Showing posts with label Government Lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government Lies. Show all posts

Friday, October 21, 2011

Dylan Ratigan explains the mess we're in, on air - your Congress is bought, incapable of making legislation, etc...

This is a piece from the Dylan Ratigan show from August 9, 2011, which I first heard in episode 280 of the C-Realm Podcast (see http://politics.7gen.com/2011/10/kmo-covers-occupy-wall-street-protest.html).

I don't know who this guy is - but I'm totally impressed by what he has to say.  If one is wondering why so many are worried or up in arms, well, it's the discussion Ratigan makes here on his show.  I think even those who cannot articulate their thoughts this well, understand this intuitively.

 

He then further explained himself a few days later.

Friday, April 1, 2011

Hypocratic lying government officials, and why it matters (do we live in a Hypocracy or Democracy?)

Politicians lie, right? That statement is frequently used to sweep hypocrisy and lies under the rug. Why bother complaining because they all do it? Maybe the general consensus is that these lies don't matter and not worth the bother. To me it is important and galling some of the lies being perpetrated.

When the Congressman serving as the House Majority Leader suggests to a news reporter a course of action that's patently unconstitutional, is that important? When a politician calls for bombing a particular country, then two weeks later says we shouldn't be bombing that country, is that important? When a political party makes a lot of electoral hay calling for Constitutional rule, enacts rules of Congressional conduct requiring citations of Constitutional justification, and then does not follow their own newly enacted rule, is that important? When a Congressperson has a public facade of "Family Values" complaining about extramarital sexual affairs of others, but then gets caught redhanded in their own sexual pecadillo escapade and refuses to acknowledge it or resign or anything, is that important?

A couple definitions might bring this into focus:

Hypocracy (urban dictionary):

What Democracy turns into when all of the politicians in your country are liars.

When no party/President that wins the election manages to keep its/his own ideology, and instead, keeps changing it every time it/he feels like it, that's no democracy. That's hypocracy.

A democracy governed by hypocrites.

The British government advocates moral standards to which it does not conform. Britain's political system is therefore a hypocracy.

Hypocrisy (dictionary.com)

  1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
  2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
  3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

What these definitions are saying is a disconnect between stated ideology and actual action.

The writings of Christianity include a principle: By their fruits ye shall know them

This comes from traditional agriculture. How do you decide whether to grow one plant or another? It's whether the plant is useful for food production, or, whether the fruit of the tree is edible, nutritious and tasty, or whether it's poisonous or repugnant. You can only tell this from the fruit.

What is the "fruit" of hypocritical politicians?

What's engendered by the atmosphere indicated by the synonyms of 'hypocrisy'? (affectation, bad faith, bigotry, cant, casuistry, deceit, deception, dishonesty, display, dissembling, dissimulation, double-dealing, duplicity, false profession, falsity, fraud, glibness, imposture, insincerity, irreverence, lie, lip service, mockery, pharisaicalness, pharisaism, phoniness, pietism, quackery, sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, speciousness, unctuousness - from http://thesaurus.com/browse/hypocrisy)

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Panic over water in Japan based on official lies or on official confusion?

There's quite a bit of panic in Japan (and elsewhere) about radioactive fallout. One of the fears is the effect on water, and in Japan there has been panic-buying of bottled water (See Tapped, a look at the dangers of bottled water for an excellent movie looking at the bottled water industry - while bottled water is generally a bad idea, as an expediency in an emergency it could be a good idea). I just watched a youtube video that purported to be a Japanese man who'd just received news that Tokyo was being evacuated, that Tokyo residents were warned to not drink the water, and he was in a panic over the impending death of the millions of residents in Tokyo. Unfortunately the video itself may be a hoax because it's an australian overdubbing his words over someone else's video and we don't know what the original video was truly about. On the other hand it's illustrative of what could happen as well as the motive behind the panic buying.

A NY Times article from Friday talks about conflicting advice given by Japanese officials: "whiplash of advisories on the safety of tap water in the face of tests showing the presence of radioactive iodine" and "warned Wednesday that infants should not consume tap water, only to rescind the advisory yesterday when radiation levels tested lower" and "initial warnings that infants under a year of age should not drink tap water was based on a government warning that tests detected 210 becquerels per liter of radioactive iodine-13. The Japanese standard for infants' exposure is not more than 100 becquerels per liter, while the tolerance for adults is 300 becquerels per liter". Another NY Times article talked of panic buying, and officials puzzling over the source of the contamination: "Despite the frequent rain in recent days, it was not entirely clear why the levels of iodine were so high, said a senior Western nuclear executive, noting that the prevailing breezes seemed to be pushing radiation out to sea." As well as "The 1986 accident at Chernobyl caused an epidemic of thyroid cancer — 6,000 cases so far — in people who were exposed as children. The culprit was milk produced by cows that had grazed on grass heavily carpeted by fallout. The epidemic could probably have been prevented if people in the region had been told not to drink milk and if they had been given potassium iodide."

Clearly a threat to the water supply is a critical thing. Humans need continual water intake to live, and rapidly die without water. Psychologically speaking it's a core survival threat making the panic reaction understandable.

Fortunately the Japanese eat a lot of seaweed which helps to protect against radioactive iodine. But that doesn't help against the other radioactive stuff escaping from the reactors.

Let's get back to the conflicting advice being given by Japanese officials and the panic reaction. There's a meme out there that officials are lying to us to keep panic minimized. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't.

For example an AP news report says "Part of the nation's key radiation warning system was out of service as the U.S. braced for possible exposure to the fallout from a nuclear crisis in Japan. While no dangerous levels of radiation have reached American shores, the test of the monitoring network has spurred some lawmakers to question whether it can adequately safeguard the country against future disasters." The EPA "did not immediately say why the monitors were inoperable, but did not fix them until several days after low levels of radiation began drifting toward the mainland U.S". That the "EPA relies in part on trained volunteers to regularly change out air filters on the RadNet monitors and mail them to a federal lab in Alabama where the data gets a detailed analysis a few days later. Volunteers are also tasked with alerting EPA if something goes wrong with the machine."

Radiation monitoring equipment that happened to be "out of service" just when needed? This is fuel for the panic mongerers among us. That network was designed for the Cold War and meant in part to detect nuclear bomb tests. I'm wondering whether it had funding appropriate to keep it reliably operable especially given the long time since open air nuclear tests have been conducted. But people in panic might not have the wherewithal to ponder the different interpretations of this information, and instead just leap to the worst possible assumptions.

