Replies: 51 Comments
Comment #1: REB 84 said on 11/22/05 @ 11:10pm ET...
Note the smart-assed abuse of the english language, always enough wiggle room to play with the truth.
Rumsfeld "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that Al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts with Iraq who could help them acquire"
Cheney, "[I]t's pretty well confirmed"
Consider to be? Could help them acquire? Pretty well confirmed?
Maybe this isn't outright lying, but it is BULLSHIT! Should we consider this administation to be the Bullshit Administration?
Comment #2: epppie said on 11/23/05 @ 12:31am ET...
Distorting the truth with intent to deceive is lying. But yes, this administration has typically been very cute with it's words, eg. mentioning Plame as Wilson's wife, instead of saying her actual name.
What I find interesting is that I read that Bush's brother headed the company that provided security for the WTC. IF the Bush administration wanted to plant demolition explosives at the WTC, that coincidence would seem to have provided opportunity.
It's a big if, of course.
Comment #3: stoufi1 said on 11/23/05 @ 8:45am ET...
Weak. Mostly old news. One of the above excerpts is already public knowledge:
"Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources."
I don't know which sources Waas talks about, but it could have been anyone in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Plus, it is no secret. From the 7/7/2004 SSCI "REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ", Chapter 12, Section B (URL is http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-b.htm):
"B. September and October 2001 Papers
(U) Shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI) Counterterrorism Center (CTC) and the CIA Near East and South Asia office (NESA)37 collaborated on a paper on Iraqi links to the September 11th attacks. This was the CIA's first attempt to summarize the Iraqi regime's ties to 9/11. The paper was disseminated to President's Daily Brief (PDB) principals on September 21, 2001. The Committee was not informed about the existence of this paper until June 2004. According to the CIA, the paper took a "Q&A" approach to the issue of Iraq's possible links to the September 11th attacks.
(U) Soon afterward, the NESA drafted a paper that broadened the scope of the issue by looking at Iraq's overall ties to terrorism. The Committee requested a copy of this October 2001 document, but representatives of the DCI declined to provide it, stating:
. . . we are declining to provide a copy of the paper. It was drafted in response to a request from a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) recipient, and the final paper was disseminated only to the PDB readership. Accordingly, it is not available for further dissemination.38"
It seems to be kind of pointless to cite anonymous Congressional sources on information that is already available to the public. By the way, if this had all been that big of a deal, and I'm not saying it isn't, why didn't any of the top Democrats, especially John Kerry, use this in their campaigns? It would not have been above Kerry to use this against Bush during the election.
The new part is in the first paragraph of the Waas article, excerpted here:
"Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter."
Which government records and are they public? If there is a direct reference in the article, I could have missed it. But I looked and didn't see it. If Waas knows, why didn't he share where those records came from? Also, he mentions current and former officials. Since the word "administration" is not here, and since the PDBs were given to the President by the CIA Director from CIA data, my guess is that it is another leaker or leakers either now at, or were in, the CIA. Porter Goss is supposed to be doing a lot of housecleaning there and it is not unusual for bureaucrats to leak information of this kind if they feel their job is threatened. Considering the CIA has been a sieve the last few years, this isn't surprising.
It also isn't surprising how this is supposed to be another "smoking gun" blah, blah, blah. Here's what I think. Next month, the Iraqis will be having another election, this time to elect the permanent government. When that happens, the media will be (or should be, if they have any integrity left) all over this story, with pictures of more purple-fingered Iraqis thanking President Bush for the chance to vote. It is also no mystery that soon after this, the military will begin getting troops out of Iraq as the Iraqi military takes on its own security role. The question is, should Bush be hailed for seeing Iraq through the tough times and the elections and getting the credit for all of this? I believe the Democrats are scared to death of this, especially with our own Congressional elections next November. As has been shown repeatedly over the past few years, Democratic politicians have and will go to great lengths to discredit the administration, regardless of the cost.
And yet, Conyers voted against Hunter's immediate pullout resolution, but has not offered a valid reason why. Even though he's on record on this blog as wanting that. At least he didn't vote for the Iraq war as did 100 Congressional Democrats, many of whom are trying to play CYA games.
Comment #4: point of order said on 11/23/05 @ 9:32am ET...
stoufi
Do you think there is ANY information that the anti-war activists feel should be kept out of the purview of the terrorists?
Comment #5: epppie said on 11/23/05 @ 10:00am ET...
The endless references to "sources" and "documents" are certainly frustrating. But the Bush administration's apparent obsession with secrecy seems to make this sort of approach inevitable. Not that all the references to "sources" are being done by administration critics. It seems to be a favorite tactic of pro-administration journalists as well, such as Novak and Miller (as I recall).
If the media were actually doing their job re. Iraqi elections, they would have made a stink about a television reporter who observed several voters with multiple ballots, for starters. The media doing their job would be bad news for Bush, not good.
Comment #6: LeslieB said on 11/23/05 @ 11:02am ET...
Dear Rep. Conyers,
Murray Waas is doing a great job. Of course, we already knew Bush knew [i.e., through Paul O'Neill's and Richard Clarke's books for one thing], but this is yet another piece of evidence confirming it.
Would it be possible to find out if the CIA staff who wrote this particular PDB are still employed at the CIA? Because Bush has a nasty habit of firing anyone who doesn't promote the propaganda.
Regarding bombing al-Jazeera: If it can be confirmed that Bush wanted to bomb al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar, can we add this to the list of impeachable offenses and possible war crimes?
Comment #7: LeslieB said on 11/23/05 @ 11:17am ET...
P.S. What I find really offensive, given the Waas's most recent revelations, is that the Bush administration continues to lie and mislead people about Hussein's alleged ties to al Qaeda. Or they argue, that well it didn't matter anyway if Hussein didn't have al Qaeda connections and there were no WMD, because we're democratizing the Middle East. The Bush administration just spins it, continues to lie, and never takes responsibility for anything.
Now Condoleezza Rice is on the news saying that Iraqi leaders didn't say what they said: That Iraqis have a right to fight an armed resistance against the occupation of their country by foreign forces, in other words Iraqis can kill American troops. Then Cheney accuses Democrats of supporting terrorism by calling for withdrawal, while the Bush administration may be negotiating withdrawal with Iraqi leaders who are demanding a pullout timetable.
