Thursday, June 30, 2005

Bush Poll Numbers

This from Zogby:

President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

America is waking up.

Look out Bush.

Better start another illegal war.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Bush Avoids Mention of Iraq and WMD

I found this ironic:

Bush never mentioned Iraq and weapons of mass destruction together once during his speech last night and yet, how often did we hear Iraq and WMD before we went to war? Hmmm. Yet he made reference to September the 11th FIVE TIMES!! He is using the memory of the 9/11 victims like a cheap hooker and it makes me want to vomit. I knew that I wouldn't agree with much of his speech last night but still I was furious and nauseated of how hard he tried to blur the lines with the war in Iraq and 9/11. He is trying SO HARD to justify his lies and misdeeds that he is willing to use anything to whip up blind nationalism to support his stinking, rotting policy in Iraq.

He is sad and desperate and it is disgusting and embarrassing.

(Holds shaking head with his hands and yells)


Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Presidential Address on Iraq at Fort Bragg

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

-President George W. Bush
Wednesday 17th September 2003

Yet, President Bush tried over and over tonight to STILL try to tie the Iraqi War to the invasion of Iraq! The Bush administration has a HUGE credibility gab at this point. No one believes ANYTHING this man says anymore. He has passed the point of being absurd and idiotic with his hypocrisy. He is now seen as a more of an embarrassment then anything. He's delusional in thinking that somehow 9/11 is why we went into Iraq. OF COURSE he is trying to blur the lines tonight between Iraq and terrorism because his best numbers are on defense of terrorism. It seems to me, however, that we are creating just as many terrorists as we are killing. We all know that it was because of those phantom WMD's. Just because he wants it to be true doesn't make it so.

The President tonight said that we have to fight the terrorists in Iraq so that they don't hit us here but what he doesn't say or admit is that his pre-emptive invasion created this hot bed of terrorism. Besides that what is to say that in the future we will not be fighting the terrorists in America at the same time we are fighting them inside Iraq?

I believe that we can not "cut and run" now that we have "broken" Iraq but this man needs to be held accountable for getting us into this black-hole. It still remains to be seen if this "exercise in democracy" will even be successfull after this long, strange road that we are taking in Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the other day that this "war" could take as long as 12 years but I think this will take longer then that. We stuck our nose into a messy part of the world and managed to create and even bigger mess and are now stuck with a deadly stalemate.

The President was supposed to show us the way out of this mess and he didn't say because frankly even HE doesn't know. Where are the Iraqi troops?? They are not prepared to step up and fight for their own country so I guess we are there for good. We might as well turn Iraq into the 51st state of the union. I'm afraid that we are still closer to the beginning then the end. We are stuck in a long, dark tunnel without an end in sight and I don't even think we know where we even are and YET we can not get out of there. We have to stick to it and fix the country that we broke. We are stuck deep in the mud and the shifting sands of Iraq.

After all, "It's hard work" as Bush loves to say over and over. As if we are that stupid to not realize that it is "hard work."

We are SO SCREWED right now. That's about the only thing that I feel confident about after hearing the President tonight.

---End of Transmission---

Monday, June 27, 2005

The Unofficial War of Bush and Blair

Bombs were raining down on Iraq even as George W. Bush was saying the infamous words that, "War is my last resort."

This from Raw Story:

A U.S. general who commanded the U.S. allied air forces in Iraq has confirmed that the U.S. and Britain conducted a massive secret bombing campaign before the U.S. actually declared war on Iraq (***GOI Comment: Make sure and scroll down to the bottom of the article to see the bar graph on the months of bombing before invasion).

If war was a last option for Bush then why was he bombing Iraq back into the stone age well before the invasion and the exit of the weapons inspectors?

This is yet MORE wood thrown on the now raging inferno of evidence showing the world that Bush and Blair "fixed the intelligence around the facts to fit the policy." That being of course a policy of war. The Downing Street memos show that Bush planned on invading Iraq even while he was dealing with the United Nations and to even use the U.N. to help bring about his war. This information from the general, however, is even more serious as it shows that America and the United Kingdom were bombing a sovereign nation without a declaration of war and beyond the northern and southern "no-fly" zones.

British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon “said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.”

Starting in late May to June of 2002 a flurry of activity began both in the United States and in the Middle East. In what appears to be an admission of covert activity, chief allied air force commander Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley divulged in a little-noticed quote in the New York Times that US/British aircraft flew 21,736 sorties between June 2002 and March 2003.
Moseley said that some 600 tons of munitions were dropped before the official start of the war, targeting 391 locations and/or installations

Pike says the allied forces used their position in the ‘No-Fly- Zone’ to engage in pre-emptive action long before war was formally declared.

“They I think had decided to take advantage of Southern Watch and Northern Watch to go ahead and take the air defense system apart and attack any other targets that they felt needed to be preemptively destroyed,” Pike asserted.

“They explicitly altered the rules of engagement,” he added, “because initially the rules of engagement had been that they would shoot back if [someone] shot at them. Then they said that if they were shot at, they would shoot at whatever they wanted to.

One U.S. Air Force vet told a hearing in Istanbul this weekend, “I saw bombing intensify. All the documents coming out now, the Downing Street memo and others, confirm what I had witnessed in Iraq. The war had already begun while our leaders were telling us that they were going to try all diplomatic options first.

***GOI Comment: How can there be any doubt now that Bush was planning on war and engaging in war well before telling any of us (let alone Congress!!) of his plans.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, June 24, 2005

Karl Rove's Comments On Liberals Absurd

Washington Post:

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; (***GOI Comment: Yeah, prepared for war with IRAQ!!) liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; (***GOI Comment: I'm sorry, are the Taliban in Iraq?? No? That's right they are in Afghanistan where we took troops away from the hunt for Osama to invade IRAQ!!!)

***GOI Comment:
Everyone supported President Bush after 9/11 and for Karl Rove to suggest otherwise is offensive and insulting to all Americans. True, maybe some liberals wanted to understand out attackers but that is so that we could better capture and lesson the terrorist threat. Rove also leaves out the important fact that liberals were all for going after Osama bin Laden but we have yet to capture OBL under Bush's watch. Rove just does not want to answer questions about why we headed into Iraq when we were hot on the trail of al-qaeda and OBL in Afghanistan. Rove can not defend the comments of President Bush saying he would get OBL "dead or alive" and then promptly went after Saddam Hussein.

The right wing spin-machine is already out trying to say that this is not a big deal and that Rove's comments were only meant for but if you read his words you see that he lumps all liberals together in his comments.