In the U.S. the fear is different than in Tokyo. Here, it's whether significant radioactive particles will make it through the jetstream and hit the west coast and beyond. Trace amounts have been detected as far as in Europe, but would significant amounts get here? This monitoring network would tell us if there's a problem, but this failure would feed the "they're lying to us to keep us from panicking" meme going around. But read the article and it's clear RadNet was not a high profile project and was run by volunteers, so is it reasonable to expect it RadNet to be a highly reliable source of information?

Panicky people don't always make good decisions. Especially when they're panicking over such a basic thing as water supply. I get that.

See also:

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Will McClellan Be John Dean to Bush's Richard Nixon?

In 2003 Ambassador Joe Wilson published an op-ed piece saying he had investigated the reports of Niger selling Uranium (yellow cake) to Iraq, and found them to be false, but that Pres. Bush and other administration officials had gone ahead and spouted that lie as if it were truth. Shortly afterward Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was exposed as a CIA agent. It is treason to reveal the identity of a secret agent under cover, especially in a time of war.

George Bush promised that if anybody in his administration were involved they would be fired and face consequences. Instead what happened was stonewalling, interference in the investigation, etc, and essentially nobody has faced any consequences due to this. I. Scooter Libby did go to trial, but for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, not for Treason.

Scott McClellan is about to publish a book WHAT HAPPENED Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong with Washington that tells the story. A part of the book discusses how he, as the White House Press Secretary, was ordered by Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, etc, to stand at the podium and lie to the press. I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.... There was one problem. It was not true.... I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself.

The Press Dog That Didn't Bark Scott McClellan has offered no bombshells—yet.seems to be saying that since McClellan's book doesn't contain bombshells that it won't change anything? After news broke Plame's identity had been revealed in the summer of 2003, it was McClellan who played a key role in exonerating Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. In October 2003, he stood at the press room podium and said they were not involved. When it became obvious that was untrue, McClellan spent months stonewalling for the administration, refusing to address questions about the case. His credibility deteriorated with each appearance.

Publisher: McClellan doesn't believe Bush lied "Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan does not believe President Bush lied to him about the role of White House aides I. Lewis Scooter Libby or Karl Rove in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, according to McClellan's publisher."

The Bush Family Gets Away with Crimes That Would Land Anyone Else in Jail "For decades -- arguably going back generations -- the Bushes have been protected by their unique position straddling two centers of national power, the family's blueblood Eastern Establishment ties and the Texas oil crowd with strong links to the Republican Right....For Bush not to have been involved would have required him to be oblivious to the inner workings of the White House and the actions of his closest advisers on an issue of great importance to him. From the evidence at Libby's trial, it was already clear that Bush had a direct hand in the effort to discredit Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, after he had gone public in July 2003 with his role in a CIA investigation of what turned out to be bogus claims that Iraq had sought yellowcake uranium from Niger.... In other words, though Bush knew a great deal about how the anti-Wilson scheme got started -- since he was involved in starting it -- he uttered misleading public statements to conceal the White House role.... "

Article Reference: 
extvideo: 

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Pentagon unit defied CIA advice to justify Iraq war

An "alternative intelligence" unit operating at the Pentagon in the run-up to the war on Iraq was dedicated to establishing a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, even though the CIA was unconvinced of such a connection, the US Senate was told yesterday.

..."The office of the under-secretary of defence for policy developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community, to senior decision-makers," the report says.

..."They arrived at an alternative interpretation of the Iraq/al-Qaida relationship that was much stronger than that assessed by the intelligence community and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the administration," Mr Levin told the committee.

Article Reference: 

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Bush makes wild ass claims in 2007 State of the Union speech

In Bush shoots for ‘Jaws,’ delivers ‘Jaws 2’ Keith Olbermann delivers a withering criticism of President Bush's State of the Union speech this year. Most of what Olbermann said is directly lifted from a blog entry, Bush's Four Anti-Terror Successes All Fictional, by David Swanson.

Towards the end of the speech Mr Bush took a turn through the horror factory. He brought us into the valley of the shadow of death, with all the threats and horrors that is the War On Terror. I listened to that again wondering just who is being terrorized here? Are the Administration officials such as Cheney and Bush purposely terrorizing us, the American People, so that they can foist their nefarious plots?

In the horror show section of the speech he discussed, in 96 words, four "plots" which had been "foiled". His claim is that because no terror attacks have occurred on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001, that his administrations in the War On Terror have been a success.

It's awfully hard to prove anything by saying that something didn't happen. How can you prove that any threat existed when nothing happened? And more importantly when no threat exists how can you justify a continuation of a War On Terror?

What Mr. Bush offered were four plots which were stopped supposedly in the planning stage. But if you look only a short distance under the surface of each of the plots you find there's nothing there. Each of these plots were at best at the conceptual stage, and further the one which got the biggest splash in the media, and which have had the biggest effect on us, actually was scientifically impossible. I'm talking here about the large arrest in Britain in the summer of 2006 where 24 (or more) people of Islamic descent were supposedly making a plot where they'd smuggle specific chemicals on-board aircraft disguised in shampoo bottles and the like, then they'd mix the chemicals in the lavatory, and turn the chemicals into an explosive.

A dangerous plot .. but for one thing. It's basically impossible, and that's a scientific fact. Most of those arrested last summer have been released with no charges against them.

This is the kind of story which Mr. Bush has put forward to us to justify the War On Terror.

I laugh in his general direction. His mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries. Now, Mr. Bush, go away before I taunt you a second time.

President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address

United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.

video screen capture
multimedia

President's Remarks
Real Media video
Windows Media video

Fact sheet State of the Union 2007
Fact sheet 2007 State of the Union Policy Initiatives
Fact sheet en Español

9:13 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. And tonight, I have a high privilege and distinct honor of my own -- as the first President to begin the State of the Union message with these words: Madam Speaker. (Applause.)

In his day, the late Congressman Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr. from Baltimore, Maryland, saw Presidents Roosevelt and Truman at this rostrum. But nothing could compare with the sight of his only daughter, Nancy, presiding tonight as Speaker of the House of Representatives. (Applause.) Congratulations, Madam Speaker. (Applause.)