So when will the Bush administration level with us? When will they take responsibility for anything?
Comment #8: malleckson said on 11/23/05 @ 1:10pm ET...
Woke up this morning with a very troubling thought. I have been trying to find a reference and have found some veiled ones but nothing yet that actually states a PNAC goal of population control. I need to to some more searching. What is bothering me....our military is made up of volunteers..on that we can all agree. Many have stated these are usually young men/woman who are joining the military for jobs, education, whatever. Some have gone so for as to indicate they are 'lower' class.
I hesitate to even say this, but is this a darker, underlying reason why they are stll there? (I realize it was oil in the beginning but cheney got his prize.) Why aren't we out yet. Is this why they were not supplied with the proper equipment to protect themselves? Is this a method of population control by our own Country? May God strike me dead if I am off base here, but the money being spent on this war is not going to our troops...why? (I know Halliburton, etc.)
Bushco started this war by saying it would last forever, amen. Yet he does not care about the soldiers fighting it...why? Their military pay is pittance compared to the 'private mercenaries' committing atrocious acts, who answer to no one but the Corporations that hire them.
I realize this is out of the box thinking...but look how bushco has gutted the VA benefits, etc. Something is very wrong. We seem to support genocide in many countries (N.O. was an example of will of 'negligiance') Will bushco not be satisfied until all of the young(reseves included) over there are dead? Will bushco keep sending more and more to die? Like Viet Nam...58,000 dying with one hand tied behind their backs.
Will bushco keep this up until all of people in Iraq are dead..population control. Will bushco bring back the draft to kill more of our kids? Scarey thought, this, but not out of character for the neocons.
Comment #9: Bill_o_Carolina said on 11/23/05 @ 1:21pm ET...
Population control? Well of course malleckson. That's why cigarettes are legal as well as alchohol. They both are killers and marijuana is illegal because it is good for you.
Comment #10: REB 84 said on 11/23/05 @ 1:26pm ET...
Just received the following email from WesPAC. Happy Thanksgiving!
Dear Friend,
Tomorrow, Americans will sit down together with friends and family across the country to celebrate Thanksgiving. It's the most American of holidays -- a tradition that we trace back to our pilgrim ancestors who gathered with the Wampanoag tribe to celebrate the first Thanksgiving in 1621 near Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Thanksgiving continued to be celebrated occasionally through the 17th and 18th Century, but it wasn't until 1863 when Abraham Lincoln set aside the fourth Thursday of November as a national Thanksgiving Day that the annual holiday formally took root.
I think President Lincoln's words from his first official Thanksgiving Day proclamation, during America's Civil War, are especially appropriate this year as we pause to reflect on the blessings that have been bestowed upon us even while in the midst of our current conflict:
"The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.
"No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
"It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union."
-- Abraham Lincoln, October 3, 1863
Tomorrow, Americans will gather to give thanks for the many blessings we have received -- while offering prayers for our brave men and women in uniform serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world, as well as their families and friends here at home.
And, as President Lincoln wished in 1863, let us do everything in our power, and ask for God's help, to bring a swift end to our current military conflict abroad, while healing the many wounds that divide us as Americans here at home.
Gert and I send our very best wishes for a safe and happy Thanksgiving.
Sincerely,
Wes Clark
P.S. To learn more about how to support our men and women in uniform this Thanksgiving, I invite you to visit www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/help.html.
Comment #11: epppie said on 11/23/05 @ 2:50pm ET...
Wasn't 1863 the year of the draft riots in New York? Hardly harmony. Thanksgiving may have been a bit of clever pr by Lincoln.
Still, the message from Wes is a good one.
Comment #12: Genghis Khan said on 11/23/05 @ 2:55pm ET...
#3:
Stuffy: You're dissembling again... (like we should be surprised?)
Waas states that the Committee did not know about the existence of the PDB, and your citation proves it. What's more, your citation also proves that while the existence of the PDB was finally revealed to the Committee, the information contained therein was not (despite multiple requests from the Committee).
You then attempt to downplay the severity of the information by claiming that John Kerry didn't use it in the 2004 campaign. What was Senator Kerry to say, that the Bush administration had a PDB which was not made available to the Committee? Remember, the information still hadn't been made available, so there was no telling what it was.
You then attempt to castigate Waas for not revealing his information to the Committee (or, even more recklessly in your statement, to the general public). I seem to recall you supporting Judith Miller's right to keep her sources secret; why don't you extend Murray Waas the same consideration?
This may not be a smoking gun, but only because it serves to prove the statement from Richard Clarke that he told Bush directly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Here's what is even more likely to happen: Next month the Iraqis will have another election and the press will spend two weeks showing the same video of purple-fingered Iraqis. Shortly thereafter there will be a token draw-down of troops in an attempt to placate the growing anti-war sentiment here at home. The Iraqi military is, even by the Joint Chiefs' estimates, not nearly capable of handling the security job by themselves. We will see a few minor victories for them conspicuously set up for the corporate media to show us all how well the transition is going. The mystery is how long until the Sunni/Shiite civil war breaks out into the open.
The question is when will Bush be held accountable for engaging in an elective war based on lies in which the group responsible for 9/11 (and all anti-US terrorism since 1991) have been allowed to remain free and flourish primarily due to the diversion of US military and intelligence forces to Iraq.
So long as you can sit back with your popcorn and Budweiser and watch a war unfold on TV where other people's children die, the answer you apparently give is "never".
Thankfully, you are a dwindling minority.
Comment #13: Genghis Khan said on 11/23/05 @ 2:58pm ET...
#4:
Hey Poo-head.. the Senate Committee asked for the PDB on a CLASSIFIED BASIS. Is it your assertion that al-Qaeda has infiltrated the Senate?
Comment #14: Bill_o_Carolina said on 11/23/05 @ 3:35pm ET...
It's rather funny to see poo still here posting his/her misguided arguments in favor of the Bush cartel as though any one would dismiss what's before their eyes and believe their convoluted BS. DC Dick Cheney would be proud!
Comment #15: Nolip said on 11/23/05 @ 4:00pm ET...
