Monday, September 18, 2006

Read PROJECT FOR NEW AMERICAN CENTURY-Bush/Cheney plan to take over the world !

War in Iraq and the Project for the New American Century
* The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations.
* The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision.
* Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions."
* Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.
* Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
* PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."
* PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi.
* The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.
* The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000.
* On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.
* The day after 9/11, before it was known who was behind the attacks, Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terriorism." Members of PNAC had called for regime change in Iraq in 1998 in a letter sent to President Clinton, long before 9/11. Ten of the eighteen who signed the letter are now in the Bush administration (they include Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Bolton, Khalilzad).
*Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier.
* PNAC had demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.
* In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons.
* Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.
* All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."
* There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as our aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the homeland. These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
* The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Former allies will turn on us. Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this game plan. They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally.
* As the eagle spreads its wings, our rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous. Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. At home, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.
* This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.
* The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided. Millions and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult for Bush's international allies to keep to the script. PNAC may have designs for the control of the "International Commons" of the Internet, but ! for now it is the staging ground for a movement that would see empire take a back seat to a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the law, and the preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away forever with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first place. Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more justice in the world."
* The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do n! ot intend to fail.
* Excerpts from an article by William Rivers Pitt, "The Project for the New American Century." Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books--War On Iraq (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and The Greatest Sedition is Silence, available in May 2003 from Pluto Press.
Excerpts also from an article by Gary Dorrien, "The War Against Iraq and the Permanent War." Also see Gary Dorrien's April 9, 2003 lecture, "Imperial Designs: Resisting the Permanent War."
For more information, go to the PNAC website and see for yourself:

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Bush feels Americans Stupid ! Read Geneva Convention Article 3 for yourself

In his incredibly hostile press confernce to justify his desire to not follow the Geneva Convention rules pertaining to military conduct (particularly article 3) Bush stated that 'Americans just don't understand article 3', as if it was so deep, so complicated, so intellectually superior that the average American just could not grasp it. Fact's not that deep. So, to give you the opportunity to read it for yourself, not only will you have a clearer understanding of this article, but you'll also realize how crazy Bush sounded calling average Americans stupid.
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. ---------------------------------------------------Well, there it is. Not so deep that you couldn't understand huh? And these are the rules that Bush wants to NOT follow anymore. Does he realize (as NBC Press Corp Reporter David Gregory asked during the press conference) that if we, the U.S. decides to not follow article 3 rules related to torture, then that gives other countries the right to basically torture our American troops in any way they desire. That's crazy ! Even Republicans like Lindsey Graham, John Warner, John McCain, Colin Powell and others have strongly voiced opposition to Bush's desire.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Read Official 9/11 Commision Report-Compare to the boringmentary 'movie'

All I can say about this 30 million dollar, super spectacular, incredibly hyped docu-whatever it's suppose to be.....boring. I mean super boring. If the Bush administration or Disney/ABC thought this would be used as a tool to rewrite history, there's only 1 problem. Knowbody....I mean knowbody, will ever want to watch this boring, hard to follow, hard to hear, hard to So, we can all exhale, watch the lawsuits fly (if it's even worth the time) and stay focused on what IS going on with this administration and in this world. But since ABC claims that this docu-whatever is supposedly based on the 9/11 commission report, we thought it might be interesting for some of you to read the Official 9/11 Commission Report for yourself. So, hear it is: The Official 9/11 Commission Report: Now you can really compare the facts to ?

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Update of ABC Boringmentary 9:35 p.m.

Some Arabs just broke into a house and ABC had the Arab dude shout out "Your sister is a bitch!" What? How does ABC know this stupid 'filler' stuff. This is pitiful. Can someone please explain. What country are they in? Who are these people? Ohhhh. It's Ramzi getting arrested. Now I'm catching up......(snore...snore...snore) Wait! Here it is! It''s the disclaimer! 1 hour and 34 minutes into the movie....NOW they say IT'S FICTION ! This is weird! Totally weird ! Update coming soon.

Hey ABC! What a boring movie -9/11 Movie Update

I am in shock that ABC spent $30 million dollars on this boring movie. I see why Harvey was not happy. First of all, it's been on for 1 hour and 12 minutes and quite frankly....I'm lost. Who are these people. I didn't know I would have to read the movie. I didn't know Arabs like to disco so much and planned major attacks while boogy downing. It's weird that they would have O'Neil as the main voice or star, since he was one of the first people disgruntled by The Bush Clan. ( I just realized this movie is sooooo boring that I'm blogging while it's on). They should have had commercials. My girl just missed part of the movie because she had to pee. Looks like a B rated movie. A lot of extras so I see why it cost so much. But I'm totally bored! And the sound is bad. I can't even hear what Donnie is saying in his first scene. Well, back to the screen. Update coming soon. p.s. If they keep this up knowone will watch tomorrow....then they'll miss Bush's great speech. $30 million....for what?

