Saturday, November 19, 2005

Okay, Democrats, Repeat After Me...

When we voted for the war it was because we trusted the President. We trusted him because he is the President and we never imagined he would lie to us about something as serious or important as going to war, yet lie he did. Bush has shamed the United States in front of the whole world, making us a hated country instead of the great country we once were. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove and Rumsfeld are never to be trusted again, never.

Please, for the sake of our soldiers, wake up people!

Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq
By
Christopher Scheer, AlterNet. Posted June 27, 2003.

It was a systematic campaign to frighten the hell out of us about the threat of Hussein, and almost none of it was true.

"The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."-- George Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati.

There is a small somber box that appears in the New York Times every day. Titled simply "Killed in Iraq," it lists the names and military affiliations of those who most recently died on tour of duty. Wednesday's edition listed just one name: Orenthial J. Smith, age 21, of Allendale, South Carolina.

The young, late O.J. Smith was almost certainly named after the legendary running back, Orenthal J. Simpson, before that dashing American hero was charged for a double-murder. Now his namesake has died in far-off Mesopotamia in a noble mission to, as our president put it on March 19, "disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

Today, more than three months after Bush's stirring declaration of war and nearly two months since he declared victory, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found, nor any documentation of their existence, nor any sign they were deployed in the field.

The mainstream press, after an astonishing two years of cowardice, is belatedly drawing attention to the unconscionable level of administrative deception. They seem surprised to find that when it comes to Iraq, the Bush administration isn't prone to the occasional lie of expediency but, in fact, almost never told the truth.

What follows are just the most outrageous and significant of the dozens of outright lies uttered by Bush and his top officials over the past year in what amounts to a systematic campaign to scare the bejeezus out of everybody:

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

So, months after the war, we are once again where we started -- with plenty of rhetoric and absolutely no proof of this "grave danger" for which O.J. Smith died. The Bush administration is now scrambling to place the blame for its lies on faulty intelligence, when in fact the intelligence was fine; it was their abuse of it that was "faulty."

Rather than apologize for leading us to a preemptive war based on impossibly faulty or shamelessly distorted "intelligence" or offering his resignation, our sly madman in the White House is starting to sound more like that other O.J. Like the man who cheerfully played golf while promising to pursue "the real killers," Bush is now vowing to search for "the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes."

On the terrible day of the 9/11 attacks, five hours after a hijacked plane slammed into the Pentagon, retired Gen. Wesley Clark received a strange call from someone (he didn't name names) representing the White House position: "I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein,'" Clark told Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert. "I said, 'But -- I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence.'"

And neither did we.

I REALly Resent This

Isn't there some kind of law about desecrating the flag? Does Jean Schmidt honestly think we will be impressed and think she is patriotic if she wears clothing representing the flag while disparaging a decorated war veteran such as Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)?

I've read some comments on several blogs this morning from people complaining that we are attacking Schmidt because she is a woman. Comment #76 on Think Progress says,

While I find Schmidt’s comments reprehensible, the comments on here attacking her because she’s a woman are just as disturbing, especially from “enlightened” liberals.

Comment by Jeremy Henderson — November 18, 2005 @ 9:20 pm

I have a big FYI for Jeremy, we are not attacking her because she's a woman, we feel it is reprehensible that she is a complete Republican idiot and because she is a total disgrace to womanhood everywhere.

I say let her rip. Let her keep stepping in Shmidt along with the rest of the cowardly repukes. After all their two high leaders are nothing more than cowardly chicken[shits]hawks who shirked their own duty to America in a time of war.

Besides, it's so much fun watching chickenhawks eating crow.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Uh oh, Another One Bites The Dust

I had heard Tomlinson quit as Chairman of PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) and now I know why. hehehe [ahem, cough, sorry, not]

Report: Former CPB chair violated law
Is accused of trying to turn public radio, TV into GOP mouthpiece


WASHINGTON - The former chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting broke federal law by interfering with PBS programming and appearing to use political tests in hiring the corporation’s new president, internal investigators said Tuesday.

Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, a Republican, also sought to withhold funding from PBS unless the taxpayer-supported network brought in more conservative voices to balance its programming, said the report by CPB inspector general Kenneth A. Konz.

Tomlinson was chairman of the corporation until September and resigned as a board member earlier this month after Konz privately shared his findings with the board. The report was publicly released Tuesday.

The corporation — which funnels hundreds of millions of federal dollars to National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and noncommercial radio and television stations — was created by Congress in the late 1960s to shield public broadcasting from political influence.