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security.

``Of course not,'' McClellan said when asked by reporters whether Bush would ask Rove to apologize.

***GOI Comment:
Well, of course the White House is not going to apologize. This administration never thinks that they say or do anything wrong. Remember when the President was asked if he has ever made any mistakes during one of the debates in 2004? And he claimed that he has never made any mistakes? This is just another arrogant statement in a long line of them from the Bush administration. We need to counter and say that Rove should apologize for his comments and Bush should apologize for misleading America into the Iraqi War. These comments by Rove are an outrage. They demanded that Sen. Dick Durbin apologize for his comments and HE DID because he has some integrity. Now it is time for Rove to apologize.

I just heard on CNN that House Majority leader Rep. Tom DeLay is defending Rove's comments.

Well, with friends like DeLay who need enemies?

Email the Republican National Committee and the White House to demand he apologize:

Bush White House:

Here are my comments to the White House:

President Bush,
I was behind you after 9/11 to go after Osama bin Laden and I AM a LIBERAL. Then you took your eye of the ball and misled America into the Iraqi War. You need to demand Karl Rove to apologize for his comments about liberals if you EVER hope to gain more support on Iraq.

Here are my comments to the RNC:

I supported President Bush right after 9/11 and I AM A LIBERAL. That is why Rove's comments about liberals is so damaging. I was furious when President Bush decided to invade Iraq instead of finish the job in Afghanistan and capture Osama bin Laden. Rove needs to apologize if your party and the Bush administration hope to ever increase support for this misleading Iraqi war.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, June 23, 2005

American Flag Distraction

Why are we talking about a Constitutional amendment to burn the flag? The symbol of the flag represents freedom in all its forms and this includes the right to burn it in protest or otherwise. The ironic thing is that in order to properly dispose of an American flag it must be burned!!


There are more important things to talk about in our Congress then flag burning.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Iraq: Ground Zero of the "War on Terror"

We'd rather fight the terrorists in Iraq then at home.

How many times have we heard this statement from the administration?

Well, I was thinking about this issue the other day when an interesting thought popped into my head from listening to talk show radio host, Randi Rhodes. She said something to the effect that I would how the Iraqi's feel about their country hosting the epicenter of America's "War on Terror?"

Now don't get me wrong. I don't want to see America attacked again by terrorists but I just wonder how Iraqi's feel that we have created this "black hole" of terrorism and violence in their country. I can't imagine that they are feeling very good about it.

Who would.

We have over-thrown Saddam Hussein only to seemingly replace him with a vast network of terrorist bombings and Iraqi on Iraqi violence.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Hardball Commentary on the Downing Street Memos

The first part of the program was quite informative with even an interview with the reporter who originally broke the story. However the last part of the show was terrible.

James Woolsey and David Kay were on the show and they both basically had the same point of view that the memos were not very important and that somehow the term "fixed" does not mean "to make the way you want something to be." Yet they would not say, however, what THEY thought the term "fixed" would mean.

This from Daily Kos:

There was some discussion as to just what exactly "fixed" meant on the other side of the aisle. They deemed "fixed" as is "The intelligence was being "fixed" meant "focused" as in "The intelligence was being "focused."

I don't think so. Neither does the reporter who first broke the story.

Here are the words of the reporter himself on this "fixed" definition:

Michael Smith: There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it. The intelligence was fixed and as for the reports that said this was one British official. Pleeeaaassee! This was the head of MI6. How much authority do you want the man to have? He has just been to Washington, he has just talked to George Tenet. He said the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. That translates in clearer terms as the intelligence was being cooked to match what the administration wanted it to say to justify invading Iraq. Fixed means the same here as it does there.

This is a SUCH a lame attempt to dismiss the Downing Street Memos.

The show should of had one supporter of the memo and one non-supporter. Anyway, these guys went on to say that Bush/Blair going to the UN showed that they were not fixing the intelligence or rushing to war. Yet they didn't admit that the UN weapons inspectors were working and that Bush was pressuring them to leave Iraq so that he could start his war.

We remember that Bush was barely giving the inspectors time in Iraq to look for weapons and they were working. They found and destroyed those missles for one.

I don't think that the neo-cons can find a good defense of these memos because they ARE true and they ARE damning.

---End of Transmission---

Monday, June 20, 2005

Chris Matthews Covers Downing Street Memos


The indefatigable Chris Mathews will examine the Downing Street Memos in a special report this evening at 7pm (5pm mountain) on MSNBC. Let's hope he really does play hardball this time.

O.k. everyone watch and then email the show and thank them for covering the DSM.

---End of Transmission---

Digging Deeper Into the Downing Street Memos

This from the Associated Press:

When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.
"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo.

"For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

(**GOI Comment: The Bush administration lied about this war and that is plainly obvious at this point. We have a total of some 6 memos now showing that not only did Bush lie about getting into war but he also did not plan on the post-invasion insurgency. The "main stream media" claims that these memos are not news that we always knew that Bush was lying. Well, then if that is the case and his lying is "old news" then let's get to articles of impeachment!! It's time to stop giving this administration a free pass. We need to look at our country as America and not just bow to party. Let's hold this administration accountable and work to regain international respect. As for Iraq the Bush invasion of Iraq has only created more terrorists and the moderate arabs are becoming pushed out.)

The British documents confirm, as well, that "soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq," Dodge said.

( **GOI Comment: These memos show that Bush used the anger and rage of the American people toward Osama bin Laden inappropriately to manipulate the country into his personal vendetta war and not only is that wrong but it is treasonous. He misled this country and put our country into a dangerous position by inflaming the world against us with this illegal war).

"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq," Straw wrote. "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida."

"In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."

(**GOI Comment: Well, a protracted and costly nation-building exercise is exactly what we are engaged in right now and not only did the Bush administration know that ahead of time they obviously did not care since they did nothing to plan or prevent it.

In closing let me just throw out a proposition of something that we can all do to keep this story alive in the "media." Everytime I read a story in the news or hear one on the cable shows I fire off a quick email thanking them for covering the story and remind them of the importance of these memos. I usually keep a copy of what I want to say in my "draft" box. Anyway, I urge you readers to do the same. Send off short emails of thanks everytime you see/read about the Downing Street Memos.)

---End of Transmission---

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Babel Fish

You might have noticed that I add a Babel Fish button on my blog for international readers. If you read any of the languages represented by the flags just click on the one you want and get a translation in that language. The translated version will appear in a new window.

