plan as a "weapon of mass destruction aimed at the middle class." (Blanton, The Boston Globe, 2/12/2003)

ASSERTION: "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." (President Bush, Radio Address, 4/26/2003)

TRUTH: "Analysis shows that 8.1 million lower and middle-income taxpayers, who pay billions of dollars a year in income taxes, will receive no tax reduction under the legislation." (Robert Greenstein, CBPP, 6/1/2003)

ASSERTION: "We have priorities at home as well--restoring health to our economy above all. Our economy had begun to weaken over a year before September 11th, but the terrorist attack dealt it another severe blow. This budget advances a bipartisan economic recovery plan that provides much more than greater unemployment benefits: it is a plan to speed the return of strong economic growth, to generate jobs, and to give unemployed Americans the dignity and security of a paycheck instead of an unemployment check." (President Bush's budget message, 2/4/2002)

TRUTH: During the first quarter of this year, GDP rose at a sluggish rate of 1.4% and 1.2% of mortgages were in foreclosure, setting a record high. The unemployment rate climbed to a nine-year high of 6.4% in June. Setting a new record, 1.6 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy last year. (NYT, 6/27/03; USA Today, 7/10/03; WSJ 7/24/03; U.S. News & World Report; 7/21/03)

ASSERTION: In his 2003 State of the Union, Bush said, "We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations."

TRUTH: The White House released a deficit projection in July, 2003 of $455 billion. (Source: "White House Sees a 455 Billion Gap in the 03 Budget" New York Times David E. Rosenbaum 7/16/03)



EDUCATION

ASSERTION: In January 2003, Bush defended No Child Left Behind: "The main reservations we've heard in the year since we passed the reform have come from some adults, not the children, who say the testing requirement is an unfunded mandate on the states. Well, that's not true. We put up $387 million to provide for testing ...We demanded excellence. We're going to pay for the accountability systems to make sure that we do get excellence." (Official statements, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 1/13/03)

TRUTH: The GAO released a report that the new testing will cost the states between $1.9 and $5.3 billion. (GAO Report, "Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies, May 2003) The FY 2004 Bush budget request was only $387 million; Congress has already appropriated $771 which still leaves a shortfall of $742 million. (Congressional Press Release, 5/8/03)

ASSERTION: President Bush: "You don't teach the test when it comes to literacy. We went to a Title 1 classroom -- or a classroom with Title 1 students in it, where the teacher was using some of the most advanced thought about teaching reading, a balanced approach including phonics. You teach a child to read and he or her (sic) will be able to pass a literacy test. I don't buy teaching the test as an excuse to have a system that doesn't hold people accountable for results." (Townsend Elementary School, Tennessee 2/21/2001)

TRUTH: In Texas, the board voted to reduce the number of questions that students must answer correctly to pass third grade reading exams from 24 out of 36 to 20. In Michigan, officials lowered the percentage of students who must pass statewide tests to certify a school as making adequate yearly progress to 42% from 75% of high school students on English tests. And Colorado overhauled the grading system used on its tests, lumping students previously characterized on the basis of test scores as "partially proficient" with those called "proficient". ("States are Relaxing Education Standards to Avoid Sanctions from Federal Law," Sam Dillon, New York Times, 5/22/03)

ASSERTION: In April 2002, Bush praised Lucy Salazar, a volunteer with the Even Start literacy program: "One of the things I try to do when I go into communities is herald soldiers in the armies of compassion, those souls who have heard the call to love a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself, and have followed through on that call; Lucy Salazar is a retired federal government worker. She teaches reading skills to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children -- incredibly important...And oftentimes, citizens such as her never get the praise they deserve. Lucy, thank you for coming and representing thousands of people like you."

TRUTH: Bush has since proposed cutting the Even Start budget by 20% (Associated Press, 2/4/2002)



HOMELAND SECURITY

ASSERTION: One program, the Container Security Initiative, which would screen cargo at foreign ports, was specifically endorsed by Bush last June. "The Customs Service," he told an audience in Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, "is working with overseas ports and shippers to improve its knowledge of container shipments, assessing risk so that we have a better feel of who we ought to look at, what we ought to worry about."