Senate Report declares Saddam had no links to al-Qaeda or Bin Laden.

Democrats say the report weakens Mr Bush's case for warThere is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.
The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.
US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.
Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception.
They say the revelation undermines the basis on which the US went to war in Iraq.
The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation.
The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks.
Requests rejected
The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme.
Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support,
Senate report
Senate report 6.8MB
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download the reader here
War rationale laid bare
'Terror war' loses direction
Quick guide: Al-Qaeda
The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship.
It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".
It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.
"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.
The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.
It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.
'Devastating indictment'
Democrats said the White House was still trying to make the connection between the former Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda in an attempt to justify the war in Iraq.
Less than three weeks ago Mr Bush said in a speech that "Saddam Hussein...had relations with Zarqawi".
Democrat Senator Carl Levin described the report as a "devastating indictment" of these attempts.
White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new".
"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," he said.
Terrorists are winning and Mankind as a whole is losing
Sandor, New Jersey, US
Send us your views Zarqawi, who is believed to be responsible for numerous killings and kidnappings in Iraq since the war, was killed in a US raid in June.
Saddam Hussein and several close associates are standing trial for the killings of Shias in the village of Dujail in the early 1980s and of more than 100,000 Kurds in 1988.

Wow ! Watch ABC's movie then watch this 9/11 Pentagon video !

Today is the day ABC Television will be broadcasting the $30 million dollar, commercial-free 9/11 movie which has been so highly controversial due to lies within this so-called documantary,docudrama (crockudrama), fictional (lying) movie. We invite everyone to view another little movie (actually just 4 minutes long) which may help us all have a better idea of what truly happened to the Pentagon on 9/11. Sit back, get some popcorn, learn and enjoy. Visit: Don't forget to show all of your friends this video. (P.S.) Wonder who paid ABC the $30 million to make their movie since they aren't selling any commercials. Hmmmmmm.

Bush caught lying about the Saddam 9/11 connection

Today the ABC $30 million dollar mini-series will air and we will let it speak for itself. I, for one, encourage the airing of this documentary, docudrama, slash fictional rendition of the what led up to 9/11. Actually, I look forward to this back-firing and igniting more attention to the truth. For your viewing pleasures we have linked a short video which catches Bush in another lie regarding Saddam. Check it out: Show your friends ! Also, feel free to check out other interesting topics on the site you're being led to. Very eye-opening stuff !


