Dark clouds in Bush's future?

by **sunny** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:19 am

we'll have a few more years of reactionary republican/conservative government, which will be replaced by a "liberal" alternative I'm afraid you may be right Sussurus- the extremism of the current regime cannot help but cause an extreme reaction-as the Soviet Union taught us, this cannot be a good thing-the only thing we can do, I'm afraid, is buckle our seatbelts-it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

by **plsmith** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:03 pm

It’s important to make the distinction between a corrupt president and a system that is corrupt, for removing the former does nothing to alter the latter and (historically) there has been but one effective response to bad governments: armed, bloody revolution. Since less than 10% of Americans are willing to do so much as vote outside the two main political parties, I doubt significant numbers of us will be sharing ammo in the streets any time soon. My point is that there's a lot of fear expressed on the Internet about the Bush presidency particularly, and while I'd certainly like to see him and his crooked lot run out of office, I think these layers of fear -- the way they shoot off in a dozen different directions -- dilute any movement toward removing Bush, let alone exposing/deposing the sick system that put him “in charge”. I believe there’s a concerted effort to “factoid” us in a way that keeps Concerned Citizens unfocussed and unable to act. These past five years we've been ping-ponging from one catastrophe to the next... no time to even understand what has happened before we're being bombarded with some new (worse) outrage. IMO, we need, as a body, to pick one issue and hound THEM about it non-stop. Hound the Media about it, hound the Internet about it, hound Congress about it; make that issue the one thing on people's minds until they’re talking of nothing else and demanding answers themselves. We have sat through the Scott Peterson trial, the Michael Jackson trial, glued to our televisions as though their individual crimes deserve the level of attention they’ve been given. We’ve proven our ability to stay focussed on the inane and inconsequential; now we need to manipulate the Media into yapping about what REALLY matters. For my money, that single issue would be 9/11, because within the events of that day are the footprints of our “Secret Government” and all its subsequent treachery, and forcing unrelenting daylight on its shadows could undermine its continued existence. We also -- as a nation, no matter how we voted -- shared the dismay and horror and grief of that day, and it seems the most likely rallying point for the most people. It can be done... Sidestep:  We've had idiots as presidents before, too. <img src="http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y201/wappened/gerald_ford.jpg"/> In twenty-five years in Congress, Gerald Ford did not author a single piece of legislation enacted by Congress. Stupidly, he tried to make a name for himself by attempting to have Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas impeached in 1970, because -- get this -- Douglas had published an article in the "radical" magazine Evergreen,  which  [gasp]  featured semi-nude pictures of women! It was LBJ who quipped that Gerald Ford had played too much football in college without his helmet on. (And that makes LBJ's selection of dimwitted Ford to sit on the Warren Commission all the more intriguing.)

by **wolf pauli** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:54 pm

There's can be no mens rea where there is no mens (mind). And if we're going to have to prove Bush has a mind, we're screwed. But look on the bright side. As Oscar Wilde said, "The basis of optimism is sheer terror." So I guess we have every reason to be hopeful. :) (plsmith mentioned Ford as another contender in the idiot stakes. While we're on the topic let's not forget Reagan, whose buddy Margaret Thatcher said "Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears.")