---End of Transmission---

Bush Should Blame Himself and Republicans

Bush can't seem to get everything he wants and so what does he do this week? He blames the Democrats!!! Saying they are obstructing his agenda!!!!

Now, let's go through this:

Republicans have control of the House, the Senate and the White House and yet the blockage of the Bush agenda is "Democratic obstructionism??"

Sorry King George.

You're gonna have to face the facts that even members of your own party are starting to doubt your ideology.

Things are only going to get worse for you Georgie boy in 2006 because you are going to loose Republican control over either the House or the Senate or maybe both. Don't be surprised. You pushed America into your private, secret war and we are now bogged down. Americans are tired of your lies and want change in Washington.

SEE yaaaa!!!

Speaking of Iraq, more Iraqi's died today. At least 23 killed and 36 wounded. It seems like everday there are dozens Iraqi's killed in this civil war and it does not appear that anything is going to stop it. We already have hundreds of thousands of the best soldiers on Earth trying to stop the killing and yet the blood still flows in the streets daily.

Now tell me again why you think the Downing Street Memo doesn't matter?? These documents show that OUR President and HIS administration lied and cajoled Americans and the world into an illegal war. This has implications leading to impeachment and the MSM thinks there is nothing to the memos?!!! OH COME ON!!! WAKE UP!!!!!! But when Clintion has a goddamn BLOW JOB the media was ALL OVER that one!!

---End of Transmission---

Friday, June 17, 2005

Rep. Conyers Denied Entry From The People's House

This comment from, The Fixer:

They wouldn't let him in. Think about this. They refused to allow a Member of Congress into the White House to deliver a letter. It's time to explain to Bush and his henchmen that he does not hold the deed to the White House. We do.

(***GOI Comment: They not only denied a member of Congress entry into the people's house but they denied 550,000 Americans (who signed the petition) entry to the White House. One has to wonder what happened to the petition once it was taken. It was probably dropped into a metal waste paper basket and burned. If there is any doubt that our democracy has been compromised then this picture proves that indeed it has been.

Things are pretty basic right now. Bush lied, we've know he lied and we now have a paper trail, timeline and proof. We demand that he answer to those he works for, "us" the American people. If he has nothing to hide then he just needs to go under oath and answer a few questions.

Oh yeah.
How much do you want to bet that his administration is going to raise the terror alert again in the near future to create a distraction?

If you're not furious then you are not paying attention or burying your head in the sand and ignoring the obvious.

Poll Numbers:
According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, only 42% approve of the the way Bush is handling his job. That means that nearly 60% of Americans disapprove!!!. These numbers are a significant decline from his approval rating of 51% right after his re-election in fall 2004.

On Iraq, only 37% approve of his handling of the war and only 42% believe that the war was worth it. Bush received only 39% support on other foreign policy issues and the economy.

There there is this from Slate:

Meanwhile, Congress garnered a mere 33 percent—its worst showing since 1997—with only 19 percent of folks believing that Congress has the same priorities for the country as they do.


All I can say about these numbers is that 2006 is going to bring in a big sweeping broom to Washington D.C. and I can not wait.

---End of Transmission---
Posted by Hello

122 Members of Congress On-Board to DSM Inquiry

This from Raw Story:

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) issued this statement in advance of his hearing on the Downing Street documents:

Few issues are more important under our constitutional form of government than the decision to go to war and place our soldiers lives at risk.

It is no insignificant matter when in the fall of 2002 President Bush told us that war would be his last resort. It is not unimportant when on March 6, 2003, the president promised us, "I've not made up [my] mind about military action." (**GOI Comment: This statement taken with the knowledge of the Downing Street Memo shows that President Bush LIED TO US ALL to get his war!!. Now some media outlets are saying that they won't cover these lies because it is not NEWS!!! Well, if that IS true and that we already knew he was a liar then WHY are we NOT drawing up papers of impeachment??? WHY? Well, this current batch of corrupt Republicans are in power and they cling to absolute power and will do ANYTHING to to hold on to that power. Including lying and covering up their lies by manipulating and corrupting the media to not cover their stinking trail of garbage).

Over the last two months, the veracity of those statements has - to put it mildly -- come into question:

--On May 1, the London Times released the now infamous Downing Street Minutes, in which the head of Britain's intelligence agency reported "military action [by the U.S.] was now seen as inevitable ... and "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." A former senior U.S. official subsequently told Knight Ridder that the minutes were "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired."

--On May 29, further documents were released revealing that in the summer of 2002, British and U.S. aircraft had doubled their rates of bombing in Iraq, in an apparent attempt to provoke an excuse for war.

--Last Sunday, the London Times released six new British documents corroborating the Downing Street Minutes and indicating that as early as March of 2002, our government had decided it would be "necessary to create the conditions" to justify war.

--Today Newsweek is reporting that two high ranking British Officials confirmed that by 2002, Iraq's nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen" and there was "no recent evidence" tying Iraq to international terrorism.

If these disclosures are true - and so far no one from the Bush Administration has bothered to respond to our letters -- they establish a prima facie case of going to war under false pretenses. This means that more than 1,600 brave Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis would have lost their lives for a lie (**GOI Comment: Which is the biggest and most costly lie in American history).

That is why we are here today. That is why 122 Members of Congress -- which as of today includes the Minority Leader -- have asked the president to explain his actions. That is why more than 550,000 Americans are joining with us in demanding answers from the Administration.

We are here because many of us find it unacceptable for any Administration - be it Democratic or Republican - to put our troops in harms way based on false information. The fact that our intelligence turned out to be flawed in no way absolves those who would intentionally mislead our nation or its allies.

We can't do anything in this hearing to change the facts on the ground in Iraq today, but we can pledge today to do everything within our power to find out how we got here and make sure it never happens again.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Media Black Out Continues

Well today was the day of the Downing Street hearings and the news agencies haven't said a word about it. I just finished watching NBC Nightly News and not only did they not talk about it but they chose to talk instead about the lack of oldies on the radio airwaves. I'm not kidding. I wish I was. Close to 550,000 people signed the petition to the President to answer questions about Iraq and yet the only room that the House Republicans could "spare" was some tiny, basement room. Shameful.

UPDATE: It now looks like Countdown with Keith Olbermann is going to talk about it tonight on his show. I guess at least someone is willing to talk about this. Supposedly ABC's Nightline program is going to talk about the DSM hearing tonight. We shall see.