President George W. Bush receives applause while delivering the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol, Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007. Also pictured are Vice President Dick Cheney and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. White House photo by David Bohrer Two members of the House and Senate are not with us tonight, and we pray for the recovery and speedy return of Senator Tim Johnson and Congressman Charlie Norwood. (Applause.)

Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

The rite of custom brings us together at a defining hour -- when decisions are hard and courage is needed. We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway, and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies -- and the wisdom to face them together.

Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate -- and I congratulate the Democrat majority. (Applause.) Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities. Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we're all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us. (Applause.)

We're not the first to come here with a government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on -- as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done. (Applause.) Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them to build a future of hope and opportunity -- and this is the business before us tonight.

A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy -- and that is what we have. We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move, and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government, but with more enterprise. (Applause.)

Next week, I'll deliver a full report on the state of our economy. Tonight, I want to discuss three economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress.

President George W. Bush enters the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol for his State of the Union address, Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007. White House photo by David Bohrer First, we must balance the federal budget. (Applause.) We can do so without raising taxes. (Applause.) What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.) Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (Applause.) I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and we can balance the federal budget. (Applause.)

Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching. (Laughter.) In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process, expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress, and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session. (Applause.)

And, finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience, and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet, we're failing in that duty. And this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this chamber knows this to be true -- yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and goodwill, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security. (Applause.)

Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools that give children the knowledge and character they need in life. Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, preserving local control, raising standards, and holding those schools accountable for results. And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap.

Now the task is to build on the success, without watering down standards, without taking control from local communities, and without backsliding and calling it reform. We can lift student achievement even higher by giving local leaders flexibility to turn around failing schools, and by giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose someplace better. (Applause.) We must increase funds for students who struggle -- and make sure these children get the special help they need. (Applause.) And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future and our country is more competitive by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children -- and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law. (Applause.)

President George W. Bush is applauded as he delivers his State of the Union Address Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007, at the U.S. Capitol. "We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals," said the President. "We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty." White House photo by Shealah Craighead A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care. (Applause.) When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. And we will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. (Applause.) But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.

And so tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills. At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans. (Applause.)

President George W. Bush greets Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi before delivering his State of the Union Address at the U.S. Capitol Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007. White House photo by Eric Draper My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing federal funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our nation's governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.

There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts. (Applause.) We need to help small businesses through Association Health Plans. (Applause.) We need to reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology. (Applause.) We will encourage price transparency. And to protect good doctors from junk lawsuits, we passing medical liability reform. (Applause.) In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors. (Applause.)

Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America -- with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we're doubling the size of the Border Patrol, and funding new infrastructure and technology.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in, and that will leave Border Agents free to chase down drug smugglers and criminals and terrorists. (Applause.) We'll enforce our immigration laws at the work site and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers, so there's no excuse left for violating the law. (Applause.)

We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. (Applause.) We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty. (Applause.) Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law. (Applause.)

President George W. Bush delivers his State of the Union Address Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007, at the U.S. Capitol. "For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger," said President George W. Bush. "Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that the terrorists can cause. We've had time to take stock of our situation. We've added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them." White House photo by Eric Draper Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.

It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power. (Applause.) We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. (Applause.) We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- (applause) -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

We made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies here in Washington and the strong response of the market. And now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years. (Applause.) When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but it's not going to eliminate it. And so as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. (Applause.) And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. (Applause.)

Dikembe Mutombo of the Houston Rockets is recognized by President George W. Bush during the State of the Union Address at U.S. Capitol Tuesday , Jan. 23, 2007. "Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States," said President Bush. "But he never forgot the land of his birth, or the duty to share his blessings with others. He built a brand new hospital in his old hometown. A friend has said of this good-hearted man: "Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things." And we are proud to call this son of the Congo a citizen of the United States of America. White House photo by Eric Draper America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change. (Applause.)

A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of our citizens across our nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. We have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty, as well, to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. (Applause.)

For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that the terrorists can cause. We've had time to take stock of our situation. We've added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them.

With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled: that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

Wesley Autrey receives a standing ovation as President Bush recognizes him during his State of the Union Address at the U.S. Capitol Tuesday evening, Jan. 23, 2007. "Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train," said President Bush. "With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks, pulled the man into the space between the rails, and held him as the train passed right above their heads. He insists he's not a hero. He says: 'We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We have got to show each other some love.' There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey." White House photo by Shealah Craighead Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented, but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them. (Applause.)

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that's the case, America is still a nation at war.

In the mind of the terrorist, this war began well before September the 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

President George W. Bush greets people, shakes hands and signs his autograph after delivering the State of the Union Address in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007. White House photo by Paul Morse These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people. (Applause.)

This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come and kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom

-- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they're given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security, we must. (Applause.)

In the last two years, we've seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East -- and we have been sobered by the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution, they drove out the Syrian occupiers and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections, choosing a transitional government, adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world, and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity that we should never forget. (Applause.)

President George W. Bush emphasizes a point during the State of the Union address Tuesday, January 23, 2007. The President told the nation, "We're not the first to come here with a government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences and achieve big things for the American people." White House photo by Paul Morse A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia -- and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory. (Applause.)

We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. (Applause.) We didn't drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now it's time for their government to act. Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open-ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad -- and they must do so. They pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party -- and they need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks -- to achieve reconciliation, to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens, to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq, to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life, to hold local elections, and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secure. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance for success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq, because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is the greatest ally -- their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September the 11th and invite tragedy. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in Iraq and to spare the American people from this danger. (Applause.)

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you've made. We went into this largely united, in our assumptions and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field, and those on their way. (Applause.)

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. And that's why it's important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. It's why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. We'll show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.

And one of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. (Applause.) Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. (Applause.) A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle because we're not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations. We're working with Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the Gulf States to increase support for Iraq's government.

The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. (Applause.) With the other members of the Quartet -- the U.N., the European Union, and Russia -- we're pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. (Applause.) In Afghanistan, NATO has taken the lead in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive -- the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area. Together with our partners in China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, we're pursuing intensive diplomacy to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. (Applause.)

We will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma -- and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur. (Applause.)

American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger and poverty and disease -- and that is precisely what America is doing. We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa. (Applause.) Because you funded our Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the number of people receiving life-saving drugs has grown from 50,000 to more than 800,000 in three short years. I ask you to continue funding our efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. I ask you to provide $1.2 billion over five years so we can combat malaria in 15 African countries. (Applause.)