by **Starman** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:17 pm

**** sussurus2 said: --we'll have a few more years of reactionary republican/conservative government, which will be replaced by a "liberal" alternative which will send us running with open arms towards the NWO, which will look far more human & sensible than the current administration. That will of course be a lie, but it will be a convenient lie to get broad support for that next phase. To get there, though, we may have to live through devaluation of the dollar, more intensive plagues, more war, etc. This is just step one in the grand theater of "why Kerry kept his mouth shut after the so-called-elections" Act two wasn't warmed up yet. OK, hyper-paranoid. But trusting the gut instinct on this one. * Yep -- I agree with ya there too. This is being gamed on a very-deep level below the threshold of most of the dumbed-down public's attention-span and beyond their declining critical-thinking skills. Sure wish I was wrong, but my readings of history and contemporary events leaves me cynical and distrustful that the power-elites (and the Shadow Government that reflects the perverted agenda of the power-and-greed mad Globalists, such as Bilderbergers and Illuminati et al.) will ever allow themselves to be challenged by the 'ordinary citizens'. Considering this sure doesn't do anything to alleviate my black mood -- even tho I believe that sooner or later things MUST change for the better. The damage done to the nation, and the world by the last 100+ years of powerful special interests lobbying for wars (at LEAST since the Spanish American war) and undermining the principles of democracy, is incalculable. Among the unconscionable abuses is the deliberate impoverishment and debt-enslavement of dozens of third-world nations in order to artificially inflate the US's standard of living and enhance its economic stranglehold on world institutions. The biggest fraud (or one of them) is the lie that the US has been actively promoting 'democracy' and human rights. _____________ One human posted: look, if it happens, its a set up. is (it) coincidental that Kerry led the investigations into CIA cocaine dealing? that Kerry led the investigation into BCCI? that Kerry threw the last election? none of it is coincidental. its problem reaction solution in the most blatent insulting form possible. the men have sworn an alleigence to one another. they both went through the same brotherhood of death initiation rituals, both Knights of Eulogia, who bowed before the Satanic trinity of Lucifer, Satan & the Anti Christ... the reason the Bushes have never got into trouble all these years is because of shills like Kerry. the man's whole career has been centered around cleaning up the Bush family mess...... and things changed now all of a sudden? the way to impeach Bush is to expose the coup detat, the group that has taken over the government..... and that group INCLUDES John Kerry.... so if he comes out exposing Skull & Bones, then maybe we will be talking... otherwise... they have a plan. * Yes -- That's straight-up word. The whole system of so-called self-rule has been subverted by a long line of criminals, traitors, con-men and racketeers, making use of cash and deals, bribes and threats, even murder and wars when it suits their purposes, essentially beyond the law because WE, The People have allowed it to happen, we were too naive and trusting in the inherant 'goodness' of decent people to do the 'right' thing -- as IF we could recognize decency by appearances, when savvy marketeers can easily 'sell' the desired image and message. Re: your posting of the Contra and Cocaine link, in which Kerry was the designated sheep-dipping damge-controller: Justice Dept. and CIA bald-faced lying and cover-up of narcotics trafficing in Latin America circa 1986-88, re: Congressional and Church Committee investigations: <a href="http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/contracoke.html">www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/c...acoke.html</a> --quote-- In the days leading up to the meeting, Justice Department spokesmen were stating publicly that "the FBI had conducted an inquiry into all of these charges and none of them have any substance."[8] At that meeting, Justice Department officials privately contradicted the numerous public statements from the Department that these allegations had been investigated thoroughly and were determined to be without foundation. The Justice Department officials at the meeting said the public statements by Justice were "inaccurate."[9] The Justice officials confirmed there were ongoing Neutrality Act investigations in connection with the allegations raised by Senator Kerry. At the same meeting, representatives of the CIA categorically denied that the Neutrality Act violations raised by the Committee staff had in fact taken place, citing classified documents which the CIA did not make available to the Committee. In fact, at the time, the FBI had already assembled substantial information confirming the Neutrality Act violations, including admissions by some of the persons involved indicating that crimes had taken place. [1<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"> * Lies, lies and lies -- and NO accountability demanded for those in the Justice Dept. and CIA who insisted "Nothin here, folks!", later and even DURING on-going investigation proved false. How disgusting. No wonder agents saw the widespread corruption and fraud going on with impunity and decided to cash-in on it themselves. The US's cynical hypocrisy re: the 'war' on Drugs while milking it for black budget proceeds reflects the very worst aspects of trashing human rights for alterior motives -- betrayal of what America stands for if not outright treason. Of course, this particular kind of rot went back to the slave trade, blockade-running and rum-running, which formed the basis of many 'respectable' Blue-Blood family fortunes. _____________ plsmith wrote: Since less than 10% of Americans are willing to do so much as vote outside the two main political parties, I doubt significant numbers of us will be sharing ammo in the streets any time soon. My point is that there's a lot of fear expressed on the Internet about the Bush presidency particularly, and while I'd certainly like to see him and his crooked lot run out of office, I think these layers of fear -- the way they shoot off in a dozen different directions -- dilute any movement toward removing Bush, let alone exposing/deposing the sick system that put him “in charge”. I believe there’s a concerted effort to “factoid” us in a way that keeps Concerned Citizens unfocussed and unable to act. These past five years we've been ping-ponging from one catastrophe to the next... no time to even understand what has happened before we're being bombarded with some new (worse) outrage. IMO, we need, as a body, to pick one issue and hound THEM about it non-stop. Hound the Media about it, hound the Internet about it, hound Congress about it; make that issue the one thing on people's minds until they’re talking of nothing else and demanding answers themselves. We have sat through the Scott Peterson trial, the Michael Jackson trial, glued to our televisions as though their individual crimes deserve the level of attention they’ve been given. We’ve proven our ability to stay focussed on the inane and inconsequential; now we need to manipulate the Media into yapping about what REALLY matters. For my money, that single issue would be 9/11, because within the events of that day are the footprints of our “Secret Government” and all its subsequent treachery, and forcing unrelenting daylight on its shadows could undermine its continued existence. We also -- as a nation, no matter how we voted -- shared the dismay and horror and grief of that day, and it seems the most likely rallying point for the most people. It can be done... * Yay! Thanks for your cheery-effort at promoting the light. I TRY to keep a positive image in-mind, but sometimes the sheer weight of so much infected rottoness that pervades our society and that has destroyed SO many lives both here and around the world, sure gets me down ... There are times I sort-of wistfully miss the relative peace-of-mind I had when I was largely naive about how screwed-up so many things are -- not that long ago. Although I knew some things and suspected others, 911 was the catalyst for me to really learn about the hidden hand of power and the Globalist agenda, and how thoroughly despicable these 'people' in positions of influence and leadership (sic!) are -- who obviously see things in a completely different way and have MUCH divergent values than I --and most of the people I respect, appreciate and empathize with (even if I don't esp. or always agree with them) -- do. I agree 911 is the central defining characteristic of our current 'reality', around which most of the utterly reprehensible frauds and abuses and crimes of our age revolve and extend from. Keep-on, y'all! Starman

