Bush's Lies Versus the Truth

Bush's Lies Versus the Truth

by BooMan23

Sat Jun 25th, 2005 at 13:01:09 EST

President George W. Bush
The Rose Garden, The White House
Washington, DC
November 8, 2002

Text of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1441

the lie

Good morning. With the resolution just passed, the United Nations Security Council has met important responsibilities, upheld its principles and given clear and fair notice that Saddam Hussein must fully disclose and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. He must submit to any and all methods to verify his compliance. His cooperation must be prompt and unconditional, or he will face the severest consequences.

the truth

 

Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG [the Iraq Survey Group] that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing centrally controlled CW [chemical weapons] program after 1991. ... Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced--if not entirely destroyed--during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox [Clinton's 1998 airstrikes], 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections."
Kay Report

 

the lie

 

The world has now come together to say that the outlaw regime in Iraq will not be permitted to build or possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

the truth

 

On March 7, ElBaradei gave his final report to the Security Council before his inspectors were removed from Iraq on March 18. His conclusion was that "the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." He also said the documents that gave rise to the allegation that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium were forged.
WP

the lie

That is the judgment of the United States Congress, that is the judgment of the United Nations Security Council. Now the world must insist that that judgment be enforced. Iraq's obligation to disarm is not new, or even recent. To end the Persian Gulf War and ensure its own survival, Iraq's regime agreed to disarm in April of 1991. For over a decade the Iraqi regime has treated its own pledge with contempt.

the truth

 

Summary: The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has prompted much handwringing over the problems with prewar intelligence. Too little attention has been paid, however, to the flip slide of the picture: that the much-maligned UN-enforced sanctions regime actually worked. Contrary to what critics have said, we now know that containment helped destroy Saddam Hussein's war machine and his capacity to produce weapons.
Foreign Affairs

the lie

As today's resolution states, Iraq is already in material breach of past U.N. demands. Iraq has aggressively pursued weapons of mass destruction, even while inspectors were inside the country. Iraq has undermined the effectiveness of weapons inspectors with ploys, delays, and threats -- making their work impossible and leading to four years of no inspections at all.

the truth

 

The IAEA, as well as UNMOVIC inspectors, feel discredited and humiliated after their bruising encounters with the UK and US. One UN diplomat said: 'They're bitter, but perhaps now they may have some solace as the truth seems to be coming out. It's obvious that we could have done this without a war -- but the evidence shows war would have happened regardless of what the inspectors could have done as that was the wish of Bush and Blair. Everyone, it seems, was working for peace -- except them.'
Sunday Herald

the lie

The world has learned from this experience an essential lesson, inspections will not result in a disarmed Iraq unless the Iraqi regime fully cooperates. Inspectors do not have the power to disarm an unwilling regime. They can only confirm that a government has decided to disarm itself. History has shown that when Iraq's leaders stall inspections and impede the progress, it means they have something to hide.

the truth

 

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.
- Downing Street Minutes

the lie

The resolution approved today presents the Iraqi regime with a test -- a final test. Iraq must now, without delay or negotiations, fully disarm; welcome full inspections, welcome full inspections, and fundamentally change the approach it has taken for more than a decade.

the truth

 

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.
- Downing Street Minutes

the lie

The regime must allow immediate and unrestricted access to every site, every document, and every person identified by inspectors. Iraq can be certain that the old game of cheat-and-retreat tolerated at other times will no longer be tolerated.

the truth

 

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult. "It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject," the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be "most unlikely" to obtain the legal justification they needed.
- Downing Street Briefing Paper:Sunday Times

the lie

Any act of delay or defiance will be an additional breach of Iraq's international obligations, and a clear signal that the Iraqi regime has once again abandoned the path of voluntary compliance.

the truth

 

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair's inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was "necessary to create the conditions" which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
Sunday Times

the lie

With the passage of this resolution, the world must not lapse into unproductive debates over whether specific instances of Iraqi noncompliance are serious. Any Iraqi noncompliance is serious, because such bad faith will show that Iraq has no intention of disarming. If we're to avert war, all nations must continue to pressure Saddam Hussein to accept this resolution and to comply with its obligations and his obligations.