---End of Transmission---

Downing Street Memo Live

Watch the Downing Street Memo hearings live on CSPAN website HERE.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Michael Schiavo Vindicated

The autopsy is in on Terri Schiavo and it shows that she was indeed in a permanent vegetative state and that she had half a brain and was blind. The autopsy showed that she was not strangled and not otherwise abused. This is something that most Americans could see for themselves and angered that Terri Schiavo was being used by Tom DeLay, Bush and Bill Frist. Bush flew all the way back to Washington D.C. just to sign "Terri's bill." Hey, I have an idea Mr. President. Why don't you answer our questions about the Downing Street Memo?? I know why you won't because you DID lie and we have PROOF. They wouldn't let Terri Schiavo (who had half a brain and was blind) die but they will send our young men and women over to Iraq to die over and over and over again.

"Doctor" Bill Frist (who is a HEART SURGEON) stood on the Senate floor and LIED that he KNEW about her condition based only on VIDEO TAPE!!! She and her family were being used to pack courts with radical, hard-core neo-conservative judges and that is exactly what they have done. They could have used her situation to bring attention to the hope and power of stem cells which is the only thing that has shown to have any evidence to help people in her situation. Ironically, however, these people are against stem cell research!! The media whores are just as bad as these wacko conservative politicians. They lied and lied and lied about the situation of Terri Schiavo and played on people's fears and passions about life and death. These people like Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Bill O'Reilly, etc. can not seem to know the difference between right and wrong. The politicians need to be stopped in their madness because they can not stop. They can not help themselves with absolute power and will do anything to keep it. Case in point, using Terri Schiavo.

Speaking on issues of "God" go to my Buddhist blog and read a great article on the "Great Creator."

I am SO pissed off.

I'm out.

---End of Transmission---


The Downing Street Memo hearings are back on for the U.S. Capitol tomorrow @ 2:30. Not sure if CSPAN will be covering them but I would not doubt it. UPDATE: They are covering it on CSPAN-3 (which many don't have) but you can watch it streaming on their website.

Also, CNN's political show, "Inside Politics" had a good report on the Downing Street Memo, why the story won't die and an interview of Rep. John Conyers. I sent the show an email thanking them for covering the issue and you might want to do the same. Here is the LINK to the comment form.

Let's flood them with emails to show them they have our support and to encourage them to stay on it.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Democracy Cancelled (Again)

This from

The hearings are being held at the Democratic National Committee because the Republicans controlling the House Judiciary Committee refused to permit the ranking Democratic Member to use a room on the Hill.

Nonetheless, Republicans are welcome to attend.

This from The Hill newspaper:

In a sign of how far relationships on the committee have soured, majority staff recently announced a new policy to deny any request from a committee Democrat for the use of a committee hearing room.

Sean McLaughlin, deputy chief of staff for Sensenbrenner, recently wrote to a minority staffer in more pointed language.“I’m sitting here watching your ‘forum’ on C-SPAN,” McLaughlin wrote. “Just to let you know, it was your last. Don’t bother asking [for a room] again.”

**GOI Comment: Nice. REAL nice. Like I said, Democracy has been cancelled in America. So now, we can not watch the hearings because CSPAN only covers the House and the Senate and the cable news networks aren't going to cover it.


Big GRRRRRR but I'm not surprised. Our democracy died after the "election" of 2000.

---End of Transmission---

Downing Street Memo Cartoon

(Click to enlarge)

Yeah, thats about right except that not only has the White House flushed the memo. So has the "media" and now we are going to talk about Michael Jackson for a month. Good GOD people!! He was found innocent on ALL charges by an ALL white jury in a conservative part of California!!! MOVE ON TO SOME REAL NEWS!!!!!!

Meanwhile, 24 people where blown up in Iraq and another 24 were found beheaded but that's not news people!! Let's also forget about the other Iraq War news that 5 Iraqi soliders were killed when a bomb exploded at their check point. The sick thing is that I am sure a lot of people are just glad that they were not Americans who were killed.

No, come on, we all want to hear the hash and rehash of the MJ trial!! (rolls eyes).

It appears that CNN is at least covering other news from around the world by the International news program, "Your world today."

It is still sad, however, that on right now they have the MJ trial as a bigger headline the the death of 24 people in Iraq.

I think I am going to email them and thank them for the international news coverage but to stop covering the post-MJ trial.

---End of Transmission---

Monday, June 13, 2005

Dick Cheney Insults Howard Dean


Vice President Dick Cheney slammed Democratic Party boss Howard Dean as "over the top" in a television interview to air on Monday, saying Dean had helped Republicans more than Democrats.

"I think Howard Dean's over the top. I've never been able to understand his appeal. Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does. He's never won anything, as best I can tell," Cheney told Fox News Channel.

Well, DICK!!

First off, Dean was elected governor of Vermont five times between 1992 and 2000.

See DICK, being elected governor is "winning something."


Are you really that dum...Naw, I just answered my own question.


This is also the man who claimed he had never met former Senator John Edwards when he clearly had.

Chairman Dean said that the Republican party was dominated by "white, Christian men" and that isn't true??

And that is OVER THE TOP???

It's not meant to be an insult--It's just the truth!! Why would "white, Christian, male Republicans be offended?!! It's not like it false. I mean is Cheney going to deny that his party is dominated by "white, Christian men??"

This from our Vice-President who told a Senator on the Senate floor to "Fuck Off."

Yeahhh, so in the bizarre-O world of Cheney being reminded who you are is "over the top" but telling a long-time Senator to "Fuck off" is fine??

This is also the man who claims he has never read (what he calls) the "so-called" Downing Street Memo but Howard Dean is the "loser??"

500,000 Americans have signed an order to look further into the Downing Street Memo but our Vice-President hasn't read it?? GIVE ME A DAMN BREAK!!! Pick up a DAMN NEWSPAPER DICK!!!

Oh yeah and I forgot the "Big One."

Fixing the intelligence to start a war with Iraq is "F-I-N-E" but Howard Dean is over the top.



---End of Transmission---

The Death of a Thousand Cuts: More Evidence Against Bush/Blair

The Downing Street memos just keep flowing and the tide is growing stronger against Bush and Blair. When now not only have the "smoking gun" but we have the bullet holes, the bullet fagments and some 1,700 dead bodies.

Here's the latest from the Times of London and from Shakespeare's Sister blog:

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal (**GOI Comment: In other words, "cook the books" to create a war).

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.

The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.

***GOI Comment: "The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal."

I find this segment to be the most damning and distrubing of the article. "Since regime change was illegal it was 'necessary to create the conditions' which to make it legal."

This reminds me of stories from inside the mafia where "captains" and "bosses" provide a cover/front plan to justify a policy or "operation" that is illegal in it's true nature.