by **bindare** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:24 pm

... Kerry was expected to address the senate today (monday) but he is not in town. his spokesperson said he will "bring up the issue when he gets back to WA". but no info on when that will be. my feeling is that Kerry got scared when his address was linked to a call for impeachment. I'm sure this sounds cracy to most of us, but Kerry still thinks he has the inside track on being the next US Prez. If, as indicated above, it is all a Skull & Bones thing, then maybe he's right.

by **seemslikeadream** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:23 pm

Just because I have this really weird connection to that name, goes back 200 years. Let me get very supersitious and say this maybe the beginning of the beginning of the end June 06, 2005 MAJOR SCOOP: Assistant Secretary of State Bill Burns & Libya the Subjects of One Bolton NSA Intercept Request John Bolton so irritated British negotiators who were working on a resolution to Libya's WMD programs that they asked the American team on Libya to remove John Bolton from the case. Bolton was dropped. TWN has now learned from a highly placed intelligence source, "with direct knowledge," that one of the 10 intercept requests made by John Bolton was about Libya. The identity of the U.S. official requested by Bolton was William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. This shows a couple of things about Bolton that further underscore his vanity and irresponsibility when it comes to national security issues. First, Bolton was NOT on a need-to-know basis in the Libya case. He had been removed from that portfolio. Second, this shows that Bolton was in fact spying on his colleagues and their work. In this case, Bill Burns was his target. The Bolton Battle is getting ready to rev up again -- and this news on Bolton, Burns and Libya may turn a number of other U.S. Senators against his nomination. <a href="http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000700.html" target="top">www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000700.html</a>

by **bindare** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:45 pm

<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/corseri06062005.html">www.counterpunch.org/cors...62005.html</a> by Gary Corseri 1. He lied us into war in Iraq. According to the U.S. media-ignored British "Downing Street Memo," he "fixed" intelligence around a pre-determined policy of preemptive war. Results: 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths; about 1800 U.S. soldiers dead in two wars, 100s of thousands wounded and traumatized. 2. Under his watch, the U.S. suffered its worst terrorist attack on its soil. He opposed an official investigation, then stalled for months on testifying before a hand-picked committee. Finally testified behind closed doors. 3. He was "elected" under dubious circumstances in 2000. 4. He was "elected" under dubious circumstances in 2004. 5. He has approved (and his Attorney General Gonzales has re-defined) torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and elsewhere, while simultaneously opposing the International Criminal Court established to check such abuses. According to Amnesty International, the United States has established a Soviet-style "gulag" of torture around the world. 6. He failed to support the Kyoto Protocols, reducing greenhouse gases, but worked to open up Alaska's ANWR to drilling-despoiling an eco-system and increasing greenhouse gases. 7. He chose Halliburton toady Dick Cheney to be his running mate-twice. 8. He has attempted to pack the courts with ideologue-judges intent on overthrowing Roe v. Wade, and institutionalizing the police-state abuses of Patriot Acts I and II. 9.His "No Child Left Behind" education policies have replaced learning with testing and allowed military recruiters access to our schools, cajoling our children with military options before their minds have had a chance to open, question and challenge. 10.He is attempting to dismantle the Social Security system that has ensured "peace and freedom" for tens of millions of working Americans for seven decades ("peace" of mind and "freedom" from economic crises)-- rights hard-won by Labor and Progressives in decades-long struggles. 11. He has allied himself with Right-wing ideologues to curtail or abolish stem-cell research vital to the conquest of debilitating and fatal diseases. 12. He has failed to develop a coherent energy policy-except to prosecute wars for other peoples' resources. He fails to acknowledge the reality and impending disasters of Global Warming. 13. He has continued the Globalization project of his predecessors: outsourcing jobs, hollowing our middle class. 14. He has undermined the legitimate protective protocols of the C.I.A., politicizing the agency, awarding positions on the basis of ideological orthodoxy rather than merit and astute analysis. 15. He has subjugated his Administration to Neocon ideologues like Richard Perle, William Kristol and Douglas Feith; men who have endorsed the "settlement," expansionist and Wall-them-in policies of Ariel Sharon, sowing the seeds of anti-Arab racism, war and destruction in the Middle East for generations to come. 16. In spite of his rhetoric about freedom and democracy, he has allied himself with dictators in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt and elsewhere. He has increased the flow of arms to these states and others, fomenting instability, turmoil and war. 17. He chose Rumsfeld as DoD Secretary twice, in spite of Rumsfeld's obvious failure to adequately plan for the post-Saddam era in Iraq, inducing massive "collateral damage," the looting of ancient treasures, and infrastructure destruction in a country we were legally and morally bound to rehabilitate. 18. He endorses the weaponization of space, "Rods from Gods," and other exotic, Star-Wars technologies to establish a twenty-first century American global empire that is doomed to create an arms race with China and other opposing coalitions, sowing discord and wasting the resources of the world. 19. He has presided over the most egregious media consolidation in the nation's history. While we have had "yellow journalism" and other media abuses throughout our two centuries of Republic/Empire, we have never suffered the consolidation of power that we have today. He has presided over the emasculation and cowering of PBS, while his disinformation troops have peddled fraudulent stories and comments to "reporters" like Judith Miller, Armstrong Williams and Jeff Guckert-"Gannon," poisoning the well of information, adding to the general confusion and Goebbelsization of our news. 20. He lied about, misled, or misunderstood the astronomical costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He continues to do so, diverting tax money for education, health care, the EPA, transportation and social infrastructure into war-making and destruction. 21. He has continued and enlarged the depraved Clinton policy of using depleted uranium on the battlefield; a policy bound to cause massive suffering and death to Americans and others for generations to come. 22. He has alienated our traditional allies and more than a billion Muslims around the world. He has ransacked the good will extended to the nation after the 9/11 attacks, leading a crusade of vengeance and reprisal, most often against innocents, judging without sufficient evidence, arrogating to himself a crooked, self-righteous Texas sheriff's power to execute without justice. 23. Under his watch, millions more Americans have been added to the ranks of the uninsured while health-care costs have exploded. His answer to these and other pressing social problems appears to be faith-based charities-in other words, preaching to the choir while stealing from the pews. 24. Under his watch, the North Koreans have, apparently, developed eight nuclear weapons and Israel has continued to increase and refine its arsenal-now estimated as high as five hundred. 25. He has murdered the English language.