The Executive Branch of the nation's government is acting totally contrary to the spirit and intent of the Constitution they are all sworn to uphold and are functioning as a totalitarian regime complete with strong armed tactics and torture...since Congress is being stonewalled by the Bush White House...bring on Patrick Fitzgerald...who in his role as Special Prosecutor with a new grand jury (a la Archibald Cox) can subpoena the White House for PDBs and other related documents ad infinitum in order to build his case of how much Libby and Rove knew and how desperate the White House and they were to trash Joe Wilson's career because he opted to expose them for the criminals they are.
Let Fitgerald blow the lid off their brewing cauldron of intel lies and deceit and watch Bush, Cheney et al get frog marched out to a patrol car and then to jail where they belong.
Comment #16: Vyan said on 11/23/05 @ 4:01pm ET...
What the Waas Article tells us it that Bush has clearly been lying for some time.
When Bush talks about "having the same intelligence information" does he mean this? I seriously doubt it since a year after this information was provided to him he made the following statements...
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
All of this information turned out to be
not true so just who is the liar here?
Further examples:
But a comparison of public statements by the president, the vice president, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld show that in the days just before a congressional vote authorizing war, they professed to have been given information from U.S. intelligence assessments showing evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," President Bush said on September 25, 2002.
The next day, Rumsfeld said, "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that Al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts with Iraq who could help them acquire … weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities."
The most explosive of allegations came from Cheney, who said that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center, had met in Prague, in the Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, five months before the attacks. On December 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press: "[I]t's pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in [the Czech Republic] last April, several months before the attack."
Cheney continued to make the charge, even after he was briefed, according to government records and officials, that both the CIA and the FBI discounted the possibility of such a meeting.
Credit card and phone records appear to demonstrate that Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time of the alleged meeting, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials. Al-Ani, the Iraqi intelligence official with whom Atta was said to have met in Prague, was later taken into custody by U.S. authorities. He not only denied the report of the meeting with Atta, but said that he was not in Prague at the time of the supposed meeting, according to published reports.
So if the CIA was saying one thing - why did the President say another? Because he was getting intelligence from a secret unit within the Defense Department.
One reason that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld made statements that contradicted what they were told in CIA briefings might have been that they were receiving information from another source that purported to have evidence of Al Qaeda-Iraq ties. The information came from a covert intelligence unit set up shortly after the September 11 attacks by then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith.
Feith was a protégé of, and intensely loyal to, Cheney, Rumsfeld, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, and Cheney's then-chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. The secretive unit was set up because Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Libby did not believe the CIA would be able to get to the bottom of the matter of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. The four men shared a long-standing distrust of the CIA from their earlier positions in government, and felt that the agency had failed massively by not predicting the September 11 attacks.
At first, the Feith-directed unit primarily consisted of two men, former journalist Michael Maloof and David Wurmser, a veteran of neoconservative think tanks. They liked to refer to themselves as the "Iraqi intelligence cell" of the Pentagon. And they took pride in the fact that their office was in an out-of-the-way cipher-locked room, with "charts that rung the room from one end to the other" showing the "interconnections of various terrorist groups" with one another and, most important, with Iraq, Maloof recalled in an interview.
It seems that the Pentagon Intelligence unit may have been directly at the heart of the entire Plame-gate affair (Which may be why Wurmser has been reportedly been
cooperating with Patrick FItzgerald for some time).
The Pentagon unit also routinely second-guessed the CIA's highly classified assessments. Regarding one report titled "Iraq and al-Qaeda: Interpreting a Murky Relationship," one of the Naval Reserve officers wrote: "The report provides evidence from numerous intelligence sources over the course of a decade on interactions between Iraq and al-Qaida. In this regard, the report is excellent. Then in its interpretation of this information, CIA attempts to discredit, dismiss, or downgrade much of this reporting, resulting in inconsistent conclusions in many instances. Therefore, the CIA report should be read for content only-and CIA's interpretation ought to be ignored."
This same antipathy toward the CIA led to the events that are the basis of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity, according to several former and current senior officials.
Ironically, the Plame affair's origins had its roots in Cheney and Libby's interest in reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium yellowcake from Niger to build a nuclear weapon. After reading a Pentagon report on the matter in early February 2002, Cheney asked the CIA officer who provided him with a national security briefing each morning if he could find out about it.
Without Cheney's knowledge, his query led to the CIA-sanctioned trip to Niger by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, to investigate the allegations. Wilson reported back to the CIA that the allegations were most likely not true.
It's seems that the Pentagon Intelligence Unit might just be at the center of this entire ball of yarn, which continues to unravel bit by bit...
Vyan
Comment #17: stoufi1 said on 11/23/05 @ 5:51pm ET...
#4 point of order
I think they don't want the terrorists to know that there have been valid democratic elections in Afghanistan, the election of the interim government in Iraq, the ratification by popular vote on a constitution in a little more than two years, another upcoming election in Iraq in December to elect a permanent government, an election in Lebanon, the withdrawal of the terrorists who run the Syrian government from Lebanon, 200,000 people protesting the terrorists in Jordan, etc. You know, good news.
Have you read Michael Yon's blogsite (I don't know what it is off the top of my head)? He's spent most of the year in the field with our troops in Iraq and doing some real reporting on what's really going on there. It is riveting stuff. Yon's back home this week, but heading back to Iraq ahead of the December 15 election. He's not sitting on his carcass like most of those in Washington who do nothing but put out hearsay and conjuncture and try to pass it off as news. And before anyone says it, like me.
Comment #18: point of order said on 11/23/05 @ 6:27pm ET...
Thank you for reminding me about Michael Yon
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/
I heard him speaking this morning, he was inspiring.
Comment #19: Genghis Khan said on 11/23/05 @ 6:29pm ET...
Stuffit:
Here's some news about Afghanistan for you:
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mymod/hdln/usnplw/sty/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051123/ap_on_re_eu/nato_uzbekistan
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mymod/hdln/usnplw/sty/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051123/ap_on_re_as/un_afghanistan_opium
The first deals mainly with the cessation of Uzbek support for NATO's role as peacekeepers in Afghanistan. However, the notable passage in the article is this:
"Officials said one alternative could be switching the support base to Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan. Germany is supposed to take over the NATO headquarters there from Britain next year under plans to expand and reorganize the peacekeeping force." (emphasis mine)
The second article deals with a slight (~2%) decline in Afghan opium poppy production which exploded after our invasion there. It also notes that Afghanistan is #2 in the world in marijuana production.