TRUTH: Bush's budget provides no new funding for the program. (New Republic, March 2003)



HEALTH CARE

ASSERTION: In March 2001, Bush pledged to support children's hospitals: "This is a hospital, but it's also - it's a place full of love. And I was most touched by meeting the parents and the kids and the nurses and the docs, all of whom are working hard to save lives. I want to thank the moms who are here. Thank you very much for you hospitality...There's a lot of talk about budgets right now, and I'm here to talk about the budget. My job as the President is to submit a budget to the Congress and to set priorities, and one of the priorities that we've talked about is making sure the health care systems are funded."

TRUTH: Bush's first budget proposed cutting grants to children's hospitals like the one he visited by 15% ($34 million). His 2004 budget additionally proposes to cut 30% ($86 million) out of grants to children's hospitals. ("Caught on Film: the Bush Credibility Gap," House Minority Appropriations Committee)



ENVIRONMENT

ASSERTION: On Earth Day, in April 2002, Bush said, "Clear Skies legislation, when passed by Congress, will significantly reduce smog and mercury emissions, as well as stop acid rain. It will put more money directly into programs to reduce pollution, so as to meet firm national air-quality goals."

TRUTH: The Clear Skies plan would "generate millions more tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides and allow three times more mercury emissions than current law." And according to EPA estimates, "the plan would have the effect of raising the amount of coal burned by power companies... potentially generating 50 percent more sulfur emissions and delaying by up to 10 years major cuts in sulfur emissions required by the Clean Air Act." (League of Conservation Voters 2003 Presidential Report Card)

ASSERTION: Pres. Bush: "With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon monox- carbon dioxide, within a reasonable period of time." (September 29, 2000 file footage, ABC News)

TRUTH: Ted Koppel reported that "... the original pledge was written off as sloppy work by a campaign speechwriter. The president was persuaded to drop a line restating the pledge from his speech to Congress. Two weeks later, it was officially dead."(Nightline, April 25, 2001)

ASSERTION: President Bush: "I have sent you a healthy forest initiative, to help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn away millions of acres of treasured forests. I urge you to pass these measures for the good of both our environment and our economy." (January 28, 2003, State of the Union Address)

TRUTH: "Bush's 'Healthy Forests' initiative likewise suffers from Orwellian doublespeak, felling Western forests to save them. Disguised as a measure for curbing wildfires, the plan invites logging companies to cut healthy trees in national forests while reducing public oversight. Ironically, the probable cause of recent catastrophic fires is global warming, a problem that most Republicans deny." (By Glen Scherer for salon.com January 6, 2003)



AMERICORPS AND NATIONAL SERVICE

ASSERTION: In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush promised to expand AmeriCorps: "Our country also needs citizens working to rebuild our communities. We need mentors to love children, especially children whose parents are in prison. And we need more talented teachers in troubled schools. USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers." (State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003)

TRUTH: The funding of AmeriCorps is currently in conference as part of the emergency supplemental bill. Although the Senate has moved to restore/increase funding, the House is resisting such attempts. As it now stands, membership in AmeriCorps would be slashed by 80%. Throughout the public debate on the subject, Bush has not taken any action to persuade the House to increase or restore the funding. (David Broder House Senate Feuds end up targeting innocent victims, Chicago Tribune- 7/22/03; "AmeriCorps May Still Win Extra Funding; Associated Press,7/22/03)

ASSERTION: In January 2003, Bush praised the Boys and Girls Club: "I want to thank the Boys & Girls Clubs across the country...The Boys & Girls Club have got a grand history of helping children understand the future is bright for them, as well as any other child in America. Boys & Girls Clubs have been safe havens. They're little beacons of light for children who might not see light. And I want to thank them for their service to the country. Part of the vision for America is that we have a mosaic of all kinds of people providing love and comfort for people who need help." ("George W. Bush Delivers Remarks on First Anniversary of the USA Freedom Corps," FDCH Political Transcripts, 1/30/02)

TRUTH: In his 2002 budget, Bush proposed cutting all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club.