by **seemslikeadream** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:50 pm

<a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8101422/site/newsweek" target="top">msnbc.msn.com/id/8101422/site/newsweek</a> Hard roads: Marines search for mines and IEDs on a remote desert track near the Syrian border with Iraq By Rod Nordland NewsweekJune 13 issue - Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits; WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and America's good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong? A lot, but the biggest turning point was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Since April 2004 the liberation of Iraq has become a desperate exercise in damage control. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. On top of that, it didn't work. There is no evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite claims by the military that the prison produced "actionable intelligence." The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the behavior of U.S. troops, but the incompetence of their leaders. Against the conduct of the Lynndie Englands and the Charles Graners, I'll gladly set the honesty and courage of Specialist Joseph Darby, the young MP who reported the abuse. A few soldiers will always do bad things. That's why you need competent officers, who know what the men and women under their command are capable of—and make sure it doesn't happen. Living and working in Iraq, it's hard not to succumb to despair. At last count America has pumped at least $7 billion into reconstruction projects, with little to show for it but the hostility of ordinary Iraqis, who still have an 18 percent unemployment rate. Most of the cash goes to U.S. contractors who spend much of it on personal security. Basic services like electricity, water and sewers still aren't up to prewar levels. Electricity is especially vital in a country where summer temperatures commonly reach 125 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet only 15 percent of Iraqis have reliable electrical service. In the capital, where it counts most, it's only 4 percent. The most powerful army in human history can't even protect a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both the international airport and Baghdad's main American military base, Camp Victory, to the city center. At night U.S. troops secure the road for the use of dignitaries; they close it to traffic and shoot at any unauthorized vehicles. More troops and more helicopters could help make the whole country safer. Instead the Pentagon has been drawing down the number of helicopters. And America never deployed nearly enough soldiers. They couldn't stop the orgy of looting that followed Saddam's fall. Now their primary mission is self-defense at any cost—which only deepens Iraqis' resentment. The four-square-mile Green Zone, the one place in Baghdad where foreigners are reasonably safe, could be a showcase of American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications. The traffic lights don't work because no one has bothered to fix them. The garbage rarely gets collected. Some of the worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green Zone's checkpoints. They've repeatedly punched Iraqi ministers, accidentally shot at visiting dignitaries and behave (even on good days) with all the courtesy of nightclub bouncers—to Americans and Iraqis alike. Not that U.S. soldiers in Iraq have much to smile about. They're overworked, much ignored on the home front and widely despised in Iraq, with little to look forward to but the distant end of their tours—and in most cases, another tour soon to follow. Many are reservists who, when they get home, often face the wreckage of careers and family. I can't say how it will end. Iraq now has an elected government, popular at least among Shiites and Kurds, who give it strong approval ratings. There's even some hope that the Sunni minority will join the constitutional process. Iraqi security forces continue to get better trained and equipped. But Iraqis have such a long way to go, and there are so many ways for things to get even worse. I'm not one of those who think America should pull out immediately. There's no real choice but to stay, probably for many years to come. The question isn't "When will America pull out?"; it's "How bad a mess can we afford to leave behind?"

by **seemslikeadream** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:05 pm