So despite the glorious democratic elections in Afghanistan, there is still a dire security situation. The elected government holds little or no power 10km outside of Kabul, and even in Kabul the infrastructure is little better now than under the Taliban. NATO is having to increase the force presence there even 4 years after the democratic creation of the Afghan government.
Iraq is in even worse shape, as a civil war is being kept just under wraps by US forces (which should have been finishing the job in Afghanistan years ago).
Great news. I'm so happy we're having such a positive influence on the Middle East.
Comment #20: stoufi1 said on 11/23/05 @ 6:42pm ET...
#10 Reb
Excellent message.
#12 Genghis
Waas stated his congressional sources didn't find out about the existance of this particular PDB until summer of 2004. I'm saying all Waas does is confirm what the Committee stated when they said in the 7/7/2004 SSCI Report that they didn't find out about that particular PDB until June, 2004. This is already on the public record (including the fact that the CIA have kept access to the PDB away from the Committee), but his reporting makes it sound like some new find. It isn't.
Kerry could have used the fact that the Committee had asked for access to the PDB and were denied as some kind of point to get the President on, and he didn't. Since the Committee knew of the existence (and not the contents, and I don't say they did know the contents) in June, 2004, and the SSCI report came out in July, 2004, it is conceivable that if he had read the whole thing (and I'm not saying he didn't), he could have tried to hammer Bush on it.
I don't think I've ever mentioned Waas appearing before any committee to cite his sources or his government information. What I said was that he mentions government records in the article, but he doesn't say what kind of records they are; it comes off (to me, anyway) as only partially credible.
Also, go back to the public records regarding what the administration says about Saddam and 9/11. Nowhere does it or Bush say Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 because the evidence thus far doesn't support that theory. Would he want to know definitively that Hussein was involved? I don't know, but if I were him, I'd want it to be that way.
And here is where this whole "Bush lied" BS has gotten so out of hand:
Bush cites valid references of Saddam supporting terrorists (Saddam would send $25,000 to the families of Hamas suicide bombers; this is on record), but never officially linked Saddam with al Qaeda. This has been changed to Bush thinks Saddam was involved with al Qaeda and 9/11.
Bush has said that Saddam was a threat down the road if sanctions against him were lifted, due to past references (Iran-Iraq war, Kuwait, gassing Kurds, etc.), but never said he was an imminent threat. Sen. Rockefeller is on record saying in 2002 or early 2003 that Saddam was an imminent threat. This has been changed to Bush said Saddam was an imminent threat.
Current intelligence from several sources, including testimony from Joe Wilson, asserts that Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger while Iraq was still under sanctions, but was not able to. This has been changed to Bush says Saddam bought uranium from Niger.
And then of course is that whole thing about WMDs and I don't have the time to go into that now. Maybe another day.
I have a little rosier outlook than you on what will happen in Iraq after the elections, but not much more. I do worry that a civil war will take place. Then I wonder how long it will be before the Iranians decide to side with their Shiite "brothers", and then having other Sunni Arab "brothers" go and fight the Shiites, and the whole thing could unravel and either Bush or the next President will try to jump in the middle. Or, they'll actually think this freedom and federalism is a good thing. Time will tell.
Ok. You're going to have to help me here. Who should be held accountable for what? Before 2001, all of the terrorist actions occurred under Presidents who were not George W. Bush. The terrorists that committed most of those acts from 1993 on were done under the watch of Bill Clinton. He's got a book out, he slanders the President (like a good Democrat) in one breath and then states an opinion similar to Bush in another. His wife, Sen. Clinton, wants to be President. And, the group that remains free and flourishes lives in caves and holes in at least four different countries. Nobody liked it when we invaded Iraq. Is it now OK to invade Pakistan, Iran, and Syria to flush the terrorists out? Or Saudi Arabia and the other countries on the Arabian peninsula?
Comment #21: point of order said on 11/23/05 @ 6:54pm ET...
here you go stoufi , President Clinton, in his own words, saying he turned down offer to take Bin Laden
http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3
Comment #22: Genghis Khan said on 11/23/05 @ 7:07pm ET...
Stifle:
I hate to break it to you, but Cheney himself was talking of DIRECT AL-QAEDA/IRAQ LINKAGE even after the 9/11 Commission report which said there was none. In fact, they held off on public release for two weeks because Cheney said "they don't have all the facts"; the Commission asked Cheney to present these facts, and he went mute. The Commission then went on to release the report.
There have been numerous other citations on this and previous threads detailing quotations from Bush showing his statements tying Iraq into 9/11.
Insofar as your repeated incorrect assertion that Ambassador Wilson corroborated the lie that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger, that's been debunked so many times it's silly.
Between 1992 and 2000 President Clinton did more to combat terrorism than both Bush's and Reagan combined. From 1995 to 2000 he specifically requested Congressional support for his efforts to combat al-Qaeda, only to be told by GOP leaders that "terrorism is not a priority" (direct quote from Trent Lott, I'm looking for the citation).
The invasion of Afghanistan was great. I was all for that. But Bush took his eyes off the ball and diverted our forces to Iraq (apparently his goal all along). Because of that, al-Qaeda was allowed to remain a viable (and indeed flourishing) organization. Given an unprecedented ability to rid the world of terrorism, Dubya lies the US into a war and increases terrorism 300+% (300% according to the last published State Dept. report).
Forgive me if my outlook is not as rosy as yours, but I am looking at the reality of the situation and right now it's looking rather grim.
Comment #23: Genghis Khan said on 11/23/05 @ 7:10pm ET...
#21:
Newsmax.. BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
You might as well cite a pro-ACLU message from kkk.org.
Newsmax.. you must be joking. Go back to Yahoo with that tripe.
Comment #24: Genghis Khan said on 11/23/05 @ 7:11pm ET...
(drat.. s/ACLU/NAACP/)
Comment #25: Jo said on 11/23/05 @ 8:04pm ET...
Looks like Murtha won after all! The court of public opinion was in his favor. This is what the commanders and troops want also.