ASSERTION: In January of 2002, Bush had praised Teach for America founder Wendy Kopp while visiting Booker T. Washington High School in Atlanta: Out of an idea came the desire to convince folks to teach in schools that are having trouble getting teachers. And she has succeeded way beyond what people thought a single person could do." ("Professional Educators, Politicians and Students Show Support for Teach for America Program in Atlanta," Minority Professional Network, 1/31/02)

TRUTH: On July 11, 2003, Teach for America (TFA) was notified it would not receive any funding from the Corporation for National Community Service, the agency responsible for AmeriCorps funds. TFA expected $2 million in grants and leaves TFA short 2,700 education awards for its teachers out of 3,300 corps members who will be teaching this year. ("Teach for America Shut Out of Americorps National Funding Awards," TFA web site, 7/15/03)



VETERANS AFFAIRS

ASSERTION: On January 17, 2003, Bush visited 5 soldiers injured in Afghanistan at the Walter Reed Medical Center. He praised Army doctors and said, "We should and must provide the best care for anybody who's willing to put their life in harm's way." ("Bush Visits Soldiers Mending from Afghanistan Wounds," Associated Press, 1/17/03)

TRUTH: The previous day, Bush's Department of Veterans Affairs announced it was cutting off access to its health care system for 164,000 veterans who were expected to enroll in the current fiscal year. ("VA Cuts Some Veterans Access to Health Care," Washington Post, 1/17/03)



HOUSING

ASSERTION: In June 2002, Bush visited an Atlanta housing project that used HUD's HOPE VI grants: "You know, today I went to the -- to some of the home -- met some of the homeowners in this newly built homes and all you've got to do is shake their hand and listen to their stories and watch the pride that they exhibit when they show you the kitchen and the stairs...They showed me their home. They didn't show me somebody else's home, they showed me their home. And they are so proud to own their home and I want to thank them for their hospitality, because it helps the American people really understand what it means." (Remarks by President George Bush re: Expanding Opportunities for Homeownership," Federal News Service, 6/17/02)

TRUTH: The President's 2004 budget cut all HOPE VI funding.



AGRICULTURE

ASSERTION: In April 2002, at the South Dakota Ethanol Plant, Bush said, "I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. I support it now, because not only do I know it's important for the ag sector of our economy, it's an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy."

TRUTH: The plant had received $602,000 in 2001 under Clinton's Bioenergy Program. Bush cut the plant's bioenergy program in his 2004 budget. ("Ag Department Biodiesel, Ethanol Program May Be Renewed," Associated Press, 4/22/02)

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7147&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1301

you and i will be working at mcdonalds before bush gets impeached.

It's not about MY opinion. It's about public awareness.

So, I provide evidence and links. Being opinionated is not being a researcher.

People can disagree with ME but they can't disagree with events that happened or are ongoing.

I'm not here to dazzle anyone. And, I can be dazzling.

I simply want this information from many trusted sources but, buried to be sent by anyone who sees it. to other people.

Beyond that, if you have something to add to this thread, please do. Otherwise, you came on here just to make a demand of me? And, ignore what I posted?

You're missing the forrest for the trees then. This information in the public's hands is important, not MY opinions. And, NOT yours, either.

Thank you.

Fight The Power

By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 27, 2003; Page A01

Just weeks ago, Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, made a trip to the Middle East that was widely seen as advancing the peace process. There was speculation that she would be a likely choice for secretary of state, and hopes among Republicans that she could become governor of California and even, someday, president.

But she has since become enmeshed in the controversy over the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq's weapons in the run-up to war. She has been made to appear out of the loop by colleagues' claims that she did not read or recall vital pieces of intelligence. And she has made statements about U.S. intelligence on Iraq that have been contradicted by facts that later emerged.

The remarks by Rice and her associates raise two uncomfortable possibilities for the national security adviser. Either she missed or overlooked numerous warnings from intelligence agencies seeking to put caveats on claims about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, or she made public claims that she knew to be false.

Most prominent is her claim that the White House had not heard about CIA doubts about an allegation that Iraq sought uranium in Africa before the charge landed in Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28; in fact, her National Security Council staff received two memos doubting the claim and a phone call from CIA Director George J. Tenet months before the speech. Various other of Rice's public characterizations of intelligence documents and agencies' positions have been similarly cast into doubt.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51224-2003Jul26.html

As White House officials try to control the latest fallout over President Bush's flawed suggestion in the State of the Union address that Iraq was buying nuclear bomb materials, there's growing talk by insiders that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice may take the blame and resign.

For most insiders, it's inconceivable that Rice, touted as a future secretary of state, California governor, and even vice president, would go, but the latest revelations that her shop and deputy Stephen Hadley mishandled CIA warnings have put the NSC in the bull's eye of controversy.

While it's unclear how serious the talk is inside the administration about the future of Rice or Hadley with the NSC, a few top aides are already suggesting replacements for Rice…

more…
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/whisphome.htm