Oh yes and let's not forget that the Bush/Republican platform was looking for regime change in Iraq as early as 2000.

This from After Downing Street:

If Bush was still seeking to peacefully persuade Saddam Hussein to eliminate his nonexistent weapons of mass destruction during the period when Bush's own public statements, those of his staff, and official minutes of secret meetings say otherwise, how does he justify having been so disloyal to the 2000 Republican Party Platform?

Excerpted from the Republican party platform for the 2000 election, available from CNN.

We support the full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act, which should be regarded as a starting point in a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the restoration of international inspections in collaboration with his successor. Republicans recognize that peace and stability in the Persian Gulf is impossible as long as Saddam Hussein rules Iraq.

**GOI Comment:

Hmmm. Fascinatin' don't ya think?

I think it is time to impeach Bush, dissolve his entire government and hold a special, presidential election because Cheney is just as much to blame as Bush.

---End of Transmission---

Sunday, June 12, 2005

New Memo: US Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan

This from The Washington Post:

A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.

In a section titled "Benefits/Risks," the July 21 memo states, "Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."

A March 14 memo to Blair from David Manning, then the prime minister's foreign policy adviser and now British ambassador in Washington, reported on talks with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Among the "big questions" coming out of his sessions, Manning reported, was that the president "has yet to find the answers . . . [and] what happens on the morning after."

About 10 days later, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote a memo to prepare Blair for a meeting in Crawford, Tex., on April 8. Straw said "the big question" about military action against Hussein was, "how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better," as "Iraq has no history of democracy."

GOI Comment: This is just more evidence that the Bush administration was blinded with the lust for war. The lack of post-war planning shows that Bush had some kind of Messanic complex going into the war thinking that the Iraqi's were going to worship the Americans at their feet upon removing Saddam. He was so cocky to think that: 1). He could "fix the facts and intelligence around the policy" to give him his war and 2). Iraqi's would all want democracy and the "help" of Americans.

---End of Transmission---

Downing Street Memo Sticker

Let everyone know about the memo.

I ordered mine a few days ago.

---End of Transmission---

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Democracy Cancelled

Press Release Democracy thwarted at Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Patriot Act

Chairman silences Democrats at a hearing on the Patriot Act by cutting the microphones

June 10, 2005 (Washington, DC) -- Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in her new role as a member of the Judiciary Committee today, witnessed first hand the disrespectful conduct of the Republican majority at a Committee hearing today, requested by the Democratic minority, to hear testimony on civil rights and civil liberties abuses resulting from the USA Patriot Act.The majority acted shamefully today, attempting to silence Democrats at the Judiciary Committee hearing this morning on the impact of the Patriot Act. Throughout the hearing, run by Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, witnesses and members were cut-off in mid sentence, the Chairman refused to yield to Democratic members points of order, or points of personal privilege. Finally, the hearing was adjourned by the Chairman, in violation of the Rules of the House and cutting off the microphones of Democratic members while they attempted to speak.

Sixteen provisions of the USA Patriot Act automatically sunset (expire) at the end of the year unless reauthorized by Congress. As such, the Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act.

The hearing this morning was the first time in roughly ten years that the minority on the Judiciary Committee has been forced to invoke its right to continue hearings in order to have its own witnesses.

Earlier this week, the Chairman, scheduled a series of hearings on the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, however, many of the hearings were on non-controversial parts of the Act. The hearings did not address some really obvious and important issues like section 215, which authorizes FBI access to library records and racial profiling. In an amazing slight, the only witness the Chairman would allow was the Deputy Attorney General of the United States who, of course, supports the permanent enactment of the Act. THE MINORITY DID NOT GET TO CALL A SINGLE WITNESS. In response, the Judiciary Committee Democrats invoked Rule11 of the House rules allowing us to request our own hearing, which the Chairman held this morning, on a Friday, even though the House adjourned on Thursday and most members had returned to their districts.

Particularly shameful acts of the majority Republican during this morning’s Judiciary Committee Hearing:

1. The most egregious abuse was that the Chairman clearly violated the Rules of the House by adjourning the hearing based solely on his own authority. In order to end a hearing, the Chair must make a Unanimous Consent request or a motion to adjourn. Mr. Sensenbrenner did neither. Additionally, he adjourned the hearing based solely on his own authority while Mr. Nadler was attempting to raise a point of order (arguably to highlight this fact), which constitutes a clear abuse of House Rules. Subject to our discretion, this could constitute a privilege to be raised on the House floor. It can also be argued that this violation was particularly egregious given that this was the Minority’s day of hearings. (begins at 1:51:00 on video)

2. After the Chairman illegally adjourned the hearing, the Majority then attempted to cut the microphone of Mr. Nadler who was attempting to raise a point of order about the adjournment. (begins at 1:52:25 on video)

3. The Chairman refused on numerous occasions to recognize Members attempting to raise Points of Order or Points of Personal Privilege. For example, he refused to recognize both Ms. Jackson-Lee Ms. Wasserman-Schultz at the beginning of the hearing. (begins at 17:45 on video or 19:15)

4. During the hearing, the Chairman clearly referred to comments that had just been made by Ms. Jackson-Lee, calling them “irresponsible.” (begins at 1:49:57 on video)

5. The Chair gave one of the witnesses an order for information he wanted submitted to the Committee and gave a deadline of one week even though other witnesses in previous hearings have not been given such deadlines. (begins at 1:50:45 on video)

6. The Chairman at the beginning of the hearing read a list of Members – calling them by name – who signed the letter requesting an additional day of hearings but were not present at that moment at the hearing. The Rules of the House clearly state that Members cannot be disparaged on the record by name. Additionally, a number of the Members so disparaged were present at that moment and some had been present from before the hearing even began. (begins 5:30 on video)

7. The Chairman instituted a policy of cutting off witnesses responding to questions by Members in mid-sentence. Additionally, he would not let witnesses answer questions that were posed to them by Members before the Member’s five minutes ended (begins at 1:32:30 on video). While not a violation of the Rules, these actions clearly violated the Traditions and Practices of the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Sessenbrenner usually allows witnesses to finish their sentences – and usually their broader point – before moving to the next Member. In addition, the usual practice is to allow witnesses to briefly respond to questions posed to them, even if the five minutes of the Member expired before they began to answer (begins at 1:47:00 on video).