Leaders Sound Hopeful on Iraq Troop Cuts
Associated Press
16 MINUTES AGO
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and military leaders are sounding optimistic notes about scaling back U.S. troops in Iraq next year, as public opposition to the war and congressional demands for withdrawal get louder.
Contingency plans for a phased withdrawal include proposals to further postpone or cancel the deployment of a Fort Riley, Kan., brigade and an option to put a combat brigade in nearby Kuwait in case it is needed, said a senior Pentagon official.
Public support for the war has fallen in recent weeks, fed by events such as the 2,000th U.S. military death there and allegations of the secret imprisonment and torture of some Iraqi prisoners by the Iraqi government.
In recent days, some administration and military officials have made positive-sounding comments about a possible withdrawal.
Lt. Gen. John Vines, chief of the Multi-National Corps-Iraq, said Iraqi security forces _ which number about 212,000 now _ are making excellent progress, an oft-cited precondition for removing U.S. troops. He said 36 Iraqi battalions are responsible for their own areas of operation.
Officials have put off the deployment of the 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, based at Fort Riley, Kan., which was originally scheduled to deploy before the election. That deployment has not yet been scheduled.
The troops currently in Iraq comprise 17 brigades and three additional battalions _ which add up to about another brigade. The three battalions are scheduled to return home after the first of the year. A brigade normally numbers between 3,500 and 5,000 soldiers, while battalions average about 800.
Basing a brigade in Kuwait, where it could train and be ready for any emergency action, would not be an unexpected move. That country has long been used as a staging area for troops entering and leaving Iraq.
Comment #26: Vyan said on 11/23/05 @ 8:19pm ET...
#20 stoufi
Bush cites valid references of Saddam supporting terrorists (Saddam would send $25,000 to the families of Hamas suicide bombers; this is on record), but never officially linked Saddam with al Qaeda. This has been changed to Bush thinks Saddam was involved with al Qaeda and 9/11.
That claim is incorrect, as I already noted in my previous post, President Bush made following claims in his Oct 2002 speech in Cincinatti.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America
It's clear that Bush made claims that Saddam and al-Qaeda were
Allies, if he may have fallen slightly short of stating Saddam's direct involvment in 9/11 - he certainly indicateed that there were working with and cooperating with al-Qaeda.
Another example from the Waas article.
"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," President Bush said on September 25, 2002.
You continue to state:
Current intelligence from several sources, including testimony from Joe Wilson, asserts that Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger while Iraq was still under sanctions, but was not able to. This has been changed to Bush says Saddam bought uranium from Niger.
Joe Wilson has not claimed this, he claimed that it simply wasn't possible for Iraq to have access to Uranium from Niger since the mining wasn't under the control of the Nigerian government. Further he's expressed doubts similar to those that were noted by the INR analyst in the NIE provided to Congress that the Niger Uranium procurement documents
may have been forged
Vyan.
Comment #27: Nolip said on 11/23/05 @ 10:19pm ET...
“Fears that fresh revelations about disputes between Tony Blair and George Bush on the Iraq conflict could damage Downing Street's intimate relationship with the White House prompted this week's unprecedented threat by the attorney general to use the Official Secrets Act against national newspapers.
Senior MPs, Whitehall officials and lawyers were agreed yesterday that Lord Goldsmith had "read the riot act" to the media because of political embarrassment caused by a sensitive leak of face-to-face exchanges between the prime minister and the US president in the White House in April 2004. He acted after the Daily Mirror said a memo recorded a threat by Mr Bush to take "military action" against the Arabic TV station al-Jazeera. Mr Blair replied that that would cause a big problem, reported the Mirror. David Keogh, a former Cabinet Office official, has been charged under the secrets act with sending the memo on the Blair-Bush conversation to Leo O 'Connor, researcher to the former Labour MP Tony Clarke. Mr Keogh and Mr O'Connor will appear before Bow Street magistrates next week.”
Secrecy gag prompted by fear of new Blair-Bush revelations
Comment #28: REB 84 said on 11/23/05 @ 11:47pm ET...
#2, #5 eppie, #7 Leslie B., #16 vyan, #22 Ghengis - Based upon what I have read about the Bush Administration and the PNAC, I argue that they are Bullshitters, not liars Here is why:
“Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them, although the response of the one is guided by the authority of the truth, while the response of the other defies that authority and refuses to meet its demands. The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”
From: “On Bullshit” by: Harry G. Frankfurt, 2005 – Princeton University Press
#8 malleckson #9 bill o'carolina - Population Control? Not these guys, they preach the "Culture of Life" (haven't heard that bullshit in awhile). I don't think its intentional, just a case of "if your not in our inner circle, go Cheney yourself!"
#2 eppie - not sure about the Bush brother and security at WTC-NY, but have found Jeb Bush's name as one of the signers on the 6/3/1997 "Statement of Principles" of the PNAC http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
#9 - bill o'carolina - Don't know about weed being "good for you" but Jese Ventura summed it up a couple years ago as a guest on Bill Maher's "Real Time" - I'm paraphrasing "It's the pharmacuetical companies. They sell you a pill to make you feel good. What does marijauna do? It makes you feel good. The problem is you can plant a seed and grow it yourself. How are the Pharmaceutical companies going to make any money." As with most issues in American politics, just follow the money.
#27 - nolip - the link to the Mirror story was not active. So much for a free press.
REB 84
QuestionItNow
Comment #29: REB 84 said on 11/23/05 @ 11:49pm ET...
That's weird, I don't know how to code bold text in html. I just figured out how to add the hyperlink.
Let's see what happens. Sorry for the test.
Comment #30: aspiemom said on 11/24/05 @ 12:18am ET...
Dear Congressman Conyers,
Barbra Streisand has made a formal statement on November 14, 2005 "outting" the truth of Bushco's hidden agenda of the PNAC. I have seen a graph of the activity of her website ever since she made this statement. The graph has gone through the roof this mid-November regarding the number of views her site is getting. I urge you to please post her statement prominently on your website. It seems to be attracting a very wide audience! Here is Barbra Streisand's website and statement:
barbrastreisand.com/statements.html
"The Plan To Invade Iraq Before 9/11 ...Barbra Streisand
Posted on November 14, 2005
Last week Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid shut down the Senate. Frustrated, angry and seeking answers, Reid threatened to delay legislative action until the Intelligence Committee followed through on its promised investigation of prewar Iraq intelligence failures. Democrats are demanding answers...and now, so are the American people.