I ask that you fund the Millennium Challenge Account, so that American aid reaches the people who need it, in nations where democracy is on the rise and corruption is in retreat. And let us continue to support the expanded trade and debt relief that are the best hope for lifting lives and eliminating poverty. (Applause.)

When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country. These deeds reflect the character of our people. The greatest strength we have is the heroic kindness, courage, and self-sacrifice of the American people. You see this spirit often if you know where to look -- and tonight we need only look above to the gallery.

Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease. He came to Georgetown University on a scholarship to study medicine -- but Coach John Thompson got a look at Dikembe and had a different idea. (Laughter.) Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States. But he never forgot the land of his birth, or the duty to share his blessings with others. He built a brand new hospital in his old hometown. A friend has said of this good-hearted man: "Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things." And we are proud to call this son of the Congo a citizen of the United States of America. (Applause.)

After her daughter was born, Julie Aigner-Clark searched for ways to share her love of music and art with her child. So she borrowed some equipment, and began filming children's videos in her basement. The Baby Einstein Company was born, and in just five years her business grew to more than $20 million in sales. In November 2001, Julie sold Baby Einstein to the Walt Disney Company, and with her help Baby Einstein has grown into a $200 million business. Julie represents the great enterprising spirit of America. And she is using her success to help others -- producing child safety videos with John Walsh of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Julie says of her new project: "I believe it's the most important thing that I have ever done. I believe that children have the right to live in a world that is safe." And so tonight, we are pleased to welcome this talented business entrepreneur and generous social entrepreneur -- Julie Aigner-Clark. (Applause.)

Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train. With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks, pulled the man into the space between the rails, and held him as the train passed right above their heads. He insists he's not a hero. He says: "We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We have got to show each other some love." There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey. (Applause.)

Tommy Rieman was a teenager pumping gas in Independence, Kentucky, when he enlisted in the United States Army. In December 2003, he was on a reconnaissance mission in Iraq when his team came under heavy enemy fire. From his Humvee, Sergeant Rieman returned fire; he used his body as a shield to protect his gunner. He was shot in the chest and arm, and received shrapnel wounds to his legs -- yet he refused medical attention, and stayed in the fight. He helped to repel a second attack, firing grenades at the enemy's position. For his exceptional courage, Sergeant Rieman was awarded the Silver Star. And like so many other Americans who have volunteered to defend us, he has earned the respect and the gratitude of our entire country. (Applause.)

In such courage and compassion, ladies and gentlemen, we see the spirit and character of America -- and these qualities are not in short supply. This is a decent and honorable country -- and resilient, too. We've been through a lot together. We've met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence -- because the State of our Union is strong, our cause in the world is right, and tonight that cause goes on. God bless. (Applause.)

See you next year. Thank you for your prayers.

END 10:02 P.M. EST

Sunday, November 12, 2006

The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Mess in Iraq

The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Mess in Iraq is a new book exploring the echo chamber constructed by the Bush Administration that lied the U.S. into the war in Iraq. The echo chamber forms when politicians lie to journalists, and then believe the lies when they are printed in the newspaper. Technologists call this a positive feedback loop, and such loops only do one thing. They spin out of control until the machine blows itself apart.

The election this year is perhaps the first concrete symptom of the Bush echo chamber of lies blowing apart.

THE BEST WAR EVER is a video clip from the author of the book explaining the gist.

TheBestWarEver.com .. home page

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Washington Insider says Powell's Speech was a Hoax

February 2003 and Colin Powell appears before the United Nations to lay the case for the subsequent invasion of Iraq. A big multimedia presentation purporting to show secret evidence that Iraq's government was full of bad people, and that counter to United Nations resolutions and embargo's Iraq had managed to collect several forms of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear, biological, chemical, rockets, unmanned aircraft, etc. The problem is that it was all a lie. A lie which has not received much official attention.

The following video allows Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's senior aide at the time, to speak out about this. He feels like he was part of a hoax played upon America, the International Community, and the United Nations.


I've covered this story before:

The "case" for War: was written in the summer of 2003. I took each point Powell laid before the United Nations and showed that, near as I could tell, every single one of them was known to be false. Further that the administration knew at the time that these points were false. But they put Powell up on the international stage and had him say those things.

Now, if I, an individual with a busy life, can discover in 2003 that everything Powell said was false -- why the heck hasn't the media figured this out ??? Why hasn't the media made a big stink about this???

Is the Gulf War II Impeachable?: Consider the previous President. He was hounded by the press, and eventually impeached for lying about sex. Consider this President, being given carte blance while he commits high crimes and misdeameanors of hugely greater scope and magnitude than lying about sex.

The Man who Knew: More about the Lies: I wrote in October 2003, "The steps to create a war are ones which ought to be taken carefully, because people will be dieing as a result of your decision. Thousands of people have died since the decision to launch this war. I would wish that the claims he made that day were true, and that I did not have to be writing this. I would rather know that those people had died in a just cause, not a misbegotten lie."

Friday, August 19, 2005

How many revealed lies is this going to take?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. GW Bush and the whole lot of them were lying through their teeth when they told us the dangers Iraq posed. If lying about sex is an impeachable offense, then what is it when you lie to create a war?

Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life' (Friday, August 19, 2005, CNN.COM)

This article is a preview to a special to be broadcast this coming Sunday, on CNN. The special "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown" is obviously going to be about the fabrications that lead to this war in Iraq. However, given the title, I assume they're going to focus on the theory that this was a failure of the intelligence community to properly inform the administrative leaders.

Most of the article talks with: Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005.

For example:

Powell's speech, delivered on February 14, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S. intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Wilkerson says the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as "sort of a Chinese menu" that was provided by the White House.

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

Once the U.S. was in Iraq and David Kay was on his WMD hunt there were several fateful phone calls from George Tenet to Powell. As David Kay continued to report negatively, Tenet had to call Powell and report that various WMD were not found. That the mobile bioweapons laboratories did not exist. On and on.

Saturday, June 18, 2005

Visibility building on Bush war memo: Congress finally saying the 'I' word

I've written about this issue before: Bush asked to explain UK war memo, and Bush/Blair planned Iraq invasion in July 2002.