This morning, after a week of disappointment in the American media for not reporting that due to the outcry and British protesting for supporting the George W. Bush agenda and Iraq war, Tony Blair is being force to step down. But this had not been broadcast at all here via American media, although newspapers, websites and TV networks have been broadcasting this ousting as HUGE NEWS all week. But this morning I watched Meet The Press with Tim Russert. His special guest was the one and only Vice Pres. Dick 'Shooter' Cheney. All I can say is....Unbelievable ! This time 'Shooter' didn't have a script like he normally has for his speaches. Russert asked him basic, clear-cut questions answers were just incredible !THE FOLLOWING WAS WRITTEN BY RACHEL SKLAR AND APPEARED IN HUFFINGTON REPORT: Good evening and welcome to RussertWatch, a doozy today as Tim Russert hammered Vice President Dick Cheney on "Meet The Press," hooked on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 but in reality a solid hour of grilling on Iraq, Afghanistan, and WMDs. It was an incredibly dense show, and more than anything shows how carefully Cheney parses words — no question gets a simple yes or no answer and even while acknowledging that, fine, Iraq was not linked to 9/11 he hammers home the meme of Iraq as a sponsor of terrorism and incipient WMD threat.He manages to answer every question with a "Yes, but..." without making it sound like a "but," trumpeting success in interrogation instead of acknowledging Guantanamo and CIA black prisons, Iraqi democracy instead of the 20,000+ civilians dead in civil strife, and how safe the world is without Saddam Hussein instead of the fact that the administration led the country into war on trumped-up evidence. He also claims not to have read the just-declassified Senate Intelligence Committee report that revealed that intelligence linking Iraq to 9/11 was in fact highly disputed before the invasion. A neat sidestep, that.
My feeling (and that of the blogosphere, it seems) is that Russert did an uncharacteristically tough and dogged job up against Cheney, hammering the main points, bringing up the glaring "gotchas" (with this one there are many: Greeted as liberators, insurgency's last throes, and yep, Saddam's defnitely got WMDs). Reading Nora Ephron's post earlier, I was surprised to find that she thought Russert went easy on Cheney, and upon consideration I can see why: Everything he hammered Cheney on was easily part of the public record, and thus easily prepared for to be glibly countered. In his quest to cover everything from Iraq to Afghanistan to WMDS to midterms to rumors of Cheney's flagging influence to poor peppered Harry Whittington, Russert missed potential opportunities to play the "Yes, but" game right back. Even so, he brought up the main points and pounded away at them bluntly, refusing to accept Cheney's first and often second effort at dissembling. And let's not forget how skilled Cheney is: The man is the strong, silent type only until he has to open his mouth, and then he is a force to be reckoned with. My impression; what's yours?
Below is excerpted from my earlier post this afternoon on Eat The Press:
Notable was the trademark Russert "gotcha" moment wherein he played the infamous clip of Cheney saying in August 2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." When asked if, knowing that Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, if Cheney would still have gone into Iraq, he said "Yes" and went on:
"The world is better off because Saddam Hussein is in jail instead of in power in Baghdad. It was the right thing to do and if we had it to do over again, we'd do exactly the same thing."
Note that Cheney dated Saddam's WMD use at 1991.
Russert also called him on his other infamous comment, the old "insurgency in its last throes" comment, which Cheney admitted was — what's that word? — oh yeah, WRONG but with barely a breath spun it as a good thing, based on Iraqis embracing democracy and being willing to "step up and take on the responsibility for their own fate." Cheney also invoked the tough-guy rationale for staying in Iraq ( "My gosh, the United States hasn't got the stomach for the fight. Bin Laden's right, al-Qaeda's right, the United States has lost its will and will not complete the mission"), lauded the U.S. "detainee policy", claiming it was Constitutional by citing "the blessing of the lawyers" which, considering that the source of that is Gonzales, is an eyebrow-raise (when Tim asked him about "shady" methods, Cheney said stolidly "We have done everything we could think of to make the nation safe"). He also nimbly sidestepped Russert's question about military intervention in Iran, saying "I don't want to speculate on military options. It's not wise. And Rumsfeld would probably object." Russert also grilled him on Plamegate, where he admitted that "I have the authority, as Vice President under an executive order issued by the President, to classify and declassify information. And everything I have done is consistent with those authorities." He then refused to answer any more questions on the matter, though he began to look annoyed under Russert's repeated questioning. Cheney also had this chilling commentary on midterms: "I feel better about the election now than I did three months ago." SCARY.
Finally, Russert, who has finally seemed to grow a pair, asked Cheney about how he shot his friend in the face:
RUSSERT: Should I be relieved you didn't bring your shotgun in today?CHENEY: I wouldn't worry about it. You're not in season.
That may be the closest Cheney has ever come to exhibiting a sense of humor. Choice excerpts after the jump; full transcript here and full RussertWatch coming later - flag the issues of your choice in comments, today's transcript is packed with gems from one of the spinniest around.
Stating and restating the meme:
(Videotape, August 26, 2002):
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
(End of videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: In fact, there is grave doubt, because they did not exist along the lines that you described, the president described, and others described. Based on what you know now, that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction that were described, would you still have gone into Iraq?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes, Tim, because what the reports also showed, while he did not have stockpiles--clearly the intelligence that said he did was wrong. That was the intelligence all of us saw, that was the intelligence all of us believed, it was--when, when George Tenet sat in the Oval Office and the president of the United States asked him directly, he said, "George, how good is the case against Saddam on weapons of mass destruction?" the director of the CIA said, "It's a slam dunk, Mr. President, it's a slam dunk." That was the intelligence that was provided to us at the time, and based upon which we made a choice.