Iraq, the President said, still had the power to prevent war by "declaring and destroying all its weapons of mass destruction"--but if Iraq did not declare and destroy those weapons, the President warned, the United States would "go into battle, as a last resort."

the truth

It is safe to say that, at the time, it surprised almost no one when the Iraqis answered the President's demand by repeating their claim that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction. As we now know, the Iraqis had in fact destroyed these weapons, probably years before George W. Bush's ultimatum: "the Iraqis"--in the words of chief US weapons inspector David Kay--"were telling the truth."
Free New Mexican

the lie

America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? The United States has agreed to discuss any material breach with the Security Council, but without jeopardizing our freedom of action to defend our country. If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein.

the truth

 

"In the absence of solid legal grounds for war, [the United States and Britain] tried to bomb Saddam Hussein into providing their casus belli. [W]hen that didn't work, they just stepped up the bombing rate, in effect starting the conflict without telling anyone." They "simply launched [the war] anyway, beneath the cloak of the no-fly zone."

Now, as details are surfacing about how Bush and Blair appear to have fabricated excuses to justify their shared decision to go attack Iraq, the "story of the secret air war [is] dovetail[ing] neatly with the other evidence from the leaked [British-government] documents, further demonstrating why, even after the [recent] general election [in the United Kingdom], Blair's efforts to dispel the allegations about the background to war and get the country to 'move on' seem doomed to fail."
SF Gate

the lie

I've already met with the head of the U.N. Inspections Program and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has responsibility for nuclear matters. I've assured them that the United States will fully support their efforts, including a request for information that can help identify illegal activities and materials in Iraq.

the truth

 

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence if it emerges relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials.
Mohamed El Baradei's Report

the lie

I encourage every member of the United Nations to strongly support the inspection teams. And now the inspectors have an important responsibility to make full use of the tools we have given them in this resolution.

the truth

 

One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuge out of the aluminum tubes in question.

Fourth, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet-production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in centrifuge enrichment program.
Mohamed El Baradei's Report

the lie

All patriotic Iraqis should embrace this resolution as an opportunity for Iraq to avoid war and end its isolation. Saddam Hussein cannot hide his weapons of mass destruction from international inspectors without the cooperation of hundreds and thousands of Iraqis -- those who work in the weapons program and those who are responsible for concealing the weapons. We call on those Iraqis to convey whatever information they have to inspectors, the United States, or other countries, in whatever manner they can. By helping the process of disarmament, they help their country.

the truth

 

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date.

Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.
Charles Duelfer's Report

the lie

Americans recognize what is at stake. In fighting a war on terror, we are determined to oppose every source of catastrophic harm that threatens our country, our friends, and our allies. We are actively pursuing dangerous terror networks across the world. And we oppose a uniquely dangerous regime -- a regime that has harbored terrorists and can supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction; a regime that has built such terrible weapons and has used them to kill thousands; a brutal regime with a history of both reckless ambition and reckless miscalculation.

the truth

 

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
WP

the lie

The United States of America will not live at the mercy of any group or regime that has the motive and seeks the power to murder Americans on a massive scale. The threat to America also threatens peace and security in the Middle East and far beyond. If Iraq's dictator is permitted to acquire nuclear weapons, he could resume his pattern of intimidation and conquest and dictate the future of a vital region.

the truth

 

Tony Blair's first dossier on the justification for war against Iraq was almost entirely put together from information freely available on the internet, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

The crucial document purported to contain 55 pages of high-grade intelligence on the threat posed by Saddam, but was in fact largely based on unclassified CIA documents, Pentagon press releases and the published reports of American think-tanks.
Scotsman

the lie

In confronting this threat, America seeks the support of the world. If action becomes necessary, we will act in the interests of the world. And America expects Iraqi compliance with all U.N. resolutions.

the truth

 

"For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam. Much better, as you have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat to the international community from Iraqi WMD [...]."
- Peter Ricketts, Blair political advisor- letter to Jack Straw March 22, 2002.

 the lie

The time has come for the Iraqi people to escape oppression, find freedom and live in hope.

I want to thank the Secretary of State Colin Powell for his leadership, his good work and his determination over the past two months. He's worked tirelessly and successfully for a resolution that recognizes important concerns of our Security Council partners and makes Iraq's responsibilities clear.

the truth

 

Last week, Newsweek reported that the highest-ranking Iraqi official ever to defect from Saddam Hussein's government told the CIA, British intelligence officers and U.N. inspectors in 1995 that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons after the Gulf War.

Hussein Kamel was Saddam Hussein's son-in-law. For ten years, he ran Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs.

He is one of the Bush and Blair administration's top sources on Iraq's weapons programs in the early 1990s. In debriefings with UN and intelligence officials, Kamel laid out the personnel, sites and progress of each WMD program.