8. The Chairman also suggested that he might strike from the record any testimony that was not directly related to the 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. At no time has it ever been suggested or threatened that a witnesses testimony (or a Member’s statements) would be stricken from the record. Additionally, in previous hearings, the Majority’s witnesses, as well the Majority Members have made statements that were technically outside the bounds of the hearing topic. WATCH THE VIDEO HERE (Adjourns illegally at 1:50:00)

Friday, June 10, 2005

What Iraqi Army??

Bush and his people have been claiming for over a year now that the Iraqi military continues to progress but at this rate they will never be ready.

The Washington Post has a story today about this issue and they show that the Iraqi military is extremely far behind being able to defend their own country.

In one mission an entire company of troops did not know where they were going for the day because their U.S. handlers were worried that someone amongst the Iraqi's would leak the information to the enemy!!

"We can't tell these guys about a lot of this stuff, because we're not really sure who's good and who isn't," said Rick McGovern, a tough-talking 37-year-old platoon sergeant from Hershey, Pa., who heads the military training for Charlie Company.

Charlie Company disintegrated once after its commander was killed by a car bomb in December. And members of the unit were threatening to quit en masse this week over complaints that ranged from dismal living conditions to insurgent threats. Across a vast cultural divide, language is just one impediment. Young Iraqi soldiers, ill-equipped and drawn from a disenchanted Sunni Arab minority, say they are not even sure what they are fighting for. They complain bitterly that their American mentors don't respect them.


If the Iraqi MILITARY (who are supposed to want to defend their country) are not sure what they are fighting for then we are in deep sh*t over there.

Friends, our troops are not coming home and this whole mess is not going to be over anytime soon.

"I know the party line. You know, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, five-star generals, four-star generals, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld: The Iraqis will be ready in whatever time period," said 1st Lt. Kenrick Cato, 34, of Long Island, N.Y., the executive officer of McGovern's company, who sold his share in a database firm to join the military full time after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "But from the ground, I can say with certainty they won't be ready before I leave. And I know I'll be back in Iraq, probably in three or four years. And I don't think they'll be ready then."

The members of the phantom "Iraqi military" do not even think that they will be ready.

"We don't want to take responsibility; we don't want it," said Amar Mana, 27, an Iraqi private whose forehead was grazed by a bullet during an insurgent attack in November. "Here, no way. The way the situation is, we wouldn't be ready to take responsibility for a thousand years."

Maj. Gen. Joseph J. Taluto, commander of the 42nd Infantry Division, which oversees an area of north-central Iraq that includes Baiji and is the size of West Virginia, called the Iraqi forces "improved and improving."

"Improved and improving," eh?

I'm sorry but what the F does that even mean?!!

Improving from what?! Anything would be an improvement over "troops" who feel they will never be ready, are not reliable with mission plans, who do not even know what they are fighting for and who bolt when there is the slightest danger!

Overall, the number of Iraqi military and police trained and equipped is more than 169,000, according to the U.S. military, which has also said there are 107 operational military and special police battalions. As of last month, however, U.S. and Iraqi commanders had rated only three battalions capable of operating independently.

I don't blame the Iraqi soldiers from running from danger, however, when they have no where near the protection of their American "brethern."

Last week, U.S soldiers from 1st Platoon, Alpha Company, and Iraqis from 2nd Platoon, Charlie Company, clambered into their vehicles to patrol the streets of Baiji. The Americans drove fully enclosed armored Humvees, the Iraqis open-backed Humvees with benches, the sides of which were protected by plating the equivalent of a flak jacket.

The men are housed at what they call simply "the base," a place as sparse as the name. Most of the Iraqis sleep in two tents and a shed with a concrete floor and corrugated tin roof that is bereft of walls. Some have cots; others sleep on cardboard or pieces of plywood stacked with tattered and torn blankets. The air conditioners are broken. There is no electricity.
Drinking water comes from a sun-soaked camouflage tanker whose meager faucet also provides water for bathing.

Another big problem is that the Iraqi forces often run away during a battle. This was addressed by an American officer:

"You are all cowards," he began. "My soldiers are over here, away from our families for a year. We are willing to die for you to have freedom. You should be willing to die for your own freedom. If you continue to run away from the enemy, the enemy will continue to chase you. You will never win."

Along dirt roads bisected by sewage canals, the men of Charlie Company crouched, their weapons ready. Before them was their home town, dilapidated and neglected. Cpl. Amir Omar, 19, gazed ahead.

"Look at the homes of the Iraqis," he said, a handkerchief concealing his face. "The people have been destroyed."

By whom? he was asked.

"Them," Omar said, pointing at the U.S. Humvees leading the patrol

Yep, sounds like things are going well and they are indeed "improving."

(Rolls eyes)

What a disaster.

(Read the rest of the article HERE).

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Downing Street Minutes Hearing

This from Raw Story:

The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has scheduled hearings on the 2002 minutes between senior British and American officials which asserted that intelligence was "being fixed" to support the case for war in Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

The hearings, which will be held next Thursday, will bring renewed attention to what is being called the "Downing Street memo," actually official minutes of a secret 2002 meeting.
Conyers office has revealed that they will introduce new documents that corroborate the Downing Street Memo at the hearings June 16.

“We expect to release new documents that corroborate the Downing Street memo," a Judiciary aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, told RAW STORY Thursday afternoon. "None of the documents are as earth-shattering as the Downing Street minutes but all of them corroborate the accuracy of what it says.”

Among those scheduled to testify are Joe Wilson, former ambassador and weapons of mass destruction expert; Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA analyst, used to do presidential daily briefings for Ronald Reagan; Cindy Sheehan, a mother who lost her son in Iraq combat; and John Bonifaz, the Boston constitutional lawyer who has called for a resolution of inquiry into what he sees as impeachable offenses in the president's false pretenses for war.

The Democratic Judiciary staffer said the overwhelming online response to Conyers' push on the Downing Minutes has further proven that pressure on issues can be built outside the mainstream press.

“We learned a lesson from the Ohio election investigation that frankly a lot of people on Capitol Hill haven’t learned, is that you can’t rely on mainstream media to be your validation as to whether you’re doing the right thing," the aide quipped. "When you talk straight to the people, if you’re doing the right thing, they’ll let you know."

“So much politics in this town is people putting out press releases, waiting to see if the press covers it, and if the press doesn’t cover it, then they move on,” the aide added.
Others are also expected to speak at the hearings. The aide said that other Democrats have expressed interest, including Reps. Barbara Lee (R-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA) and John Lewis (D-GA).

***GOI Comment: I am sure that the hearing will be televised on C-SPAN so set your VCR's, TiVO or watch it live and talk about it with your friends and family and don't forget to blog about it.

