War and Peace
Bush Awol?
28/April/2007 07:42
Bravo to
non-partisan
Lieutenant General William E. Odom, also former
director of the NSA, and
Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the
Army’s senior intelligence officer.
Today he delivered a courageous radio address
enititled "Bush has gone AWOL."
Read there entire address here:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/28/820
or listen to it by clicking here
Read there entire address here:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/28/820
or listen to it by clicking here
Enboldening the Enemy
07/April/2007 01:57
The
Republican administration keeps saying that speaking
out against the war and the administration "emboldens
the enemy." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Actually it does just the opposite. Consider for a
moment that we learned that the majority of people in
another country was against their administration's
hawkish decisions. Would we feel more or less
inclined to drop bombs on these people? Speaking out
actually tells them we are not all warmongers and
that many of us want peace. These creates softer
feelings toward our people and not harder. Only one
thing "emboldens" and enemy: killing them and their
families. That makes people pretty mad from
generation to generation.
Dick Cheney will not stop
07/April/2007 09:52
This week
Dick Cheney appeared on Rush to in front of 20
million listeners to continue his misinformation
campaign about Iraq. He again tried to make a
connection between Al Qaida and Iraq that never
existed. Here are his words:
"Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, Al Qaida affiliate...he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the Al Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. ... This is Al Qaida operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
Of course Republican run Senate Intelligence Committee report found, “Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”
In addition, of course, Zarqawi had no relationship with Al Qaida but was an enemy to Bin Laden.
Why won't he stop saying these things? His attempts to tie 9/11 with Al Qaida with Saddam still haven't stopped.
"If we're successful in Iraq," he told Russert in September of 2003, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
It is now clear that Cheney knew this wasn't true before the war. For more on this man's history of deceit, read Sperry's article "Tricky Dicky" here, or Bradley's "Top 10 Cheney lies" from the Debates here.
Remember when Cheney Claimed Iraq Was Providing WMD Training To Al-Qaeda Months After Source Recanted? Read here.
Or read "Cheney claimed there was a link" here, listing many times Cheney claimed Saddam was in bed with Al Qaida.
Or read the article by Isakoff and Hosenball from MSNBC called "Rewriting History" here.
Why does he keep doing this? Because it works. He's speaking to a Republican base that will believe anything the administration says without checking for facts. You see, if these facts aren't true, then the foundation set up by the administration for invasion of Iraq crumbles, even among Republicans. But it is already crumbling. Finally. Interestingly Cheney's approval rating In Jan was only 16% which means even the Republican base has turned their back on him. If so, why does Rush keep having him on?
"Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, Al Qaida affiliate...he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the Al Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. ... This is Al Qaida operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
Of course Republican run Senate Intelligence Committee report found, “Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”
In addition, of course, Zarqawi had no relationship with Al Qaida but was an enemy to Bin Laden.
Why won't he stop saying these things? His attempts to tie 9/11 with Al Qaida with Saddam still haven't stopped.
"If we're successful in Iraq," he told Russert in September of 2003, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
It is now clear that Cheney knew this wasn't true before the war. For more on this man's history of deceit, read Sperry's article "Tricky Dicky" here, or Bradley's "Top 10 Cheney lies" from the Debates here.
Remember when Cheney Claimed Iraq Was Providing WMD Training To Al-Qaeda Months After Source Recanted? Read here.
Or read "Cheney claimed there was a link" here, listing many times Cheney claimed Saddam was in bed with Al Qaida.
Or read the article by Isakoff and Hosenball from MSNBC called "Rewriting History" here.
Why does he keep doing this? Because it works. He's speaking to a Republican base that will believe anything the administration says without checking for facts. You see, if these facts aren't true, then the foundation set up by the administration for invasion of Iraq crumbles, even among Republicans. But it is already crumbling. Finally. Interestingly Cheney's approval rating In Jan was only 16% which means even the Republican base has turned their back on him. If so, why does Rush keep having him on?
Trip to Syria
04/April/2007 06:26
The speaker
of the house, Nancy Pelosi, did it exactly right this
week. One of the suggestions on this website from the
beginning is that if we are to overcome the terrorist
threat, it needs to come from within the ranks of
conservative Muslims. Enlisting help from
conservative Muslims that do not directly support
terrorism is the smartest thing any leader could have
done. It is no surprise that the Republican
administration frowned on such a visit. Interestingly
enough, Iran also released their British prisoners
during her visit as an "Easter gift." Bravo
Nancy.
It was oil after all
14/November/2006 05:03
With all of the
shock over the win of the Democrats in the election,
little reported was the statements made by the
President the weekend before the election. After
years of denying that our war in Iraq was over oil
and calling anyone unpatriotic for implying so, the
President turned the tables and used the idea as part
of his repeated stump speeches saying, " You can
imagine a world in which these extremists and
radicals got control of energy resources and then you
can imagine them saying 'we're going to pull a bunch
of oil off the market to run your price of oil up
unless you do the following...'" In other words,
fighting in Iraq for oil has now moved from being an
unpatriotic idea to becoming a platform plank. Of
course the Iraqies knew it all along. 95% of Iraqies
polled still believe the entire invasion was about
oil to begin with.
Rick Santorum
03/July/2006 09:03
Fox News and
Rick Santorum got on their bandwagon this week
actually trying to claim that we found WMDs in Iraq.
Of course what we found was inert chemicals and and
shell housings buried and left over from the war
between Iraq and Iran. Pentagon spokesmen confirmed
that we already knew about these. Santorum, in a
hurry to try to save his failing run for the Senate
this year, was only too eager to jump in with the
faulty intelligence before it had gone through the
proper investigative channels. Read the story at
MSNBC's website
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/)
Executive power
16/June/2006 05:33
Bill Frist,
Senate Majority leader was being interviewed
yesterday by Chris Matthews on Hardball and they were
discussing the new resolutions in the House and
Senate being debated regarding terrorism. The
resolutions basically state that Americans must
support the war on terror until it is over. In light
of growing tension in Iran, Matthews asked Frist
point blank if the President now had authority to
invade Iran without approval of congress. Frist
refused to answer. The President claimed power to
invade Iraq based on approval of Congress to go after
Saddam specifically the year before. But now, the
"war on terror" resolutions seem to be giving the
executive even greater power. As long as they can
claim an invasion is "terror related" the President
can declare war from now until the end of time. Not
since the phrase "clear and present danger" was
twisted to increase executive authority, has anything
given the President so much power. Did the
constitutional authors foresee this when they said
that only congress can declare war? With the number
of American dead approaching the exact number that
actually died on 9/11 in the twin towers, how much
will Americans put up with to maintain their "way of
life?"