Specifically, the report said Tomlinson violated the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 and ethical standards by dealing directly with one of the creators of the conservative-leaning “Journal Editorial Report,” hosted by the editor of The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
In internal e-mails, Tomlinson told CPB staff to threaten to withhold funds from PBS “if they didn’t balance their programming,” the report said.

There was evidence, the report said, to suggest that “political tests” or qualifications were used as a major factor in the hiring of new CPB President Patricia S. Harrison, in violation of federal rules. Harrison, who was backed by Tomlinson, is a former co-chair of the Republican National Committee.

The report also faulted Tomlinson for hiring a consultant to review program content on PBS shows such as “Now With Bill Moyers.” The IG said Tomlinson didn’t obtain the proper authorization from the board for the consultant’s $20,000 contract. The consultant kept track of whether guests on the shows were “anti or pro-Bush,” and “anti or pro-Tom DeLay.”

New leadership now at helmThere are no criminal penalties associated with the laws the report said Tomlinson broke, the IG’s office said. The board could have taken disciplinary action if Tomlinson were still a board member.

A call seeking comment from Tomlinson was not returned Tuesday afternoon. He has defended his actions as an effort to bring political balance to public-affairs programming and maintained no wrongdoing.

Democrats see it differently, and have accused Tomlinson of trying to turn public radio and TV into a mouthpiece for the GOP.

“The report shows that Mr. Tomlinson was willing to ride roughshod over the law to impose his political mindset on PBS programming,” said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis. “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting needs significant reform and vigorous oversight.”

Obey and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., had called for the IG investigation.

With new leadership at the helm, the CBP’s Harrison said the report offered an opportunity for much-needed changes. “It is going to give us a guideline to do things that probably should have been put in place a very long time ago,” she told The Associated Press.

After the release of the report, the board approved steps aimed at improving operations, including setting up a committee to develop corporate governance guidelines and practices.

A public watchdog group, meanwhile, urged the entire board, as well as Harrison, to resign.

The board has “demonstrated an inability to effectively govern CPB,” said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.

He called Harrison’s hiring “a sweetheart inside deal by Tomlinson,” and said her “platitudes today in responding to the IG report demonstrate she has no real comprehension of the seriousness of the problems at CPB.”

Monday, November 14, 2005

Bush Has Changed His Mind

Bush Has Changed His Mind About Torture

by Libby of Liberal Woman Blog, November13, 2005

A source inside the White House willing to speak on promise of anonymity said that Vice President Dick(less) Cheney and US national security adviser Stephen (liar) Hadley in a meeting today convinced President Bush to stop lying about the issue of torture. Someone listening outside the door of the meeting said they overheard Cheney claiming, "dammit Georgie, you gotta stop saying "America does not torture" especially since I've been working my balls off trying to slip in that little attachment in that other bogus spending bill so we can torture those damn Iraqi Muslims. How else do you expect us to get them to lie...ah, I mean say that Iraq is working with the terrorists? Now, I mean it, Georgie, you gotta stop or I'm gonna tell Rove to let something slip to the press about why you really choked on that pretzel....remember it had something to do with an aide on her knees in front of you while you were watching the reruns of the Twin Towers going down, speaking of which, ahem, never mind."

We understand that Cheney and Hadley were quite convincing.

Here is another related story concerning the tortue issue...

AFX News Limited

White House declines to rule out torture to thwart attack 11.13.2005, 06:05


WASHINGTON (AFX) - A top White House official refused to rule out the use of torture in an effort to prevent a major terrorist attack, arguing the war on terror could present a 'difficult dilemma' and the US administration was duty-bound to protect the American people.

The comment, by US national security adviser Stephen Hadley, came amid heated national debate about whether the CIA and other US intelligence agencies should be authorized to use tough interrogation techniques to extract from terror suspects information that may help prevent future assaults.

The US Senate voted 90-9 early last month to attach an amendment to a defense spending bill that would prohibit 'cruel, inhuman or degrading' treatment of detainees in US custody.

But the White House has threatened to veto the measure authored by Republican Senator John McCain and has lobbied senators to have the language removed or modified to allow an exemption for the Central Intelligence Agency.

During a trip to Panama earlier this month, President George W. Bush said that Americans 'do not torture.'

But appearing on CNN's 'Late Edition' program, Hadley elaborated on the policy, making clear the White House could envisage circumstances, in which the broad pledge not to torture might not apply. That appeared to include a possible imminent attack similar to that of September 11, 2001.

Hadley also pointed to the possibility of a compromise with the Senate on the McCain amendment, saying the White House was consulting with congressional leaders on the issue.