MR. RUSSERT: So if the CIA said to you at that time, "Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, his chemical and biological have been degraded, he has no nuclear program under way," you'd still invade Iraq?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Because, again, look at the Duelfer Report and what it said. No stockpiles, but they also said he has the capability. He'd done it before. He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in '91. All of this is true, said by Duelfer, facts. Also said that as soon as the sanctions are lifted, they expect Saddam to be back in business.
MR. RUSSERT: All right. Now the president has been asked, "What did Iraq have to do with the attack on the World Trade Center?" and he said "nothing." Do you agree with that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I do. So it's not...
MR. RUSSERT: So it's case, case closed.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We've never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.
MR. RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know. I mean, we've never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm...
MR. RUSSERT: Then why, in the lead-up to the war, was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al-Qaeda?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al-Qaeda, or whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11. There's a separate--apart from that's the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate Intel Commission, an open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern of relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
MR. RUSSERT: But the president said they were working in concert, giving the strong suggestion to the American people that they were involved in September 11th.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. There are, there are two totally different propositions here, and people have consistently tried to confuse them. And it's important, I think--there's a third proposition, as well, too, and that is Iraq's traditional position as a strong sponsor of terror.So you've got Iraq and 9/11, no evidence that there's a connection. You've got Iraq and al-Qaeda, testimony from the director of CIA that there was indeed a relationship, Zarqawi in Baghdad, etc. Then the third...
MR. RUSSERT: The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact...
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I haven't seen the report; I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but the fact is...
MR. RUSSERT: But Mr. Vice President, the bottom line is...
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know, we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went in to 9/11, then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02 and was there from then, basically, until basically the time we launched into Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: The bottom line is, the rationale given the American people was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he could give those weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda and we could have another September 11. And now we read that there is no evidence, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, of that relationship. You've said there's no involvement. The president says there's no involvement.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, Tim, no involvement in what respect?
MR. RUSSERT: In September 11, OK. The CIA said, leading up to the war, that the possibility of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction was "low." It appears that there was a deliberate attempt made by the administration to link al-Qaeda in Iraq in the minds of the American people and use it as a rationale to go into Iraq.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, I guess--I don't--I'm not sure what part you don't understand here. In September--or in 1990, the State Department designated Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. Abu Nidal, famous terrorist, had sanctuary in, in Baghdad for years. Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, poisons facility, ran by Ansar Islam, an affiliate of al-Qaeda. You had the fact that Saddam Hussein, for example, provided payments to the families of suicide bombers of $25,000 on a regular basis. This was a state sponsor of terror. He had a relationship with terror groups. No question about it. Nobody denies that.The evidence we also had at the time was that he had a relationship with al-Qaeda. And that was George Tenet's testimony, the director of the CIA, in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We also have a--had knowledge of the fact that he had produced and used weapons of mass destruction and we know, as well, that while he did not have any production under way at the time, that he's clearly retained the capability, and the expectation from the experts was as soon as the sanctions were lifted he'd be back in business again.Now this was the place where, probably, there was a greater prospect of a connection between terrorists on the one hand and a terrorist-sponsoring state and weapons of mass destruction than any place else. You talk about Iran, North Korea, they're problems, too, but they hadn't been through 12 years of sanctions and resolutions by the U.N. Security Council and ignored them with impunity.
And hat tip to DailyKos for this:
Russert: There was a story in the National Journal that said that Cheney authorized Libby to leak confidential information. Can you confirm or deny that?
Cheney: I have the authority, as Vice President under an executive order issued by the President, to classify and declassify information. And everything I have done is consistent with those authorities.
Russert: Could you declassify Valerie Plame's status as an operative?
Cheney: (Cheney raises his arms in a shrugging-like motion and gives a half smile) I've said all I'm going to say on the subject, Tim.
Russert: Do you think the President should pardon Scooter Libby?
Cheney: I've said all I'm going to say on the subject, Tim.
Russert: You wouldn't support a pardon?
Cheney: I've said all I'm going to say on the subject, Tim.
Russert: How about Richard Armitage, who has come forward and said he was the source for Robert Novak, some years ago?
Cheney: Does he need a pardon? (chuckles)
Russert: You...You...Are you upset or concerned that...
Cheney (interrupting): Tim, I've said I'm not going to discuss the subject. I understand, um, why you want to ask about it. But the fact of the matter is, it is a matter pending before the court, and, uh, since I could be a witness, I think it would be inappropriate for me to say more.
Send to a friend
Post a Comment
Print Post
Read all posts by Rachel Sklar