Most recently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair cited Kamel in his statement to the House of Commons one day before the largest backbench rebellion in over a century.

Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell used information obtained from Kamel to try to drum up Security Council support for war in his presentation on Feb. 5th.
Democracy Now

the lie

I also thank our Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte and his team at our U.N. mission in New York for their hard work and outstanding service to our country. Secretary of State Powell's team has done a fine job. The American people are grateful to the Security Council for passing this historic resolution.

the truth

 

British spies listened in to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's office in the run up to the Iraq war, former UK cabinet minister Clare Short says.
BBC

the lie

Members of the Council acted with courage and took a principled stand. The United Nations has shown the kind of international leadership promised by its charter and required by our times. Now comes the hard part. The Security Council must maintain its unity and sense of purpose so that the Iraq regime cannot revert to the strategies of obstruction and deception it used so successfully in the past.

The outcome of the current crisis is already determined: the full disarmament of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq will occur. The only question for the Iraqi regime is to decide how. The United States prefers that Iraq meet its obligations voluntarily, yet we are prepared for the alternative. In either case, the just demands of the world will be met.

On March 16, Cheney appeared again on "Meet the Press" and reiterated his views of the previous August about Hussein's nuclear program. "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." The war began three days later.
WP

Thank you, all.

 

If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

+ $1,751,132,130,359 Social Security Trust Fund
– $7,805,708,317,936 The Gross National Debt

Time will tell all the Truth.
VT

Sean Lewis/VirtualTruth/VT

Founder
OpenDebateForum
http://VTSL.blogspot.com

Karl Rove's Red Meat Misdirection

As go Karl Rove so goes Bush's.

 

When Karl Rove is quiet all is going well for Bush, When Rove throws a 'red meat' issue into the Ring it is to deflect the bad news and boast Bush's rating by taking attention away from an Administration Weakness and going to a 'perceived' Republican strength.

 

We are losing a Company of troops a month in Iraq to death, combat wounds, injuries and suicides. A company a month.

This is what was reported yesterday. What you didn't hear about this? That is what a 'red meat' issue does.

 

When the Downing Memo hit, the 'red meat' issue was the Nuclear Option.

 

Iraq is NOT getting better. Rove wants to redirect attention by saying that Liberals are the enemy. 

 

Liberals are the people who questioned the issue of WMDs in Iraq.

 

Liberals are the people who questioned the yellow cake, and aluminum tubes.

 

Liberals are the people who questioned why we stopped fighting Al qaida in Afghanistan.

 

Liberals are wondering where bin Laden is.

 

Liberals are the people who questioned how taking money out of Social Security strengthened it.

 

Liberals are the people who questioned how allowing corporations to default on pension funds helps America.

 

Liberals are the people who questioned how taking away a persons home because of bankrupting medical costs helps America.

 

Liberals are the people who question if things are going so well, why are more people out of work, below the poverty line, without health insurance, and without hope.

 

It time to end misdirection and start getting America going in the right direction. Away from the Radical right and back to center.

 

If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

+ $1,751,132,130,359 Social Security Trust Fund
– $7,805,708,317,936 The Gross National Debt

Time will tell all the Truth.
VT

Sean Lewis/VirtualTruth/VT

Founder
OpenDebateForum
http://VTSL.blogspot.com

Remarks of Karl Rove at the New York Conservative Party

 

Remarks of Karl Rove at the New York Conservative Party

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400097.html

White House
Wednesday, June, 22, 2006

Thank you very much, Michael, for your kind introduction - and for all you have done over the years to advance the conservative cause in this great state and throughout our land. You are a forceful and articulate champion of conservatism - and all of us are grateful for your energy and commitment to a great cause.

I honored to receive the Charles Edison Memorial Award, particularly in light of your previous honorees, including Representative Jack Kemp, Senator Zell Miller, and above all, President Ronald Wilson Reagan. That is better company than I deserve to be in - but I'll take what I can get.

It's a pleasure to be among so many friends and fellow conservatives - and it's a privilege to speak to the Conservative Party of New York. You provide much of the energy and activism and hard work that has brought us to a moment when conservatism is the dominant political creed in America - and when we are making progress on so many important issues.

Think for a moment how much has been achieved by conservatives in the last 40 years. The conservative movement has gone from a small, principled opposition to a broad, inclusive movement that is self-assured, optimistic, forward-leaning, and dominant.

Four decades ago conservatism was relegated to the political wilderness - and today conservatism is the guiding philosophy in the White House, the Senate, the House, and in governorships and state legislatures throughout America.