---End of Transmission---

Iraq, Downing Street Memo and the United Nations

This from an editorial in the Minnesota Star Tribune on the Downing Street Memo:

The memo is actually the minutes of a meeting of Blair and his highest officials on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq. Leaked to the Sunday Times of London, it was printed on May 1. The memo contained this description of what was said by Sir Richard Dearlove, or "C," the head of Britain's foreign intelligence service: "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam [Hussein], through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Bush and Blair were asked of this part, "Is this an accurate reflection of what happened?" Blair, saying he could respond very easily said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all," and went on to say that military action had to be taken because Saddam didn't comply with international law. Bush said, among other comments, "There's nothing farther from the truth," implying that C was wrong, without going into detail.

Neither addressed the intelligence and whether it was being concocted to provide a justification for removing Saddam. Blair, who was more specific than Bush, didn't address other key parts of the minutes, such as when Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is summarized as saying, "The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith explained in the meeting that, as the memo relates, "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation."

How could one of those occur? Blair did not address his own response to Straw and Goldsmith as described in the memo: "The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors."

This is stunning. As Mark Danner wrote in Sunday's New York Review of Books, "Thus the idea of UN inspectors was introduced not as a means to avoid war, as President Bush repeatedly assured Americans, but as a means to make war possible."

These and other points make the Downing Street memo one more in a string of accounts that undercut the administration's version of events. Tuesday's brief, narrow denials may have generated the desired headlines, but they did little to set the record straight.

GOI Comment: "Thus the idea of UN inspectors was introduced not as a means to avoid war, as President Bush repeatedly assured Americans, but as a means to make war possible."
This point raised by Mark Danner is one that makes a lot of sense. Let us not forget that Bush and his administration did not have much love for the United Nations but went ahead and cajoled member nations into a war with Iraq even though they (the Bush and Blair administrations)knew that Saddam's WMD capability was "less then that of Libya, North Korea and Iran."

Why would Bush even bother with the United Nations unless he felt that it would provide him cover and a reason for a war? Lying about the evidence to the world at the United Nations allowed Bush to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq, privatize the oil fields and give lucrative contracts to his friends.

He had been wanting to go into Iraq ever since his daddy's life was threatened by Hussein and the 9/11 anger and "thin evidence" gave him the perfect opening.

This gives the much maligned Richard Clarke's claims that in the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered him to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11 a little more strength don't ya think?

Not to mention the fact that $9 billion dollars in funding for the Iraqi war has been "lost."
Where did it all go? Perhaps, just perhaps some of it flowed into Great Britain?? I know for a fact (at the very least) that British Oil companies are getting nice, big fat contracts via this war and occupation of Iraq.

The Downing Street Memo is starting to put all the pieces together and explains all the wild claims by Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney and Bush pre-Iraq war.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

The Dean Distraction

Howard Dean is an awesome head of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have been slapped around and insulted for years by Republican zealots and it is about damn time that someone stood up for the rest of us and push back.

One needs only to look as far as the 2004 election to see how the "Swift Boat Veterans" kicked Kerry to the curb and dragged his reputation through the dirty gutter.

You don't achieve what you believe by rolling over like a dog and getting kicked in the ribs. Defending what you believe in and holding onto the values of diversity means that you have to fight now and then. You can not expect people to just win anyone over if you can not even defend yourself and that has been the bane of the Democratic Party in the last decade.

Dean's comment today was that the Republican Party is basically a "white Christian party." Now how is that insulting? Does anyone who seriously follows politics believe that the Christian radical right have not taken over the Republican Party??? Why do Republicans oppose homesexual marriages if their party is not dominated by the Christian radical right?? Not to mention their constant nagging about keeping "God" in the pledge of allegiance or installing formal, Christain "prayer" in school.

Also, why do African-Americans vote over-whelmingly for Democrats if the Republicans are not a party dominated by "whites??"

No, they're not a dominate, "white Christian party" at all.


Sure Dean is a little rough around the edges but he speaks his mind and is damn honest and that is something that we need to see more of in politics.

This attack on Dean's honesty is just another "bait and switch" tactic by the Republicans to keep from talking about the real issues that face America. Issues like the weak economy, Iraq and the Downing Street Memo as well as the "monolithic," fundamentalist nature of their party. If these comments do not hit close to home for Republicans then why are they so up in arms about them??

The truth hurts but needs to be spoken if we are going to change our country into a more diverse and accepting society.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Bush and Blair Continue to Dodge Downing Street Memo

I just watched the Bush/Blair news conference where the Downing Street Memo was brought up from one of the reporters. Bush predictably blew the memo off with an emphasis on this idea that no one wants to go to war and that war is the "last option."

The President must think we are as stupid as he is to believe that he went to war as a "last option." If I was the reporter who asked about the DSM I would have added this follow up question,

"If you went to war as a last resort, Mr. President then why did you pull the weapons inspectors out when you did?"

The Bush/Blair denials today of "cooking the books" in the lead up to war leaves more questions then answers. Note that neither Bush nor Blair clearly denied the authenticity of the memo they just denied the claims.

We clearly rushed to war and pulled the inspectors out too soon and the Downing Street Memo puts a period on that statement. I do not even see that there is debate on this issue any more thanks to the Downing Street Memo.

If we did not rush to war then why did we not find any weapons of mass destruction once we got there?? The inspectors under Hans Blix found no weapons and would have found none if they would have been given more realistic time in Iraq. We all know that Hussein was not going anywhere being that he had satelites shining up his ass and "No-fly zones" pinning him down in his own country.

The fact that we went to war and found no WMD's is alone proof that we "fixed the intelligence to fit the policy of war." Especially since that was the MAIN REASON for going INTO Iraq in the FIRST place!! Bush and Blair fixed the weak WMD claim and even weaker 9/11 link to fit their policy to go to war and over-throw Hussein.

---End of Transmission---

Sunday, June 05, 2005

Bolton's Actions Bolster Downing Street Memo Evidence

An AP report on John Bolton adds strength to the Downing Street Memo. Here's the summary:

In 2002, Bolton was key in ousting Jose Bustani, the head of a global arms-control agency, because Bustani was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad, which, as pointed out by the report in Newsday, “might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.”

Here's the timeline (thanks to Shakespeare's Sister for breaking it down):

1997—Bustani, a Brazilian arms-control specialist becomes founding director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Based in The Hague and operating under a 168-nation treaty banning chemical weapons, OPCW’s inspectors oversee the destruction of such weapons and to inspect chemical plants in the US, Russia, and elsewhere to ensure chemicals aren’t put to military use.