The story so far is rooted in a memo, which reveals that the Administration was planning, in July 2002, to manipulate the public to create justification for the Iraq war - Now, the memo is building up a story, and Congressional leaders are now holding public meetings about the memo, demanding answers:

Just hearsay, or the new Watergate tapes? (By David Paul Kuhn, June 17, 2005, SALON.COM)

The story Salon.COM gives indicates the Republicans reluctantly gave permission to use a meeting room in the Capital building, and that the Republicans scheduled several votes and important committee meetings to conflict with that meeting. However what it says to me is that the impeachment push is building some legs.

Elsewhere on this blog I've collected pointers to the evidence. Basically, the Bush administration lied through their teeth to create this war in Iraq. It's cost over $300 billion dollars to fight that war, cost over 1700 U.S. lives, cost probably 100,000 Iraqi lives, cost U.S. credibility around the world, and the war in Iraq had nothing at all to do with the attack on September 11, 2001. The government of Iraq had nothing to do with the international Terrorist movement that planned and executed that attack, those people are Saudi's and were in Afghanistan. Everything that Colin Powell told the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 was a lie.

If lying about sex is impeachable (think, 1997, and Monica Lewinsky), then what do you do with a liar that talks us into a war?

Article Reference: 

Friday, May 6, 2005

Bush/Blair planned Iraq invasion in July 2002

It was obvious to me all through 2002 that Bush had already made up his mind to invade Iraq. He kept claiming no plan was set, and that merely he was doing hardball negotiations with Saddam Hussein. But it always looked to me as if he was predetermined to invade, and was simply building a case to the public. It became especially obvious once materials, equipment, and troops started being moved into the area.

Yet, Bush has so far gotten away with this and the other lies that were told to justify the war.

Iraq leak puts pressure on Blair (Sunday, May 1, 2005 CNN.COM)

The secret Downing Street memo (The Sunday Times - Britain, May 01, 2005)

At issue is a British document leaked during the recent elections in the U.K. The document concerns IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY.

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, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

...The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But 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.

The Attorney-General said that 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. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

To decode this a little ...

"C" is most likely Sir Richard Dearlove, Britain's "spy chief" who had just returned from visiting the U.S. for talks.

We have him clearly reporting that the U.S. leadership, in July 2002, was already planning to invade Iraq. While the evidence was recognized to be slim, they were planning a public relations campaign to cause the public to ignore the slim evidence and support the war anyway.

Britains Attorney General pointed out the only legal route to launching an invasion of Iraq is to get UN Security Council approval. And that using the UN Security Council Resolution number 1205 provided slim grounds. But that the U.S. leadership was unwilling to go to the UN Security Council.

See here for resolution 1205: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1998/scres98.htm

Related blog posts:

The British Election and the Iraq War

Proof: How America was deceived.

Proof Bush Fixed The Facts

Iraqgate?

Iraq: The Fix was on in July, 2002

Sunday, April 17, 2005

The 9/11 attack a conspiracy?

Inside Job: Unmasking the Conspiracies of 9/11While glancing through the Project Censored 2005 report, one item stuck out.

#9: Widow Brings RICO Case Against U.S. government for 9/11

RICO is the "Racketeering" law, normally used against organized crime. This woman, Ellen Mariani lost her husband, Louis Neil Mariani, and launched herself into an investigation. The more she connected the dots, the more convinced she became that the highest levels of the Bush administration knew about the attack beforehand, and purposely allowed it to continue.

The suit documents the detailed forewarnings from foreign governments and FBI agents; the unprecedented delinquency of our air defense; the inexplicable half hour dawdle of our Commander in Chief at a primary school after hearing the nation was under deadly attack; the incessant invocation of national security and executive privilege to suppress the facts; and the obstruction of all subsequent efforts to investigate the disaster. It concludes that compelling evidence will be presented in this case, through discovery, subpoena power and testimony, that defendants failed to act to prevent 9/11, knowing the attacks would lead to an international war on terror.

http://www.911truth.org/

http://www.911forthetruth.com/

http://www.911visibility.org/

http://www.septembereleventh.org/

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

http://www.911independentcommission.org/

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/

http://www.askquestions.org/

Friday, November 19, 2004

Powell may be lying, or not

Following the release of claims that Iran has yet more secret uranium enrichment facilities than have previously been disclosed - Colin Powell (at this point still U.S. Secretary of State) was quoted as saying he'd seen similar "intelligence" and that he believed the report. Despite it coming from an Iranian dissident group which the U.S. lists as a terrorist group.

This CNN article documents a little firestorm around his comments:


Source of Powell's Iran intelligence under scrutiny


Friday, November 19, 2004 Posted: 4:15 PM EST (2115 GMT) CNN.COM


"This allegation is timed to coincide with the next meeting of the board of governors of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]," Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hussein Moussavian, said. "And every time just before the meeting there are these kind of allegations either from the United States or terrorist groups. And every time these allegations have proven to be false."

Now, this is much as I said a couple days ago. Curious timing this is. The denial is a little hollow, though, coming from an Iranian. Just as Powell's claim of having seen evidence is a little hollow, given his past performance at truthfulness (can you say 26 lies in the U.N. Security Council presentation in Feb 2003 to justify the Iraq invasion?).

So what we're left with is some he-said-he-said games and we can't really trust any of the speakers. Powell lied to the U.N. already, the dissident group is on the State Department terrorist list, and the Iranians may simply be covering their ass with public denials. What's the truth?

This is the problem with having lied in the past, Secretary Powell. We don't trust you any longer. If you hadn't lied to the U.N. then you would still have credibility and your claim today would hold water. While you will be gone soon, your designated successor has even less credibility.

Wednesday, October 15, 2003

The Man who Knew: More about the Lies

[2003 October 15]

The story is still the same as the previous reports; the War in Iraq is still struggling, there is still daily geurilla attacks, nearly daily deaths of American soldiers, and still no proof for any of the claims used to create this war.