Order of the Week: Bolton Could Re-Surface on Thursday Senator Frist isn't going to co-mingle judges and John Bolton again. This week he is pushing to judicial nominations: Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor. There is little chance that the "motion to reconsider" the Bolton cloture vote can be considered until Thursday, and probably Thursday afternoon, depending on the post-cloture debate agreements on these two judges. The good thing for Bolton opponents is that most moderate Republicans and nearly all Democrats will probably feel sleazy after the votes on the two judges and not in the mindset at all to give in to the White House on John Bolton. Many are now trying to argue (on behalf of the White House) that to delay Bolton will paint those opposing cloture as "obstructionists." But the fact is that the White House is the one obstructing the proper mechanics of government by withholding important information on the administration's Syria policy that Bolton may have been undermining, on NSA intercepts and the redacted identities of U.S. officials mentioned in them, and on the roster of "international clients" maintained by the well-paid, part-time management consultant in Bolton's office, Matthew C. Freedman. The White House is spinning the line that some Dems may not hold in a replayed cloture vote -- and that is clearly NOT THE CASE from the inquiries of offices made today. There is no fundamental evidence of battle fatigue -- and Lieberman's office has not indicated that it has shifted position. That aside, choking down two outrageous, ideological zealots as new Bush judicial appointments may be just what it takes to permanently kill the Bolton nomination. The Dems and moderates may get run over twice this week on judges -- but Bolton will be the vote that they say NO to. On another front, the NSA intercepts revelation on Libya and Asst. Secretary of State William Burns is turning out to be very important. Earlier testimony by various other State Department officials made it clear that Bolton was pushed to the periphery of a number of delicate policy initiatives -- one of which was Libya. Bolton didn't like it, and Fred Fleitz -- his CIA detailee and acting Chief of Staff -- helped him spy on his State Department colleagues. Watch for more on the Syria documentation. What is brewing in this mess is the strong possibility that Bolton committed perjury before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on his role in generating the controversial Heritage Foundation speech that is part of this morass. John Bolton is now working on the 1st floor of the State Department, in transitional space, and is reportedly grumpy about his situation. <a href="http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000702.html" target="top">www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000702.html </a> Does the name Plame sound familiar Mr. Bolton?