More importantly, we have seen the great rise of a great cause. Conservatives have achieved a tremendous amount in the past 2 ½ decades - but there is more, much more, that remains to be done. This afternoon I will devote my remarks to the President's victory in November; the ideas that will continue to work in our favor; and the state of contemporary liberalism.

The political realignment in America is moving ahead; here are some of the reasons I believe this is happening.

To you, the Presidential election probably seems like it took place a long time ago; I know that's certainly how it seems to me. But it was a key election in the history of our country - and there are important things we can learn from it.

Recall that in 2004, we faced a united opposition which outspent our side by over $40 million in a time of controversial war and a recovering, but not recovered economy.

The 2004 election was a steep political mountain to climb, but the President scaled it - and he did so with energy, passion, decency, and an unwavering commitment to principle. What is significant about November's victory is not simply that the President won, but how he won.

In the 2004 election, President Bush placed all his chips on the table. There was no trimming on issues, no "campaign conversion," no backing away from Social Security and tax code reform. The President persistently made the case for an "ownership society"; championed a culture of life; defended the institution of marriage; stood with the people of Iraq in their passage to liberty; remained committed to spreading democracy in the Middle East; and continued to aggressively wage and win the war on global terrorism.

President Bush showed himself as he is. He wanted a referendum on what he has accomplished - and most importantly, on what he hopes to achieve.

The victory itself was significant. President Bush received more votes than any other candidate in American history. He's the first President since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. He increased his popular vote total by 11.6 million votes since 2000 - more than four-and-a-half times President Clinton's increase from 1992 to 1996. President Bush improved his percentage in all but three states. He improved his vote in 87 percent of all counties and carried more than 80 percent of the counties - and he won in 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties and George W. Bush is also the first President since FDR to be re-elected while his party gained seats in the House and Senate - and the first Republican President since 1924 to get re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities. And he won with a higher percentage than any Democratic Presidential candidate has received since 1964.

President Bush achieved what almost none of his critics thought he would.

Once again, they misunderestimated what you and he could do.

And now, moving forward, here's why we will defy expectations again. It's because of the ideas we hold.

A quarter-century ago, a Senator from this state, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote this: "of a sudden, the GOP has become a party of ideas." It was true then; and it remains true today. We are the party of ideas - and as Richard Weaver wrote, "ideas have consequences." With that in mind, here are some of the ideas I believe will lead to the further realignment of American politics.

We are seizing the Mantle of Idealism. As all of you know, President Bush is making a powerful case for spreading human liberty and defending human dignity. This was once largely the preserve of liberalism - but Ronald Reagan changed all that. It was President Reagan, you'll recall, who said the policy of the United States was not simply to contain Soviet Communism, but to transcend it. And we would, he argued, was because of the power of liberty.

President Bush has built on those beliefs - and he is committed to something no past President has ever attempted: spreading liberty to the broader Middle East. President Bush's eventual goal is the triumph of freedom and the end of tyranny in our world. This vision, which will require the concentrated work of generations, is consistent with the deep idealism of the American people - and it is an idealism whose importance is being confirmed by history and events.

During the last four decades we have witnessed the most spectacular growth of liberty in history. More nations are free today than ever before. Consider that in a four month period - from the end of 2004 to early 2005 -- we saw elections take place in Afghanistan, the Ukraine, among the Palestinians, and in Iraq. In the span of 113 days, more than 100 million people, living on two continents, have cast free votes in nations that had never known democracy. More than half of these voters are people of the Muslim faith who live in the broader Middle East. And since those elections we have seen what scholars refer to as "The Arab Spring" in Lebanon and Egypt and elsewhere. We are seeing unprecedented progress when it comes to spreading liberty in the Middle East.

This confidence in the power of liberty is anchored in the words of the Declaration of Independence; the arguments of President Lincoln; and the policies of President Reagan and President Bush. In his second Inaugural Address, President Bush stated it well:

"Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it."

* * * *

Second, our movement's growth has made us Agents of Reform. Edmund Burke, one of the most important figures in the history of conservatism, was known as an advocate of reform. He understood the essence of conservatism is applying timeless principles to changing circumstances, which is one of the keys to political success.

President Bush has pointed out that many of our most fundamental systems - the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, legal systems, public education, worker training among them - were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. He is committed to reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. As the President has said, to give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools. We will build an ownership society by expanding the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance, and preparing Americans for the challenges of life in a free society. We are putting government on the side of reform and progress, modernization and greater freedom, more personal choice and greater prosperity. The great goal of modern-day conservatism is to make our society more prosperous and more just.