In todays news is an interview with several former U.S. Intelligence officials who are aghast at the misrepresentations used to create this war.
[Oct. 15, 2003; CBS News; cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/] The Man Who Knew In the run-up to the war in Iraq, one moment seemed to be a turning point: the day Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations to make the case for the invasion.
I covered the evidence he presented on this page: The "case" for War
The article interviews the following people:
  • Greg Thielmann, a former expert on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. ... Thielmann's last job at the State Department was director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, which was responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Secretary Powell.
  • Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes. [The aluminum tubes claimed to be for centrifuging Uranium.]
  • Steve Allinson, a U.N. inspector in Iraq in the months leading up to war.
The first interesting thing is the range of reactions these Intelligence officials had to Powell's testimony to the U.N. in Feb 2003. This testimony was intended to lay a serious and believable case to justify war. So how did these high ranking Intelligence officials react?
“I had a couple of initial reactions. Then I had a more mature reaction,” says Thielmann, commenting on Powell's presentation to the United Nations. “I think my conclusion now is that it's probably one of the low points in his long, distinguished service to the nation.”
“I guess I was angry, that’s the best way to describe my emotions. I was angry at that,” says Wood, who is among the world’s authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He found the tubes couldn’t be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak.
Allinson watched Powell’s speech in Iraq with a dozen U.N. inspectors. There was great anticipation in the room. Like waiting for the Super Bowl, they always suspected the U.S. was holding back its most damning evidence for this moment. What was the reaction among the inspectors as they watched the speech? “Various people would laugh at various times because the information he was presenting was just, you know, didn't mean anything, had no meaning,” says Allinson.
Hardly encouraging, is it?

As Powell said at the time:
“The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world,” said Powell.
Yes, it was a very grave moment. The steps to create a war are ones which ought to be taken carefully, because people will be dieing as a result of your decision. Thousands of people have died since the decision to launch this war. I would wish that the claims he made that day were true, and that I did not have to be writing this. I would rather know that those people had died in a just cause, not a misbegotten lie.
But Thielmann also says that he believes the decision to go to war was made first, and then the intelligence was interpreted to fit that conclusion. For example, he points to the evidence behind Powell’s charge that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes to use in a program to build nuclear weapons.

... Intelligence agents intercepted the tubes in 2001, and the CIA said they were parts for a centrifuge to enrich uranium - fuel for an atom bomb. But Thielmann wasn’t so sure. Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s office was working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.
“The aluminum was exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery,” recalls Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State months before.
It wasn't just the fateful 16 words everybody points at, the ones claiming that Iraq was seeking Uranium when the administration knew very well Iraq was doing no such thing. The administration also knew the tubes could not be used for centrifuging Uranium, the Uranium the administration knew didn't exist, but were instead rocket parts.
“Science was not pushing this forward. Scientists had made their determination their evaluation and now we didn’t know what was happening,” says Wood.

In his U.N. speech, Secretary Powell acknowledged there was disagreement about the tubes, but he said most experts agreed with the nuclear theory.

“There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium,” said Powell.
“Most experts are located at Oak Ridge and that was not the position there,” says Wood, who claims he doesn’t know anyone in academia or foreign government who would disagree with his appraisal. “I don’t know a single one anywhere.”
Colin Powell also gave an interview with a BBC reporter, in which he gave a rebuttal to the above claims.

Monday, September 15, 2003

Powell Rebuts criticism

[2003 October 15]

Partly in response to the CBS News report I dissect in "The Man Who Knew", Secretary Colin Powell gives the following interview to a BBC News reporter. The transcript is replicated on the State Department web site, hence it is fair game to copy it here.

The rebuttal begins about halfway down, namely:

That's nonsense. I don't think I used the word "imminent" in my presentation on the 5th of February. I presented, on the 5th of February, not something I pulled out of the air. I presented the considered judgment of the intelligence community -- the coordinated judgment of the intelligence community of the United States of America. And the information I presented -- some of which has already been validated by David Kay.

And the investigation continues. We have found clear indications that Saddam Hussein maintained the infrastructure for chemicals -- weapons of mass destruction. We found some evidence of them. We haven't found stockpiles yet. The work continues. The investigation continues. There is an individual, I guess, who is going on a television show to say I misled the American people. I don't mislead the American people and I never would. I presented the best information that our intelligence community had to offer.

... I have many experts in my Department, and there are many differences of opinion among any group of experts. And it's quite easy for a television program to get this individual, and then they complain. But to try to turn it around and say that, "Secretary Powell made this all up and presented it, knowing it was false," is simply inaccurate.

... And so this is one of those cases where one individual strongly disagrees -- not just with me, he's disagreeing with the judgment of the intelligence community -- and this program is using it as a way of saying I tried to mislead the American people; quite the contrary. I presented the best judgment of our intelligence community and I supported that judgment. I sat there for five days and had them make the case to me, and I am confident in what I presented.

[http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/25206.htm]

Interview with Mr. Matt Frei of BBC Television

Secretary Colin L. Powell

Washington, DC

October 15, 2003

2003/1040

MR. FREI: Thank you very much for talking to us, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY POWELL: You're quite welcome.

MR. FREI: Let me start with a question about Gaza. For the first time ever, today American diplomats have been ambushed and killed in the Palestinian occupied territories. Does that mean that you're now drawn into that conflict?

SECRETARY POWELL: No, I don't think it does. I just think it shows that there are terrorists -- there are murderers -- in that part of the world that want to destroy the dreams of the Palestinian people for their own state.

You know what our people were doing when they were murdered in this manner? A convoy of American diplomats was in the Gaza Strip to interview individuals who had expressed an interest in the Fulbright Scholarship. We were going to bring them to the United States to study here as part of the Fulbright program. And that's the group that these people attacked -- and murdered three of their security guards.

We will not be deterred from trying to get Palestinians into our Fulbright program, or pursuing the roadmap or trying to bring peace to the region. We will not be deterred. And this kind of --

MR. FREI: And where does this leave the roadmap for peace?

SECRETARY POWELL: The roadmap is still there. It depends upon the Palestinian Authority coming together quickly; forming a government under, if it's going to be Mr. Abu Ala’a, forming that government quickly; giving that government political authority; and giving that government control of all the security forces in the Palestinian Authority so they can go after terrorists.

Three Americans lost their lives in the service of peace and in the service of the Palestinian people today. And the Palestinian leaders and the Palestinian people have got to come to the realization that terror does not serve their interests. There is nothing to cheer about. It is destroying the lives of innocent people and the dreams of the Palestinian people.

MR. FREI: But if you've been drawn into the conflict, as I said -- your people are being targeted -- can you be a mutual broker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority?

SECRETARY POWELL: We will serve our role. We will not let terrorists deter us from our role.

Now this is not the first time Americans have been attacked by terrorists in different parts of the world, as you well know. This is the first time it's ever happened in Gaza. But as much as we regret the incident and mourn the loss of these three brave men and express our sympathy to the families, we will not be knocked off our point, so to speak. We will not abandon the Palestinian people or the Israeli people who wish to find a way forward to peace.