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Is American media muzzled regarding TONY BLAIR'S OUSTING ?

BLAIR IS BEING OUSTED !..........As a news-aholic, I find myself flipping through the various cable news programs every night. I have always felt that you have to flip through in order to try to piece together some level of truth. But I am extremely disappointed in our media this week. They've been running stories about the 9/11 movie, Paris Hilton's DUI, the shuttle lift-off, even the Senate Report declaring that Saddam had no connections what so ever with Al-Queda. But the biggest story in the world news is basically nowhere to be seen. So we, little old me, has to serve as the news guy to make certain that Americans know what's going on. TONY BLAIR IS BEING OUSTED ! That is super huge news. The fact is that due to British outcry protesting Blair's support of the Bush regime Tony Blair has agreed to step down as Prime Minister, a position he has held for over 10 years. He originally stated that he would leave office in about a year. But the mutiny within his own party (Labour Party) has prompted Blair to speed up his departure, now setting the date at May 2007 for his step-down. In a half-hour special report by the BBC News protesters by the thousands were shown marching and carrying signs which read 'Blair Must Go'! Even school aged children joined in protest stating that Blair should be spending money for British schools, NOT the Iraq war. What is sad is that this HUGE story is not being reported here in America at all. In fact, CNN just did a report on Blair visitng the Middle East and just happened to leave out the part that HE'S BEING OUSTED ! Is American media being muzzled by this Bush Administration to NOT inform Americans? Is this administration afraid that Americans may begin to rally and protest as the Brits have, calling for Bush's head next? In order to see this HUGE story one has to go to newspapers outside the U.S., like the Sun Newspaper U.K. or the Times U.K., which have headlines for this huge story so big that the headlines look like billboards ! But not here in America. It's really sad. We, here in America, are absolutely being led, controlled, propogandized and lied to on such a daily basis that it is time for us to do as the Brits have done. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ! Time ... Blair says he'll quit a decade after landslide poll win -->
Blair: How long will he stay?
• Labour MPs quit over Blair • Webwatch on Labour quit MPs • Brown odds on favourite for PM • The Sun Says • Mixed messages for PM Blair • I'll still be Prime Minister in May • PM tells critics: Shut up • Brown's civil war warning
Blair tells aides he quits May 31 By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSONPolitical EditorSeptember 06, 2006 TONY Blair will leave 10 Downing Street for the last time as Prime Minister more than a decade after his historic 1997 landslide win.
The Sun can reveal that he has finally decided to step down as Labour leader on May 31 next year — exactly ten years and 30 days after becoming PM.
He will call an eight-week leadership election and, once a successor has been chosen, go to Buckingham Palace and formally quit on July 26, 2007. That will be TEN YEARS AND 12 WEEKS in power.
Mr Blair and a hand-picked circle of advisers are now working on the details of his resignation timing. Only last week he defiantly declared he would NOT do that. His refusal to bow to MPs’ demands sparked the beginnings of a coup from his own troops.
Yesterday he sanctioned a U-turn to let it be known he will be gone this time next year.
But he has told only a handful of his closest staff he will turn his back on being the nation’s Premier at the end of July.

Environment Secretary David Miliband, a key Blair lieutenant, told BBC Radio 4: “The conventional wisdom is that the Prime Minister sees himself carrying on for about another 12 months and it seems to me that conventional wisdom is reasonable.”
Changing faces ... Blair
Sir Jeremy Beecham, chairman of Labour’s ruling national executive committee, said: “I am confident that by this time next year there will be a new leader who will make his first big speech at the next party conference.”
Commons Leader Jack Straw has yet to confirm the dates of the Commons’ summer recess.
But it is odds-on he will choose Thursday July 26. Mr Blair has pencilled in this date on his calendar.
The eight-week leadership contest will start on May 31, although disastrous results in the Scottish and Welsh elections next May could bring the resignation forward by one week.
The winner — likely to be Chancellor Gordon Brown — will then have the summer to bed in before a triumphant party conference in September next year.
Mr Blair is still working on the mechanics of how his successor should emerge. He will hope that his last ten months in Number 10 will be free of aggro. But there were fears last night at the highest level that his decision to quit in July will not stop demands for him to go sooner.

NI_MPU('Embedded for DHTML');

More than 100 Labour MPs are poised to demand he publicly confirm his timetable for leaving.
But he is desperate to avoid naming a day, convinced it will paralyse his command of the country and the Whitehall machine.
And he has a full programme yet to deliver — like the Ulster peace process, Iraq and Afghanistan, NHS reforms, trust schools, pensions and nuclear power.
But a growing mutiny has forced him to set out a timetable.
Two previously loyal backbench MPs — Sion Simon and Chris Bryant — began the revolt over the weekend. They have amassed at least 21 names of other modernising Blairite MPs calling on the PM to go now.
Gordon Brown-supporting junior defence minister Tom Watson removed his name after discovering the letter called for an immediate resignation.
Mr Bryant and Mr Simon were wooed by the Chancellor’s team after they were passed over for ministerial jobs recently.
Loyal Cabinet colleagues of the PM were in despair last night.
One said: “Tony Blair is in tune with the majority of the British people. He has won three consecutive general elections.
“If any Labour MP thinks Tony Blair is the problem, not the solution, then they’ve lost what few marbles they had.”
Former Home Secretary David Blunkett issues a thinly-veiled warning to the Chancellor in his Sun column today. He writes: “It would be a disaster for Gordon Brown if Tony Blair were to be stabbed in the back now. The public would gasp in disgust.”