* * * *

Third, we are defending Time-Honored Values. Conservatives have long known that political liberty depends on a healthy social and moral order. And so the President is committed to strengthening society's key institutions - families, schools, communities, and protecting those mediating structures so important to our freedom, like our churches, neighborhood and private groups - the institutions that inculcate virtues, shape character, and provide the young with moral education.

That is why President Bush supports welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work. That is why he has supported adoption and responsible fatherhood initiatives. That is why he is building a culture of life and upholding the dignity of the human person - and seeks a world in which every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. And that is why he has provided unprecedented support for religious charities that provide a safety net of mercy and compassion.

It is why President Bush supports the protection of traditional marriage against activist judges; why he signed legislation that insists on testing, high standards, and accountability in our schools; and why he he has fostered a culture of service and citizenship.

President Bush supports these things because he believes they will lead to a society that is more compassionate and decent, stronger and better. We are attempting to spread liberty abroad - and we must show that we are worthy of liberty at home.

* * * *

Let me now say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:

"Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance.… [L]iberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms."

These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.

There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes - though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don't. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a "culture of life"; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States."

I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.

Moderation and restraint is not what I felt - and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will - and to brandish steel.

MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see … Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot - three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

* * * *

Let me end where I began. Forty years ago, Lyndon Baines Johnson, a proud liberal, won the Presidency in a landslide. His party held 68 Senate seats; 295 House seats; and 33 governorships.

In 2004 George W. Bush, a proud conservative, won the Presidency for the second time, receiving the most votes in American history. His party has now won seven of the last 10 Presidential elections. Republicans hold 55 Senate seats; 232 House seats; and 28 governorships.

These facts underscore how much progress has been made in four decades. It has been a remarkable rise. But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party - in this case, the Democrat Party -- when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common good. We need to learn from our successes - and from the failures of the other side and ourselves. As the governing movement in America, conservatives cannot grow tired or timid. We have been given the opportunity to govern; now we have to show we deserve the trust of our fellow citizens.

At one time the conservative movement was largely a reactionary political party - and there was a sense of pessimism even among many of its ardent champions. You'll recall that Whittaker Chambers, who gave up his affiliation with Communism to join the West in its struggle for freedom, said he believed he was joining the losing side.

For decades, liberals were setting the agenda, the pace of change, and the visionary goals. Conservatives were simply reacting to them. But times change, often for the better - and this President and today's conservative movement are shaping history, not trying to stop it. Together we are articulating a compelling vision of a better world -- and I am grateful to all of you who are making that better world a reality.

Thank you very much for your attention, for your support of this President, and above all, for your devotion to this country.

 

If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

+ $1,751,132,130,359 Social Security Trust Fund
– $7,805,708,317,936 The Gross National Debt

Time will tell all the Truth.
VT

Sean Lewis/VirtualTruth/VT

Founder
OpenDebateForum
http://VTSL.blogspot.com

An Honest Conservative Takes Rove To Task

An Honest Conservative Takes Rove To Task

by Armando

Fri Jun 24th, 2005 at 12:11:43 EST

Trevino of Red State has this to say about Republican defenses of Rove:

The remarkable thing about the excuse-making for Karl Rove is how intellectually dishonest so much of it is.
Yep, you read that right.

The excuses fall into two camps: first, that Rove mentioned liberals, not Democrats; second, that Rove is adeptly highlighting a key Republican (though, notably, not conservative!) strength in the public mind. To find the first excuse credible, you must adhere to the following premises:

A critique of an ideology does not constitute a critique of the single principle vehicle of that ideology in American public life.

A critique of an organization's leader does not constitute a critique of that organization.

A critique of a prominent member of an organization does not constitute a critique of that organization.

Karl Rove(!) is suddenly not operating in the political sphere, for the first time ever restricting himself to purely ideological concerns.

. . . So what was the purpose behind Rove's remark? The hypothesis is that it was calculated, canny, and well-thought-out, with consequences foreseen and prepared-for. . . .  If we accept the President's public actions as indicative of Karl Rove's own convictions, then the latter has tenuous, at best situational claim to the conservative mantle; certainly not where wartime is concerned. He is a smart man, and even a political genius. But this does not impart those qualities to all he does. In this case, we can call his action what it was: the demagoguery of mediocrity.

An honest Conservative.