MR. FREI: Let me ask you about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Earlier this year, in February, you gave a presentation at the United Nations in which you talked about the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Eight months later, we still haven't found anything of substance. And now, one of your former senior intelligence officials in your own department is claiming that you basically misled this nation and the world in that presentation.

SECRETARY POWELL: That's nonsense. I don't think I used the word "imminent" in my presentation on the 5th of February. I presented, on the 5th of February, not something I pulled out of the air. I presented the considered judgment of the intelligence community -- the coordinated judgment of the intelligence community of the United States of America. And the information I presented -- some of which has already been validated by David Kay.

And the investigation continues. We have found clear indications that Saddam Hussein maintained the infrastructure for chemicals -- weapons of mass destruction. We found some evidence of them. We haven't found stockpiles yet. The work continues. The investigation continues. There is an individual, I guess, who is going on a television show to say I misled the American people. I don't mislead the American people and I never would. I presented the best information that our intelligence community had to offer.

MR. FREI: But that individual was the leading expert for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in your own department.

SECRETARY POWELL: I have many experts in my Department, and there are many differences of opinion among any group of experts. And it's quite easy for a television program to get this individual, and then they complain. But to try to turn it around and say that, "Secretary Powell made this all up and presented it, knowing it was false," is simply inaccurate.

It's a disservice to the wonderful young men and women, and not so young men and women, who have spent a lifetime gathering intelligence. And so that may be his view, but the view I presented that day with the Director of Central Intelligence sitting behind me, was the considered judgment of the professional men and women of American intelligence agencies.

MR. FREI: Is it possible, then, that you were misled by the intelligence community?

SECRETARY POWELL: No. I sat and I very carefully went over the material that I presented on the 5th of February. It was scrubbed. I am confident in the judgments that were given to me, and Dr. Kay is still out gathering information. He has miles of documents to exploit. He's got many more people to interview. And we will see what we will see as he finishes his work.

And so this is one of those cases where one individual strongly disagrees -- not just with me, he's disagreeing with the judgment of the intelligence community -- and this program is using it as a way of saying I tried to mislead the American people; quite the contrary. I presented the best judgment of our intelligence community and I supported that judgment. I sat there for five days and had them make the case to me, and I am confident in what I presented.

MR. FREI: In the year 2001, February of that year, you spoke to Face the Nation on CBS, and you said, "Saddam, today, is weaker, much weaker than he was before."

SECRETARY POWELL: He was.

MR. FREI: What happened in those two years between 2001 and --

SECRETARY POWELL: No, you're trying to put different pieces together.

In February 2001, I said he was much weaker than he was at the beginning of the Gulf War, some ten years earlier; and he was. We had destroyed his conventional forces by a factor of, I'd say, 50 to 60 percent. So he didn't have the capacity to invade his neighbors any longer because his conventional force was so small.

I also indicated that we -- I never said at that time he didn't have weapons of mass destruction -- I said that the sanctions had served the purpose of containing them, but not getting rid of them. And so the danger he presented in 2001 was a danger that continued into 2002, and I think was exacerbated and accelerated by what happened on 9/11 when suddenly we saw the potential danger of marrying up these kinds of weapons of mass destruction programs or actual weapons with terrorists was a risk the world should not be faced with. And for that reason, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain and other leaders came together, presented the case at the United Nations, and earlier this year took military action in response to UN Resolution 1441, even though many other nations disagreed with our action. And we don't have to worry about this any longer.

This isn't a question that has to be debated any longer because the man responsible for all of this, Saddam Hussein, is no longer in power. He's in hiding. Remnants of his regime are trying to thwart our efforts to build a better Iraq that will be a democratic nation that will have elected leaders, and will no longer be investing its treasure into weapons of mass destruction programs or in the capacity to threaten its neighbors.

MR. FREI: Very briefly, the UN resolution that's currently on the table, are you confident it'll pass? And what difference will it make on the ground?

SECRETARY POWELL: I'm increasingly confident that it will pass. I think it will make a difference because it will show the international community coming together again. I don't know how many votes there will be for the resolution; we're working on that right now. But it will show us coming together and I hope it will give momentum to the Donors Conference that will be held in Madrid next week, and I hope it will give encouragement to those nations that are considering making additional contributions, whether they are military contributions or financial contributions or political support.

We have 32 nations, or thereabouts, standing alongside us in the Gulf, in Iraq. We're not alone. It is a coalition that has come together: Estonia, Latvia, Spain, Italy. So many nations are contributing this. Of course, the United Kingdom is making a massive contribution. Turkey has expressed its willingness to make a contribution, and we are working through some of the challenges associated with that.

But this is not the United States alone. This is the United States and a large group of responsible nations who did not want to face the continued risk of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and a regime that brutalizes people and filled graves with innocent people for a period of 30 years. That's over. That's done. We have nothing to apologize for and we are proud of what we've done.

MR. FREI: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you, sir.

[End]

Released on October 15, 2003

Thursday, August 21, 2003

The "case" for War

[July 16, 2004]

The news media finally got off their collective butt's and decided to fact-check Powell's speech to the United Nations in Feb 2003 which led to the Iraq Invasion. As you can see below, in August 2003 it was already clear he'd told the world a pack of lies.

This article digs into the recently released U.S. Senate report on the Iraq War (invasion). It cites a series of articles and meetings where the CIA was actively persuading the Administration that the case for war was anything but sound. Well, duh. It's nice to know that the CIA was doing their job and trying to warn the administration.

The meetings worked in a sense, in that a large number of claims were either rejected outright, or modified. Still the CIA did warn that many of the remaining claims were weak.

[August 21, 2003]

The current situation is that the U.S. is fighting two overt wars, one in Afghanistan, the other in Iraq, and no doubt there's much covert stuff going on as well. The prompting for this is supposedly the attack of September 11, 2001 (on the World Trade Center). On the other hand, as was discussed in the other articles in this series, the "neo-conservatives" currently in charge of the U.S. government have been planning an assault on the world amazingly alike what is being pursued on the world stage.

Tonights purpose is to go over the "case" that was laid before the U.S. people, the U.N., and others around the world. As I discussed elsewhere, a number of claims were made about Iraq, and none of them have been found to be true. To my eye this is a "high crime", namely lying and deceiving the whole world in order to launch a war that has killed tens of thousands of people. And what's worse is that it apparently was launched to prop up a failing energy policy based on fossil fuel abuse.