But let's remember... 9/11 and faulty intelligence alone did not lead to the invasion of Iraq. This war was being planned in the minds of some for many years. George Bush's former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed in his book that at one of the very first National Security Council meetings after Bush took office in January 2001 he discussed the notion of invading Iraq and that he seemed desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein.
Many of Bush's inner circle are members of Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank that promotes an ideology of total U.S. world domination through the use of force. Back in 1998, PNAC sent an open letter to President Clinton urging his administration to implement a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This letter was signed by Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton and Richard Perle. These men, along with fellow PNAC members Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby, were the primary architects of the Iraq war 5 years later. In 2000, PNAC produced a document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century. The plan outlined how the US should go about taking military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power.
Let's remember some of our recent history with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The United States' relationship with Saddam has been vastly contradictory. In the 1980's, the U.S. heavily supported Saddam against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was in violation of human rights laws by gassing the Kurds. However, the US turned a blind eye, instead opting to retain a friendly relationship with Saddam in order to access intelligence. The US government furnished Saddam with weapons. We even have pictures documenting Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, shaking hands with Saddam in 1983! In 1990, Saddam invaded Kuwait, stating that he believed he had the silent permission to do so by then US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. However, the United States, under George H.W. Bush, responded with Operation Desert Storm to quell the invasion. The same weapons we had given to Saddam to defeat the Iranians a decade earlier, were now being used to kill US soldiers. Although the Persian Gulf War was considered a victory for the United States, ultimately Saddam was not removed from power. This was a tremendous disappointment for the conservative hawks emerging in the Republican party.
Since the Gulf War, there has been a covert but persistent mission by neo-cons to overthrow Saddam Hussein by any means necessary in order to reorganize the Middle East in the name of democracy. However democracy was not the reason Bush gave to the country when he decided to invade Iraq....it was the presence of WMDs, which UN inspectors did not find. Former US top weapons inspector David Kay testified before congress asserting this fact. And Director General of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, requested more time from the administration to investigate the weapons claims in Iraq before rushing to war. Those in the Bush inner circle had tremendous influence on his final decision to unilaterally attack Iraq in 2003 without the support of the United Nations and the rest of the world.
The notion of invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam was gaining momentum long before the terrorists attacked on September 11, 2001. Only once America was attacked did Bush and his war mongering neo-con colleagues have the perfect opportunity to utilize faulty intelligence in order to make a case for war and garner the blind support of most of the American public. However, we now know that this war, where thousands of young American soldiers have died, was years in the making. Let's hope that the frustration, anger and determination felt by Democrats and the American public continue to fuel this investigation to uncover the truth. "
Comment #31: Bill_o_Carolina said on 11/24/05 @ 12:31am ET...
#28 REB, I agree 100%! It's all about the benjamins! It amazes me why people who have more money than they could ever spend are the greedyest of all.
oops! greediest?
Comment #32: malleckson said on 11/24/05 @ 2:06am ET...
Population control...perhaps I stated it wrong...the goal being to reduce the World's population by several billion people because the planet can no longer sustain planet. This is the reason AIDs has been allowed to go unchecked, genocide is going on in many Countries and the U.S. looks the other way...etc. I found several sites referencing this as I stated, in veiled terms. I believe this is a goal of the PNAC crowd, I read it a couple of years ago and cannot find it now. Anyway, just a thought on why we are treating our military like we are....killing em off for no good reason, along with all the Iraqi's, (ie: pre-planned collateral damage) (wonder if my post will come out bold)
Comment #33: malleckson said on 11/24/05 @ 2:10am ET...
Well, that made a lot of sense. The planet can no long sustain the billions inhabiting it..okay. I came out bold and the page is so big I have arrow back and forth. Who broke this. lol.
Comment #34: malleckson said on 11/24/05 @ 2:14am ET...
I give, I am so confused I can't even spell. Help! Who can fix this.
Comment #35: Vyan said on 11/24/05 @ 2:29am ET...
Disabling Bold text.
Comment #36: Genghis Khan said on 11/24/05 @ 2:38am ET...
perhaps that did it? Just needed to put a ;<;/b;> into the mix..?
Comment #37: Genghis Khan said on 11/24/05 @ 2:39am ET...
ahhhh... that's better.
Glad to be of service.
Comment #38: stoufi1 said on 11/24/05 @ 8:21am ET...
Happy Thanksgiving (if you celebrate it) all!!!
Comment #39: malleckson said on 11/24/05 @ 12:21pm ET...
Thanks GK, gosh I felt like I was yelling last nite. I still don't know why the page is so big but will just deal with that.
#38 Same to you and all posters here.
Comment #40: Pissed Off American said on 11/24/05 @ 12:42pm ET...
"Bush cites valid references of Saddam supporting terrorists (Saddam would send $25,000 to the families of Hamas suicide bombers; this is on record), but never officially linked Saddam with al Qaeda".......Stoufi says, lying.
You're so full of shit. How long do you think you can spout this CRAP after it has been repeatedly and irrefutably disproven? These lying bastards have continuously implied a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda since shortly after 9/11, and are continuing to do so today. Listen Stoufi, what makes someone like you so willing to LIE YOUR ASS OFF for this administration? PAY?? Alterior motives??? Tell us Stoufi, what creates a traitor like you? What is it that they have given you that you are so willing to SELL YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR COUNTRYMEN OUT?
Comment #41: Citizen J said on 11/24/05 @ 12:43pm ET...
Yeah, that seems to be a bug in this blog format- if someone leaves an html bold tag open without the closing tag, it bolds EVERYTHING afterwords until someone posts that close tag- Vyan in this case.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!!
Comment #42: Pissed Off American said on 11/24/05 @ 1:10pm ET...
All you people are doing is debating two lying shill trolls here.
Anyone else notice the amazing dissappearing true Bushlicker on the blogs??? The common citizens defending Bush are becomming a thing of the past, and most defenses are now been handled by the paid internet goon squads like this Stoufi abomination and his lap monkey Point Of Order.
And isn't it time for Rep. Conyers to send another letter to be IGNORED by these lying bastards in the White House that hold themselves above the law?