 

If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

+ $1,751,132,130,359 Social Security Trust Fund
– $7,805,708,317,936 The Gross National Debt

Time will tell all the Truth.
VT

Sean Lewis/VirtualTruth/VT

Founder
OpenDebateForum
http://VTSL.blogspot.com

We Demand Results

We Demand Results

by Armando

Thu Jun 23rd, 2005 at 15:25:04 PDT

Markos wrote:

Rove is trying to divide Americans, using the tired cannard of the fringe Right that "liberals hate America". Fact is, we demand results. And Republicans are showing, again, that they can't govern.

So as their fortunes circle the drain, they resort to outrageous attacks in an attempt to distract from their own incompetence. And their sycophants in their media machine will dutifully salute their superiors and parrot the charges.

And they will cross their fingers and hope that dragging the political discourse even deeper into the mud will distract people from their own incompetence. Standard operating procedure for these guys.

On 9/11, Dems called for the following action:

[T]he September 14th, [2001] Congressional Resolution, which states:

    To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

    Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

    Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

    Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

    Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

    Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    Section 1. Short Title

    This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

    Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

    (a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

. . . It passed the House 420-1 and passed the Senate 98-0, with nary a mention of indictments, therapy, or calls for understanding. The one vote against was Barbara Lee.

And what has the Bush Administration done?

Osama bin Laden.

CIA Director Porter Goss says he has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the al Qaeda chief will not be caught until weak links in the war on terrorism are strengthened.

In an interview with TIME magazine published Sunday, Goss said part of the difficulty in capturing bin Laden was "sanctuaries in sovereign nations."

The magazine asked Goss when bin Laden would be captured.

"That is a question that goes far deeper than you know," he said. "In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror, we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice."

Sanctuaries in sovereign nations? But what about this:

[T]he president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.

Legal technicalities standing in the way of capturing the perpetrator of 9/11? So who's fixed on the niceties of the law? Only when they want to be.

See, when it comes to Iraq, international law be damned. And, by the way, what kind of results are we getting from Bush on Iraq?

When asked about the strength of the insurgency, American commanders told the committee that the insurgents were at least as strong now as they had been six months ago. Gen. John P. Abizaid, who is in charge of multinational forces in Iraq, told the senators, "I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago."

. . . Mr. Rumsfeld, General Abizaid and the other commanders who testified today declined to endorse the position of Vice President Dick Cheney, who said recently that the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes." "Those words, though, I didn't use them, and I might not use them," said Mr. Rumsfeld, who did allow that insurgents might believe they are in their last throes.

Responding to pointed questions from Sen. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, General Abizaid said he would not criticize the vice president, but added, "there's a lot of work to be done against the insurgency."

Results. We demand results.

Where is Osama? Why has he not been captured?

Why is the insurgency not beaten in Iraq? What is the victory strategy?

We demand results.

 

If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

+ $1,751,132,130,359 Social Security Trust Fund
– $7,805,708,317,936 The Gross National Debt

Time will tell all the Truth.

VT

Karl Rove, Traitor

Karl Rove, Traitor

by Hunter

Thu Jun 23rd, 2005 at 15:34:11 PDT

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. [...]

Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

  -- Karl Rove

"I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game."

    -- MSNBC host Chris Matthews, in a phone call to Ambassador Joseph Wilson after the exposure of Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA operative.

If there is one person in America that should shy away from making declarations about the motives of liberals, it is Karl Rove. We still do not know who, in the Plame case, committed the initial crime of "outing" the identity of a CIA agent working undercover on weapons of mass destruction. But we do know who took point on gaining maximum exposure of that information, by "shopping" it to a wide selection of perceived-friendly conservative news figures in an attempt to make the results as widespread and damaging as possible.

That person was Karl Rove, and the goal was to use the criminal exposure of an American agent as Republican political capital for the White House. The exposure was from that point on coordinated as a means of punishment against a political opponent -- and as a very public warning against any other American officials or intelligence agents that might come forward with opinions that conflicted with the Bush Administration statements in the runup to the Iraq War.

The complicity of media figures such as Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, and the execrable Robert Novak  (who has shared a long and storied history benefitting from Rove-provided leaks) was reason enough for most media outlets to treat the story delicately, though it did get play (even, hilariously, from some of the media figures that refused to acknowledge their own roles while gamely interviewing others about the leaks.)  But there's nothing delicate about the story.