In the February 17, 2003 issue of Newsweek is an article, "Judging the CASE" detailing the presentation made by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations. It's important to note that two weeks before the Dept of Homeland Defense moved the "terror threat level" to "Orange", that troops were beginning the steps to deployment in Kuwait (and thence to Iraq), and that people were generally jittery. This article is available at Newsweek's web site, simply go to the "SEARCH THE ARCHIVES" box and type "Judging the Case". I cannot make a direct link to the article as it is available only for a fee.

[Feb 5, 2003; Time Magazine; time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,419939,00.html] What Powell Achieved He may not have swayed doubters, but the Secretary of State shortened the odds on a UN resolution authorizing force against Iraq

[Feb 5, 2003; CNN; cnn.com/2003/US/02/06/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html] Bush to U.N.: We will not wait U.S. sending more troops, ships to region

[Feb 5, 2003; CNN; cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.key.points.txt/index.html] Powell's key points on Iraq UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Although he said in advance that there would be no "smoking gun," U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell raised numerous points Wednesday in making his case against Iraq to the U.N. Security Council. Here are some of the highlights ... This is CNN's summary of Powell's presentation to the United Nations

Clearly, if the claims made by the U.S. and British leaders were to have been true, Iraq would have been a very dangerous country indeed. Maybe dangerous enough, combined with its evasive and wiley dictatorial government, to have been worth of engaging in war. However, the truth has not met up with the claims, hence this article.

The following is a table detailing the claims, and current truth (as of August 21, 2003). If you count this up, the vast majority of the claims have not been shown to be true, and in some cases were shown to be outright lies, and that the administration knew very well that they were lying. Only one of the claims, Ansar al-Islam's presence in Iraq and supposed connection with al Queda, has been shown to have any truth, and that link is tenuous at best.

Source Claim Current truth
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE" "Denial, deception and doubts", in which the claim is made that "U.S. spy satellites have caught apparent 'housecleaning' efforts" just before visits by U.N. inspectors. The inspectors were trying to find Iraq's posession of banned weapons. Those weapons were banned by a U.N. Security Council resolution (1441), and it was for the purpose of enforcing that ban which the inspection process was undertaken. No trace of any of the banned weapons have been found. Even after the 4 months that the U.S. has been in control of Iraq. None.
CNN [Feb 5, 2003]

"Powell's key points on Iraq"

"Recorded conversations" is that, as part of the denial and deception Iraq sowed to hinder the U.N. inspectors, the U.S. had recorded conversations between various Iraqi military officials passing along orders to cover up banned weapons. In the Newsweek article it is said "The intercepts clearly refer to stray items, not big caches" and that Iraqi's disputed the translation accuracy.

Again, no trace of the banned weapons have been found even after four months of U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE" "Death on wheels" is the claim that the "germ warfare factories" had been installed in trucks so they can be mobile and evade the U.N. inspectors. As Newsweek says, "it seems like the perfect dodge, 'Just imagine trying to find 18 trucks among the thousands and thousands that trvel the roads of Iraq every day'". In the early days of the war two trucks were found containing chemical production equipment. Initial thought was "these are those trucks", but they have since been found to be used to produce hydrogen for weather balloons.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE" "Lethal Ingredients" is about chemical weapons. "No country has had more battlefield experience with chemical weapons since World War I than Saddam Hussein's Iraq", and yes indeed that is true. So it seemed feasible that Iraq could have still been producing and/or hiding chemical weapons. No chemical weapons were used, and none were found at any munitions depot in Iraq. Many old chemical weapons suits were found, of course, since Iraq had done so much with those type of weapons in the past.
CNN [Feb 5, 2003]

"Bush to U.N.: We will not wait"

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons, the very weapons the dictator tells the world he does not have," Bush said. No chemical weapons were used, and none were found at any munitions depot in Iraq. Many old chemical weapons suits were found, of course, since Iraq had done so much with those weapons in the past.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE" "Centrifugal Force" is the claim that Iraq has been trying to import "sophisticated parts" for Uranium enrichment, as well as uranium itself. Much was made of some aluminum tubes which were made to a "high tolerance" beyond that required for rocketry. Recent news since the middle of June has (see Is this "war" Impeachable?) made it clear that every claim made about the Uranium was false, and known by the administration to be false, but they made it anway.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE" "Delivery units" is the claim of both missiles and drone aircraft that could deliver weapons. Presumably the target would be Israel, but the implication is these delivery vehicles are a threat to the United States.

The U.N. resolutions banned Iraq from possessing any delivery vehicle having a range greater than approximately 150 kilometers (93 miles).

The rocket issue is an unknown (to me) at this moment.

The drone aircraft were found to be exceedingly harmless.

In one of the "rebuttals" staged by Iraq shortly before the invasion, they rolled out the drone aircraft for reporters to view. The Christian Science Monitor says "held together with tin foil and duct tape, and two wooden propellers bolted to engines far smaller than those of a lawn mower - looked more like a high-school science project than the "smoking gun" that could spark a war", and goes on to detail a whole lot of confusion around this issue.

Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE" "The bin Laden connection" is the claim that Iraq was harboring some small number of al-Queda people, and helped one al-Queda leader (Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi) to get medical treatment. Newsweek itself pointed out that Zarqawi "is the head of Al Tawhid, a terror group sometimes (but not always) allied with Al Queda", so even that claim is a tenuous link. That's ignoring the well known fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have widely differing goals, and openly despise one another, and therefore have little if any reason to cooperate with one another.

There has been occasional claims made in the press of Al Queda operatives active in Iraq. Certainly a geurilla war is being fought against the U.S., British and U.N. interests in Iraq.

A CNN news article [August 20, 2003] claims "possible al Queda link in Baghdad blast". Given the past accuracy of the administration, how can we trust the accuracy of this claim of a "possible link"? In any case the article says they are possibly linking "Ansar al-Islam", the same group referred to here, is not al Queda and only sometimes linked with al Queda.

Human Rights Watch report on Ansar al-Islam. Their report confirms the group has a tendency to violence, hardline Islam, and a link of unknown quality with al Queda.

U.S. Executive Order 13224 named this group an official "Terrorist Group" on February 20, 2003.