The clock is ticking, and try as he might, there is no LETTER that is going to wrest the reins out of the hands of Cheney and his pet monkey. We the people are going to have to do this job, and it is going to take nationwide MASS protest and civil disobedience.
Our electoral machine is COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED, so our vote will not remove them. They hold themselves ABOVE the law and apoint cronies, perjurers, and traitors to UPHOLD THE LAW, so the LAW will not remove them.
Whats left, but ourselves? This IS NOT going to get better. It is going to get WORSE. We have THREE MORE YEARS of these lying bastards. And WHAT will replace them? Honesty??? Integrity??? FROM WHOM? WHO THE HELL IS HONEST IN WASHINGTON THESE DAYS???
Personally, I think this experiment called The United States is OVER. The day MY COUNTRY advocates TORTURE is the day MY COUNTRY has forgotten all of what it was supposed to be.
May Cheney, and Bush, ROT IN HELL. When you give thanks for your turkey today, say a prayer for the kids that were COOKED in Fallujah by our White phosphorous bombs, and eat hearty in the knowledge that Cheney's headless horsemen are TORTURING some poor bastard in some far off land while we digest cranberry sauce and brown gravy.
We have become all we stood against. We have become a pariah in the world community. WE are now the "evil empire". Are we going to just accept that, or are we going to throw these evil greedy bastards out of our White House?
Its our choice. Another letter from Conyer's ain't going to do the trick.
Comment #43: Pissed Off American said on 11/24/05 @ 1:52pm ET...
And by the way. When reading and responding to the LIES AND DEFLECTIONS of trolls such as Stoufi, ponder the reasoning behind the strategy of posting KNOWN LIES over and over and over. Or, on a larger scale, ponder the strategy of our leaders feeding us known lies over and over and over.
We KNOW they are lies. THEY KNOW we KNOW they are lies. Why continue to lie to us when we know we are being lied to???? BECAUSE IT DIVIDES US. Thats why. The FACIST LYING BASTARDS in the White House know who their TRUE enemy is. Their TRUE enemy is a UNITED citizenry that has thrown away partisan squabbling and has risen in defense of our democracy. That is the Bush machine's worst enemy. They MUST keep us fractured and divided. That is the reason for the repeated KNOWN LIES, cast as partisan ideology, such as Stoufi does ad nauseum without conviction or honesty, DESIGNED to drive a wedge between Americans.
Comment #44: malleckson said on 11/24/05 @ 3:30pm ET...
#41 thanks for the info
#42 I agree, this great experiment is over. I do not think those that post the 'talking points' can really believe them, can they. So much truth is out there and posted here that it would be impossible to have blinders on. Guess I am just coming from a different place, having a small grasp on our Nation's history, it is so easy for me to see thru all the lies. Maybe I am naive but the few 'cons' I know, really don't know a darn about history, don't know what is going on, don't care, and still support bush. I see the endless debate going on here as just distraction. I don't waste my time trying to convince others, I just ask those I know, to do some homework. It is up to each and everyone of us to come to our own conclusions. Forget the useless debating...either they know it is a game, or want to live in their reality (which is not mine).
I believe many posters here have valid information to share with those that have eyes to see and ears to hear. They are the ones I may attention to. I do not waste my time reading 'old' information.
Regarding Thanksgiving, I can only be thankful on a personal level, for friends, family, etc. I am not thankful that I live in the Evil Empire. I am not thankful that 90% of American's thought bush was God incarnated after 911. I could go on..but rather guess you get the picture of my reality.
Comment #45: Vyan said on 11/24/05 @ 5:35pm ET...
I apparently left open the bold tag, and then added a disable tag, but it took a second one (GK'S) to turn things off. Fine, good. Let's all be careful out there with the complex formating.
Why does stoufi and POO continue to spout Administration rhetoric? Because they are true believers IMO. They think that those who oppose Bush are by definition biased - that they are simply allying themselves with the "Michal Moore/Cindy Sheehan" wing of the Ultra-Left. It's not about who has the correct facts and the best information - even while they claim it should be - just as it is well shown in David Brock's book Blinded By the Right
it's about winning at all costs. It's the kind of No Holds Barred, Bare-Knuckle Political Bar Fighting the Neo-Cons have been practicing for decades and Dems are have only fantasized in their worst nightmares. Look at the comment by now Convicted Felon Mike Scanlon...
"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them."
This is who we are fighting. People so cynical and self-righteous the plain, simple reality escapes them in their single-minded quest to justify their own position. All they want to do is win - nothing else matters.
vyan
Comment #46: Pissed Off American said on 11/24/05 @ 9:58pm ET...
"Why does stoufi and POO continue to spout Administration rhetoric? Because they are true believers IMO. They think that those who oppose Bush are by definition biased - that they are simply allying themselves with the "Michal Moore/Cindy Sheehan" s wing of the Ultra-Left." ...opines Vyan
Well, thats a nice theory. But hey, I don't buy it. I think they are just liars. Tasked to spread crap they KNOW is crap. Period.
Comment #47: bvac said on 11/25/05 @ 4:58am ET...
To: Constant
Re: lost posts
Message: Since you do not allow comments on your blog, and since I know you skim JC's frequently, here is an observation:
" Impeachment: How things come unglued over 9-11 and Iraq
Once a key brick in an arch falls away, not only does everything collapse, but we have to ask what was the basis for the original design. "
This was the intro to your post on Tuesday the 22nd, with an update added on Wednesday the 23rd. It now appears to be replaced by a post titled " Echelon: Specific, probative transcripts available for Fitzgerald Grand Jury".
-Was this an intentional withdrawal of the post without acknowledgement or explanation?
-Was it an error on the part of blogspot, or yourself in submitting the wrong material?
-Is this content being censored in any way?
-I have a hard copy of the original unedited post if necessary for comparison.
Comment #48: malleckson said on 11/25/05 @ 11:34am ET...
Vyan, so it was you, that messed with my mind..lol. I am new to this and when something like that happens it really throws me a curve. I am really amazed my posts even show up and I have no idea about bold, disable, tag, etc. I am doing the best I can with the limited knowledge I have (re: computers). Anyway...getting off topic.