by **Starman** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:38 pm

seemslikeadream posted: 'More bad news for the War President' (sic!?!?#) by Gary Corseri Good hard-hitting, plain-speaking article. Have Rummy and Dick and Georgie been sent copies? --quote-- The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the behavior of U.S. troops, but the incompetence of their leaders. Against the conduct of the Lynndie Englands and the Charles Graners, I'll gladly set the honesty and courage of Specialist Joseph Darby, the young MP who reported the abuse. A few soldiers will always do bad things. That's why you need competent officers, who know what the men and women under their command are capable of—and make sure it doesn't happen. *** Jeez, aint THAT the bitter-truth ... Ever since I began commenting on poli news boards (I've mostly given-it-up as too stressful and disheartening, seeing so MANY severely-deluded and reason-disabled neocon idealogues exercise the limits of fraudulent thinking)and responding to 'Well, what would YOU do then?' (about the FUBAR-boondoggle Iraq was plunging deeper-into every day)-type questions, I would patiently say -- Nothing will change for the better, in a very real and meaningful sense that Iraqi and Americans at-home and troops (serving or Veteran) and not-least people all over the World who see aspects of the Iraq war-- especially the more grim, bloody, horrible and heartbreaking incidents that are conveninetly excused by MSM technocrat-censors for the convenient 'benefit' of at-home 'news' consumers, until our 'leaders' are held to-account for this tragic, completely unnecessary, illegal and immoral debacle -- starting at the very top with the whole despicable chain-of-command career war-profiteer Globalist racketeering gangster neo-conmen thugs, from Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and boy-Bush, to Bolten, Wolfowitz, Reich, Powell, and Rice, to Miller and Karpinski and Bremer and all the OTHER techno-functionary dupes, stooges, generals, and agents of Empire who together cooperated in a contingent conspiracy of misfeasance, negligence, incompetance, irresponsibility, abuse of authority, duplicity, obstruction of justice, and for many also including crimes against peace, atrocities and war crimes. The single BEST thing America could do at this point, besides possibly withdrawing ALL troops and contractors, support network and mercenaries and Intelligence Assets etc. ASAP and arranging to provide for immediate humanitarian aid and hundreds of billions of dollars for clean-up and war reparations, is to indict EVERYONE who played an active role in either providing a falsified case for war or pushing for war in the absence of rigorously-substantiated evidence, OR whose leadership/management in the conduct of the war contributed to numerous and systematic crimes, abuses, atrocities, and abuses contrary to established Humanitarian and Human Rights principles, UN and NATO treaties, International Law, Geneva and Nuremburg convention guidelines, the US Constitution, US Law or the manual of US Land Warfare. It's simply unconscionable (but a sign of America's crippled morality, its extreme self-absorbed greed-and-ego-addled delusion, and its hypocritical and pragmatic vanity) that America's political and social cowardice prevent it from acknowledging its long-legacy in materially contributing to and provoking the Middle East's socioeconomic stagnation and its crass political morass through a sixty-year history in interventions that have fomented sectarian strife, subverted legitimate political expression, and backed the plots of brutal despot dictators as crucial better-case pro-US allies -- In Iraq's case, the US was the principle architect and middle-man for bringing the Ba'athist party to power, and then making sure their candidate paid-assassin strongman Saddam Hussein became the nation's oligarch -- The CIA, as it has in so MANY other cases around the world, MADE Saddam who he became -- and NOW the US doesn't have the integrity to acknowledge the part its played in inevitably making the lives of Iraqis far worse than if the US had bloody-well left the nation alone. The reason for the US in fighting Communism by skewing national leadership through the despicable practices it used is nothing more than a lame hand-me-down excuse that can NEVER legitimize its abuses and excesses -- which caused the end-result of the present facetious 'liberation' that the rest of the world now rightly condemns and criticizes the US for. For those who say that the US's vital geostrategic need for reliable oil resources is all the justification needed to change Iraq's regime and take an active part in securing Iraq's oil -- HOW can such an assumption be made, that there wasn't ANY other alternative? The US along with the UK was the prime cause for Iraq's oil infrastructure having been so deprived and allowed to decay with severe limits on investment and oil export sales -- Iraq would have been overjoyed to develop its oil industry and sell to anyone -- or IF by then anti-US sentiment had grown due to the twelve-year imposition of sanctions that caused a million premature deaths and severe limits to continued development of Iraq's society and economy, then MANY other nations could readily fill the US need -- Iraq wasn't by any means a LAST RESORT for reliable oil supplies. The premise is absurd-- and yet idealogue neocons can make it with an apparant straight face, lacking the most basic critical skills to identify how flawed their thinking is. But there should be a clue there for Americans, among whom it seems to be a trend to ignore the reality and the basis for 3rd world nations harboring anti-American sentiment based on the US's history of rude and reckless military interventions that DON'T reflect the principles of democracy, freedom, social jsutice and human rights, but the exact opposite. The absurd idiocy is that Americans are so vain and conceited that they're often the very last to know (or care) how the people of other nations regard them -- and why. *** from Gary Corseri's article: --quote-- I can't say how it will end. Iraq now has an elected government, popular at least among Shiites and Kurds, who give it strong approval ratings. There's even some hope that the Sunni minority will join the constitutional process. Iraqi security forces continue to get better trained and equipped. But Iraqis have such a long way to go, and there are so many ways for things to get even worse. I'm not one of those who think America should pull out immediately. There's no real choice but to stay, probably for many years to come. The question isn't "When will America pull out?"; it's "How bad a mess can we afford to leave behind?" --unquote-- * I simply CANNOT understand this logic, "there's no real choice but to stay..." WHAT???? How utterly, ridiculously reality-avoidingly stoooopid. I have NEVER grasped how anybody can seriously think this is logical or necessary. Of course, if we ONLY leave and do nothing else, then nothing will come of the immense fraud and abuses that certain people WERE guilty of. It astonishes me that so-called conservatives, and die-hard Republicans can't see thru the mealy-mouth, puffed-up and self-serving, ass-covering and cowardly lack-of-character exhibited by the whole Bush Administration bunch -- WHY do these people feel Bush deserves their support -- he has NO grasp of what self-reliance, dignity, honesty, integrity, courage and decency mean. That these brand of thugs have taken-over Washington to such an extent makes it almost impossible that people of integrity and decency can stand a chance can enter and compete in the kind of dirty-fighting anything-goes death-wish contest which American politics has become. To this end (as I can imagine, indeed I've heard and seen it before), to those Repubs who can grasp the criticism of Bush I made above, it seems a well-conditioned, ingrained response that compared to Kerry, Bush is Golden. But -- That's NOT the issue! Jeez, how many times have I seen this faulty logic. Kerry has been painted as a fake, bum, false-hero, opportunist, flip-flopper, etc. -- In short, all the typical dirty-tricks engaged in by one side to tar the 'other fella', and so make your guy the champion-by-default, to deflect any lingering criticism among your party. What a dismal state of affairs, no-doubt SPECIFICALLY intended all-along just for that by-proxy sheep-dip effect. Thus, we have the Green and Libertarian 3rd-party candidates excluded from participating in Presidential debates, lest they 'infect' the electorate (an increasingly meaningless, influence-deficient category in the election 'system') with unapproved, off-topic ideas that don't conform to the terms of public debate as decided by the PTB (in consult with the status-quo.) This reminds me of a cable-channel documentary I saw the other week on Iraq, called 'the Battleground' or something like that -- In which a young black trooper lays-out the 'complicated' issue in a very straight-forward, over-simplistic terms -- Basically, he said, it's a clash of civilizations, a necessary and unavoidable contest of different societies that can't yield to the other -- and so, of course, you're gonna have people dying, after all, it's a war (fer chrisakes!!!) -- whatta ya expect? If I wasn't already so cynically aware of idiocy, my mouth would have dropped to the floor. This *dupe* has clearly been carefully prepared by in-house Military psyops to remove any lingering values of decency and compassion and respect for other peoples, as his mind was steamcleaned of such foolish concepts that would make him a less-than-efficient fighting machine able to react instinctively to conflict scenarios (and thereby protect the military's training and equipment investment.) Now this trooper obviously knows NOTHING of Iraq's long history, or that of the whole Middle East Iraq was the most westernized, modern and developed, with strong cultural affinity for America's 'expressed' qualities -- that is, before the US utterly destroyed it and rendered the society closer to Afganistan than Jordan or France. Infant mortality, level of medical treatment, electric supplies, clean water, number of doctors, food supplies, exports, education, employment, a free press -- in every significant measure of living standards in a modern society, the well-being of Iraq's citizens has declined to an astonishing extent -- THAT'S the reality for Iraqis' suffering under American 'liberation' (as a cover for 'free-market' asset-liquidation), which basic fact the US mainstream media is incapable of addressing. As a sign of America's moral decline and its being held hostage by dishonorable, illegitimate 'leaders', America has replaced the inspiration of principles and strength of character with technical superiority and military invincibility -- and it seems for the most part, its citizens are either unaware or unconcerned that there's a difference between being right and 'winning' in war. This kind of extreme intellectual and philosophical naivite might be excusable in a child, but among young gung-ho adrenaline-addicted men who command missiles and artillery, rockets and fighter-aircraft, and who think their job is killing ragheads before the ragheads can kill them, it's nothing less than appalling, another indication of America's superficial mix-and-match video-game ethics. Ah, 'nuff babblin; Keep yer hands on dat plow! Starman