After the catastrophic destruction of 9/11 in New York City and Washington, during a time of war, during ongoing operations in Afghanistan, during fevered investigations into the possibility of al-Qaeda or other terrorist cells gaining access to weapons of mass destruction, members of the Bush Administration chose to "out" a deep-cover agent working against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in retailation for a perceived political slight by her husband. In the process of the outing, the Administration destroyed the cover of the energy company she ostensibly worked for, ended her covert career, and endangered every foreign source and contact that she and her fellow agents had been involved with.

It was, unambiguously, an act of treason in a time of war. And one that Bush Administration officials intentionally inflicted upon her, and upon the country. And one that Karl Rove, White House political director, played a key and unapologetic role in. Whether or not Rove was the original source of the leak to Novak himself, it is astonishing that we live in a political climate where politically piggybacking off such a crime is not considered a fireable offense. Such is the nature of the Bush White House.

We do not know who the original leaker was, in the Plame case, for one simple reason: the White House has chosen to block investigation of the matter. Phone records from the offices in question are easily obtainable; the numbers of individuals with access to the information number perhaps in the half-dozen range; the President himself could, in the interest of national security, demand of his staff that they expose the leaker. Instead, the President has "lawyered up", and presented the country with hollow-eyed, slackjawed silence in the whole affair.  With each passing revelation, it becomes more clear that there were a host of senior administration officials tasked with retribution against intelligence analysts and agencies who dared go against the Bush Administration "preferred" analyses of Iraq.

In one of the many ironies of the Plame case, Plame herself was transferred back to Washington D.C. in 1997, where she met Wilson, for fears her cover had been blown by double agent Aldrich Ames. As it turned out, Ames didn't out her.

But members of the Bush Administration, seeking payback against her "Democrat" husband, did.

Karl Rove knows all about putting American troops, and American citizens, in danger. And for that, he deserves a contempt beyond that which it is possible for mere words to describe.

...according to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, leaking the name of an undercover agent is also a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, under certain circumstances. When tv commentator Chris Matthews asked Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie if he thought such a leak made by government officials was "worse than Watergate," Gillespie replied, "Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real-world implications of it."

-- Vanity Fair, January 2004

 

If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

+ $1,751,132,130,359 Social Security Trust Fund
– $7,805,708,317,936 The Gross National Debt

Time will tell all the Truth.

VT

Report: 108 Died In U.S. Custody

Report: 108 Died In U.S. Custody

WASHINGTON, March 16, 2005

(AP) At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel.

The figure, far higher than any previously disclosed, includes cases investigated by the Army, Navy, CIA and Justice Department. Some 65,000 prisoners have been taken during the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although most have been freed.

The Pentagon has never provided comprehensive information on how many prisoners taken during the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have died, and the 108 figure is based on information supplied by Army, Navy and other government officials. It includes deaths attributed to natural causes.

To human rights groups, the deaths form a clear pattern.

"Despite the military's own reports of deaths and abuses of detainees in U.S. custody, it is astonishing that our government can still pretend that what is happening is the work of a few rogue soldiers," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "No one at the highest levels of our government has yet been held accountable for the torture and abuse, and that is unacceptable."

To the Pentagon, each death is a distinct case, meriting an investigation but not attributable to any single faulty military policy. Pentagon officials point to a number of military investigations which found that no policy condoned abuse.

Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. John Skinner said the military has taken steps to reduce the chance of violent uprisings at its prisons and the use of excessive force by soldiers, and also has improved the health care available to prisoners.

"The military has dramatically improved detention operations, everything from increased oversight and improved facilities to expanded training and the availability of state-of-the-art medical care," he said in a statement.

©MMV, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

 

If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

+ $1,751,132,130,359 Social Security Trust Fund
– $7,805,708,317,936 The Gross National Debt

Time will tell all the Truth.

VT

Bush sinks further

Bush sinks further

by kos

Thu Jun 23rd, 2005 at 20:10:51 PDT

You want to know why Republicans have become so shrill, look no further to their waning fortunes.

Zogby. 6/20-22. MoE 3.2% (5/23-25 results)

Bush job ratings

Approve 44 (46)
Disapprove 56 (53)

American Research Group. 6/19-22. MoE 3% (May results)

Bush job ratings

Approve 42 (43)
Disapprove 53 (51)

Bush handling the economy

Approve 37 (37)
Disapprove 59 (57)

Harris Poll. 6/7-12. MoE 3% (4/5-10 results)

Do you favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a stable government there OR bringing most of our troops home in the next year?