I too, read Brocks book. Another book I bought 'Where the Right went Wrong'. This is a book that 'fell of the shelf'. It was written by Pat Buchanan. I looked at that book for a long time, wondering, why did I buy that. Finally I opened it and began to read. Probably the best one I have read explaining the hijacking of GOP by the Neocons. (God works with me in mysterious ways.)
I am not a dem or rep. The corruption runs to the core in both parties. I do not hesitate to opinin about either party. I would like see more than a few in Congress standing up for Ameica and cutting their ties to the World Corporate Elite. Don't see it happening in my lifetime. Congress is 'embedded' with the Corps and the people be damned. Congress votes with their wallets and anyone that cannot see that is a fool IMO.
Comment #49: Vyan said on 11/25/05 @ 12:21pm ET...
Speaking of Corruption...Last weekends NYTimes highlights Department of Justice statements that the Corruption probe which has snared GOP Lobbyists Mike Scanlon and Jack Abramoff could widen to include members of Congress.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 - The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most. The investigation by a federal grand jury, which began more than a year ago, has created alarm on Capitol Hill, especially with the announcement Friday of criminal charges against Michael Scanlon, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying partner and a former top House aide to Representative Tom DeLay.
For those who've forgotten or simply been hiding under rock -- Mike Scanlon is the really sensitive and funny guy who was saying the following in an email:
Judging by the sentiments of Mike Scanlon, a former spokesman for U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and Abramoff's secret partner, conservative Christians provided an essential and unwitting tool in the lobbyists' fight in Louisiana on behalf of the Coushatta tribe against rival gambling operations. Scanlon composed a memo in October 2001 that he sent to Coushatta lawyer Kathy VanHoof and Abramoff describing the role religious radio could play in the effort:
"Simply put," Scanlon wrote, "we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them. The wackos get their information from the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the Internet and telephone trees."
Scanlon detailed a strategy to advertise on Christian radio against proposed casinos at Delta Downs and Pinnacle. "We will produce and air at least two radio ads that give biblical reasons why [the casinos] should be blocked and the tracks shut down." Scanlon recommended providing $575,000 for "solidifying the support of the Christian conservatives and the minority religious outlets of SW Louisiana."
It's too bad those "Wacko's" will probably never believe what the GOP really thinks of them. Meanwhile back in the NYT article:
The charges against Mr. Scanlon identified no lawmakers by name, but a summary of the case released by the Justice Department accused him of being part of a broad conspiracy to provide "things of value, including money, meals, trips and entertainment to federal public officials in return for agreements to perform official acts" - an attempt at bribery, in other words, or something close to it.
Mr. Abramoff, who is under indictment in a separate bank-fraud case in Florida, has not been charged by the federal grand jury here. But Mr. Scanlon's lawyer says he has agreed to plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation, suggesting that Mr. Abramoff's day in court in Washington is only a matter of time.
So Scanlon has already plead guilty, mostly likely with an offer to rat on the bigger fish - most likely including members of Congress. Hey Mr. Delay - ready for your next mug shot?
Scholars who specialize in the history and operations of Congress say that given the brazenness of Mr. Abramoff's lobbying efforts, as measured by the huge fees he charged clients and the extravagant gifts he showered on friends on Capitol Hill, almost all of them Republicans, the investigation could end up costing several lawmakers their careers, if not their freedom.
The investigation threatens to ensnarl many outside Congress as well, including Interior Department officials and others in the Bush administration who were courted by Mr. Abramoff on behalf of the Indian tribe casinos that were his most lucrative clients.
The inquiry has already reached into the White House; a White House budget official, David H. Safavian, resigned only days before his arrest in September on charges of lying to investigators about his business ties to Mr. Abramoff, a former lobbying partner.
"I think this has the potential to be the biggest scandal in Congress in over a century," said Thomas E. Mann, a Congressional specialist at the Brookings Institution. "I've been around Washington for 35 years, watching Congress, and I've never seen anything approaching Abramoff for cynicism and chutzpah in proposing quid pro quos to members of Congress."
Even by the gold-plated standards of Washington lobbying firms, the fees paid to Mr. Abramoff were extraordinary. A former president of the College Republicans who turned to lobbying after a short-lived career as a B-movie producer, Mr. Abramoff, with his lobbying team, collected more than $80 million from the Indian tribes and their gambling operations; he was known by lobbying rivals as "Casino Jack."
Mr. Abramoff's lobbying work was not limited to the casinos, though. Newly disclosed documents from his files show that he asked for $9 million in 2003 from the president of Gabon, in West Africa, to set up a White House meeting with President Bush; there was an Oval Office meeting last year, although there is no evidence in the public record to show that Mr. Abramoff had a role in the arrangements.
The real question to me doesn't seem to be whether several members of Congress will eventually be
frog-marched out of the Capital -- but simply how many, and whether they'll have the chutzpa to try and run again in 2006. Something tells me that they probably will, and it will be glorious to behold as they go down in flames, taking GOP control of congress with them.
Crossposted at
Vyanblog and
DailykosVyan
Comment #50: epppie said on 11/25/05 @ 1:08pm ET...
One can only hope that the cabal is going down in flames. But let us consider that even if that does continue to happen, it seems to be mostly because of the Justice department primarily, because of the determined love for justice of a few in that department. They seem to have been the last defense of democracy.
Most of our politicians have let us down, it seems. Not Conyers, of course. Conyers has fought every step of the way. But most have seemed willing to allow democracy to die with a whimper, or even without one.
We MUST fight for the election of men and women who have both integrity and good hearts. Even if we do manage to defeat the cabal, we should be horrified that the "bloodless" coup got this far.
The recent allegation about Bush's intentions re. Al Jazeera are terrible to consider. Bush was apparently eager not only to attack the free press, but also to attack a sovereign nation not at war with us, an ally and willing to sacrifice the lives of the innocent - all apparently to head off coverage of Falluja.
This is the leader of the world?
Comment #51: Bill_o_Carolina said on 11/25/05 @ 8:11pm ET...
#43 , POA you're spot on IMHO! Why don't you have a blog?
#44, I am thankful I live in this great country! Where else would be better I ask? It's not where I wish it was now or where it once was, but I know it can be again! We just have to dispose of all the lying, greedy, spoiled politicians. It can be done. Whether it will be? Well..