by **seemslikeadream** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:45 am

Starman says Keep yer hands on dat plow! <img src="http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/heritage/images/BluePlaques/LargePlaques/McCabe.jpg" style="border:0;"/>  Since 1st April 1791, Peggy Barclay's Inn in Sugarhouse Entry, Belfast

by **seemslikeadream** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:09 pm

AMY GOODMAN: I want to bring in Hans Von Sponeck here, the former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations. You were in office during some of the time that Jeremy is now just talking about. Can you talk about you being on the ground in Iraq and what you understood was happening? HANS VON SPONECK: Well, let me first say, in addition to my role as the Humanitarian Coordinator for the Oil for Food Program, I was also the designated official for security of United Nations staff in Iraq, and in that context, of course, we paid attention to what was happening in the no-fly zones. And what was quite noticeable is that after Operation Desert Fox of December 1998, there was a very distinct increase in the number of incidents perpetrated by the U.S. and U.K. air forces involving civilian property, involving civilians, and we ascribed that at the time as a result of instructions given by the two governments in Washington and London to allow pilots to operate under what is known as “enlarged rules of engagement,” giving pilots more freedom to decide whether to attack an installation or whether to engage in other destabilization attempts in the two no-fly zones, and, by the way, at times also straying over into the fly zone. The fly zone was not entirely without incidents during the time since Operation Desert Fox in 1998. And as a result of this development, we in Baghdad decided very quickly that we would begin to record these incidents, not as they affected the military -- that wasn't our business -- but as they affected the security of United Nations staff, and, of course, the civilian population in Iraq. And that meant that we started to issue air strike reports where we every three months issued such a report for the consumption of the U.N. Security Council, for the Office of the Secretary General and other officials at the U.N. in New York, and we made sure at the time to be discreet about this, not to give it to the press, but to give it to those who had something to do with these incidents. I, myself, would, when I visited New York, see the U.S. Ambassador, see the British Ambassador and hand to them these copies. And I remember on one occasion, I told both of them that, when I gave them a report with pictures, I said, your pilots see it from up there, 10,000 meters above, and this is how we see it on the ground, and it was striking to see the reaction, which was extremely angry and negative. I was told by a British official that all we were doing, we’re putting the imprint of legality, of legitimization on Iraqi propaganda, which was not at all the case. AMY GOODMAN: You said you were giving this directly to the British Ambassador to the U.N. and to the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.? HANS VON SPONECK: Indeed. When I went there, I handed copies to Ambassador Burley at the time. He will remember, and I also gave the reports to the British mission, to Ambassador Eldon, who was the number two ambassador to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was particularly agitated over the fact that I was instrumental in having these documents prepared by my security office in Baghdad. AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Greenstock was particularly agitated? HANS VON SPONECK: No, his deputy, who had been Deputy Manager, which he would always tell you with great pride, of the 1991 Gulf War arrangements, so it led to, in fact, a request to the Secretary General that I be removed because of -- one of the main reasons because I was issuing these reports, which the United Nations found quite useful, and I was encouraged to continue to write them. AMY GOODMAN: So they were pressuring for you to be removed for reporting the effects of the bombing on the ground in Iraq? HANS VON SPONECK: Well, that, Amy, that I'm afraid is correct. It's one -- it's not the only, but it was one of the reasons why the two governments felt that I was unsuitable for that position in Iraq. And all I was doing as a civil servant was to relay the cold-blooded facts that arose as a result of these incursions, these illegal incursions, after all, and well, I continued with the full support of the U.N. Secretariat. more <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/1328247" target="top">www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/1328247</a> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm" target="top">www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm</a> <a href="http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/process.html" target="top">www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/process.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=seemslikeadream@rigorousintuition>seemslikeadream</A> at: 6/7/05 3:26 pm