1998—Bustani steps up his initiative in an attempt to bring Arab nations, including Iraq, into the chemical weapons treaty. The article notes quite bluntly: “Bustani's inspectors would have found nothing, because Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed in the early 1990s. That would have undercut the U.S. rationale for war because the Bush administration by early 2002 was claiming, without hard evidence, that Baghdad still had such an arms program.”

2000—“[O]ne year ahead of time and with strong U.S. support, Bustani was unanimously re-elected OPCW chief for a 2001-2005 term. Colin Powell, the new secretary of state, praised his leadership qualities in a personal letter in 2001.”Sometime between 2000 and 2002, it was suggested that Bustani should be removed. The idea, according to Ralph Earle, a veteran US arms negotiator, and Avis Bohlen, a career diplomat and former Bolton deputy, was not Bolton’s, but “Bolton ‘leaped on it enthusiastically,’ Bohlen recalled. ‘He was very much in charge of the whole campaign," she said, and Bustani's initiative on Iraq seemed the "coup de grace.’”

2001—Bolton makes a menacing telephone call to Bustani, trying to interfere “in decisions that are the exclusive responsibility of the director-general” of OPCW. Additionally, Bolton “sought to have some U.S. inspection results overlooked and certain Americans hired to OPCW positions. The agency head said he refused.”

2002—A “white paper” from “Bolton's office said Bustani was seeking an ‘inappropriate role’ in Iraq, and the matter should be left to the U.N. Security Council -- where Washington has a veto.” The US then moved to terminate Bustani’s tenure. “On the eve of an OPCW Executive Council meeting to consider the U.S. no-confidence motion, Bolton met Bustani in The Hague to seek his resignation, U.S. and OPCW officials said. … In the Executive Council, the Americans failed to win majority support among the 41 nations. A month later, on April 21, at U.S. insistence, an unprecedented special session of the full treaty conference was called. … Only 113 nations were represented, 15 without voting rights because their dues were far in arrears. The U.S. delegation had suggested it would withhold U.S. dues -- 22 percent of the budget -- if Bustani stayed in office, stirring fears of an OPCW collapse. This time the Americans, with British help, got the required two-thirds vote of those present and voting. But that amounted to only 48 in favor of removing Bustani -- and seven opposed and 43 abstaining -- in an organization then with 145 member states.” Bustani appealed, but in the interim, a new director-general of OPCW was named.

2003—A three-member UN tribunal sternly rebuked Bustani’s dismissal and “said the U.S. allegations were ‘extremely vague’ and the dismissal ‘unlawful.’ It said international civil servants must not be made ‘vulnerable to pressures and to political change.’”

The AP also notes (emphasis mine):

The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein's regime. An official British document, disclosed last month, said Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed in April 2002 to join in an eventual U.S. attack on Iraq. Two weeks later, Bustani was ousted, with British help.

This information about the US’ Bolton-led actions against Bustani, in conjunction with the Downing Street Memo, seem clearly to indicate that the US would stop at nothing to manufacture justification for a war with Iraq. Fixing intelligence around the policy, using “spikes of activity” to try to provoke Saddam into doing something that would justify an invasion, and removing any obstacles, like the unfortunate Bustani, that might hinder their path to war. We must continue to demand a formal inquiry into these actions. If the US was taken to war based on deceit and a rationale conjured out of thin air, we must know. And the administration who took us there must be held accountable.

---End of Transmission---

Saturday, June 04, 2005

Urine Splashed on Quran at Gitmo

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. military officials say no guard at the Guantanamo Bay prison
for terror suspects flushed a detainee's Quran down the toilet, but they disclosed that a Muslim holy book was splashed with urine. In other newly disclosed incidents, a detainee's Quran was deliberately kicked and another's was stepped on.

On March 25, a detainee complained to guards that "urine came through an air vent"

and splashed on him and his Quran. A guard admitted he was at fault, but a report released Friday evening offering new details about Quran mishandling incidents did not make clear whether the guard intended the result.

***GOI Comment: O.k., so now we are to believe that some urine flew through a vent, splashing on the prisoner, we have a guard who admitted it was his fault but we're not sure
if the guard intended the result??? OH COME ON!! How does someone "accidentally" piss through a vent and it "accidentally" hits and splashes onto a prisoner AND his Quran??

In another confirmed incident, water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an
unspecified number of Qurans to get wet, and in a confirmed but ambiguous case,
a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.

***GOI Comment: Hmmm, so throwing water balloons at prisoners and their Quran's
isn't humiliation?? Once again, doesn't someone tell these people or train them that
humilitation is not the best way to win "hearts and minds" in a global struggle against
freedom?? And by the way the term "unspecified" is a soft way to say, "a lot."

The findings, released after normal business hours Friday evening and after
the major TV networks had aired their evening news programs, are among the results of an investigation last month by Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the commander of the
detention center in Cuba.

***GOI Comment: This is how the White House and the Bush government releases "unflatering" information now. They do it in the cover of night after the "news" agencies
have all gone off air and everyone is in bed. It then get's lost in the weekend where few Americans check the news.

Come on America. Can't we at least be somewhat civilized in how we "spread democracy
and freedom??" Otherwise we are NEVER going to establish a true democracy in Iraq.
God, we barely have a Democracy left here in America. This is a classic "do as I say,
not as I do mentality."

---End of Transmission---

Friday, June 03, 2005

Bloody Iraq

Insurgent violence has claimed the lives of 12,000 Iraqis over the past 18 months, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said Thursday, giving the first official count for the largest category of victims of bombings, ambushes and other increasingly deadly attacks.

And from The New York Times:

A suicide bomber detonated a belt of explosives at a gathering of Sufi Muslims on Thursday evening north of Baghdad, killing at least 10 people and injuring at least 11 others, an Interior Ministry official said today.

The attack capped an extremely bloody day across the country. Along with the killing of a Shiite cleric in the south, the strike brought to at least 44 the number of Iraqis killed in attacks on Thursday. More violence followed today, as at least three Iraqis were killed and a dozen wounded in shootings and bombings. An American military spokesman also said that a soldier had been killed on Tuesday in a rocket attack at an American base in Baghdad.

What do these numbers mean to us anymore? Have we become numb to death?? Have we forgotten what we started over there? Have we forgotten that we were taken into this war on lies???

And how is this not a civil war you say??

A: Well, It is one. It's been one for awhile. You have Iraqi's killing Iraqi's. In other words, CIVIL WAR.

I rest my case.

---End of Transmission---