by **Starman** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:47 pm

Re: Amy Goodman interviewing Von Sponeck, former asistant Secretary General UN: So the White House pushed for Von Sponeck's removal because he was providing accurate on-the-ground bombing assessments ... How bloody typical of this filthy, rotton bunch of Imperialist murdering thugs; I recall the time well, when getting ANY kind of reasonably accurate bombing assessments, even from the alternative press, was mostly hit-and-miss -- That was a failed opportunity to cause pressure to bear on the WH and Pentagon Warhawks, as they were trying to provoke Saddam/Iraq to make a sufficiently severe retaliatory action to justify 'war!' -- Instead, as I believe, the US bombed a lot of stone-brick shithouses within minutes of a cheap microwave oven installed inside being turned on, simulating a radar facility ... But also, a lot of infrastructure, airport and civilian buildings were bombed. Shame on the UN, they didn't (I guess, politically 'couldn't' is the operative word) challenge the US and UK for such flagrant crimes against peace. People of the World need to take better note of those who violate human and civil rights ... Impeachment is a good and necessary beginning. Starman

by **sunny** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:13 pm

I see that sop Kerry chickened out-Kennedy steps in- <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Kennedy_speaks_out_on_Downing_Street_Memo_Twisted_intelligence_Distorted_f_0607.html">rawstory.com/news/2005/Ke..._0607.html</a> Sen. Kennedy speaks out on Downing Street Memo: 'Twisted intelligence; Distorted facts' RAW STORY The following was released by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) on the Downing Street Minutes this morning. Kennedy becomes the first senator to raise the issue in the Senate, after earlier reports that Massachusetts' junior senator, John Kerry, would speak about the minutes in Washington. # “The contents of the Downing Street Minutes confirm that the Bush Administration was determined to go to war in Iraq, regardless of whether there was any credible justification for doing so. The Administration distorted and misrepresented the intelligence in its attempt to link Saddam Hussein with the terrorists of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, and with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq did not have. "In addition, the Downing Street Minutes also confirm what has long been obvious – that the timing of the war was linked to the 2002 Congressional elections, and that the Administration’s planning for post-war Iraq was incompetent in all its aspects. The current continuing crisis is a direct result of that incompetence. Many of you have worked hard for the American people, the media and those in government to speak out about the Downing Street Minutes and the Iraq war. You can join me in speaking out as well. "The policy of “shoot first, ask questions later” took us into an unjustified war, and without a clear concept of what “winning the war” actually means. "President Bush constantly talks about the “progress” that is being made in Iraq against the insurgency, but he’s looking for good news with a microscope. All anyone can see is “Mission Mis-accomplished” and the continuing losses of American lives, the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the torture scandal, and the ominous decline in our nation’s moral authority in the world community. We know the Administration had been planning to invade Iraq for many months before the invasion actually began. We know the Administration twisted the intelligence to make the facts fit their plan. We know that the Administration never really intended to give the U.N. weapons inspectors a reasonable chance to succeed. The Downing Street Minutes demonstrate that the Administration knew their case for war was paper thin, and that in order to go into war with the support of our allies, we had to demonstrate some willingness to go along with the UN inspection process. But the Administration continued to misuse its intelligence, distort the facts and pay only lip-service to the UN’s role in disarming Iraq. "We never should have gone to war for ideological reasons driven by politics and based on manipulated intelligence. The Downing Street Minutes provide even more proof that this is exactly what happened on Iraq. The Administration’s dishonesty, lack of candor, and lack of planning have brought us to where we are today, with American soldiers dying, Iraqi civilians living in constant fear, and with no clearer picture of our strategy for victory in Iraq than when we started.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Starman, It's interesting that the von Sponek story is being resuscitated (he's been rightly vociferous in the past) at the same time as the latest Bolton revelation. Bustani wanted to send chemical weapons inspectors into Iraq. So Bolton got him fired. Seems to me that something is building in Washington. Bush has had no authority at all since his reselection.

Dark clouds in Bush's future?

Re: a few more words

Re: a few more words

Re: Mens Rea

more -- re: a few more words

it is not happening today ...

Re: Dark clouds in Bush's future? William Burns

Fotr the optimists --- 25 reasons to impeach the Shrub

Re:More bad news for the war president

Re: What is brewing in this mess is......prejury Mr. Bolton?

re: More Bad News fir the War Prez ...

Re: re: More Bad News fir the War Prez ...

Re: Dark clouds The Case for Impeachment Builds

re: The Case for Impeachment builds ...

Re: re: The Case for Impeachment builds ...

von Sponek's twin

Who is online