Wait for stable govt 33 (40)
Bring home in next year 63 (60)

Do you think the invasion of Iraq strengthened or weakened the war on terrorism?

Strengthened 43 (49)
Weakened 44 (47)

Gallup. 6/16-19. MoE 3% (3/18-20 results)

Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war with Iraq?

Favor 39 (47)
Oppose 59 (47)

And so on.

They can't win on ideas. They can't govern and people are realizing it. Our men and women our getting killed in Iraq for no apparent reason.

So like the Swift Boat Liars, they will win by smearing and trashing Democrats. They can only win if they can drag us lower than them, and they will do what they can to do so.

Things are ugly. We've seemingly reached the bottom of the pit. But never underestimate the Republican machine's ability to find new bottom.

 

If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

+ $1,751,132,130,359 Social Security Trust Fund
– $7,805,708,317,936 The Gross National Debt

Time will tell all the Truth.

VT

Social Security Solvency with and wihout the Bush private accounts solution

http://zfacts.com/p/784.html

So with the Bush Private accounts if you are 50 in 2005 do not live beyond 70 because there will be no money for Social security checks. So again Bush is lying when he says people over 50 will continue to get their checks with no cuts in benefits if Bush's Private Accounts are created.

 

If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

+ $1,751,132,130,359 Social Security Trust Fund
– $7,805,708,317,936 The Gross National Debt

Time will tell all the Truth.

VT

Moral Idiocy

Moral Idiocy

by Armando
Sun Jun 19th, 2005 at 22:01:33 EST

The moral idiocy of the Right (Chas Johnson edition, referencing the Iraqi insurgents' torture rooms):

Despite the incredible cheapening and trivialization of the word by the likes of Amnesty International and Dick Durbin, this is what real torture looks like.

Oh really? So what does this describe?

It means being willing to let taxi drivers whom we know to be innocent be beaten to death, detainees be sodomized with chemical lightsticks and have lit cigarettes stuck in their ears, and fourteen year olds be "suspended from hooks in the ceiling for hours at a time" while being beaten, in order to preserve the illusion that our own hands are clean.

Apparently, the honor of the nation can be defended by yelling "We're Not Nazis" and "We're Not as Bad as the Terrorists" and wearing "I Love Gitmo" and "What Happens in Gitmo Stays in Gitmo" t-shirts.

Not my country. My country is better than the Charles Johnsons, Rush Limbaughs and Powerlines of the world.

Update [2005-6-19 23:12:38 by Armando]: Neil Cavuto of Faux say that those of us who oppose torture in all cases, have forgotten who the enemy is, caring more about them than our own. No Neil, we are fighting for the soul of our country. You and your ilk would turn us into terrorists - engaging in systematic torture. That is not our country. We are not terrorists. You Neil Cavuto, want to make our country terrorists. We fight against you and your ilk.

 

If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

+ $1,751,132,130,359 Social Security Trust Fund
– $7,805,708,317,936 The Gross National Debt

Time will tell all the Truth.

VT

British Documents Portray Determined US March to War

Published on Saturday, June 18, 2005 by Knight-Ridder

British Documents Portray Determined US March to War

by Warren P. Strobel

WASHINGTON - Highly classified documents leaked in Britain appear to provide new evidence that President Bush and his national security team decided to invade Iraq much earlier than they have acknowledged and marched to war without dwelling on the potential perils. The half-dozen memos and option papers, written by top aides to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, buttress previous on-the-record accounts that portray Bush and his advisers as predisposed to oust Saddam Hussein when they took office - and determined to do it at all costs after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Blair is Bush's closest global partner, and the documents, startlingly frank at times, were never meant to become public. Now they have rocketed around the Internet and been seized on by opponents of the Iraq war as evidence that the president and his administration were not leveling with the American people about their war preparations. By mid-March 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, top British officials were already so resigned to a war that they seemed preoccupied mostly with building international support and finding a legal justification. That was just six weeks after Bush declared Iraq a member of the "axis of evil." But Blair's advisers repeatedly expressed concern that the case against Saddam was weak and that the White House wasn't giving nearly enough attention to what would happen after he was toppled. "The U.S. government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it," stated a July 21, 2002, briefing paper prepared for a meeting of Blair's advisers two days later. "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise," it stated. Bush and Blair forcefully denied in a news conference this month that they were fixated on war. "There's nothing farther from the truth. My conversations with the prime minister were how can we do this peacefully," Bush said. "We worked hard to figure out how we could do this peacefully." Neither the U.S. government nor the British government has disputed the memos' authenticity. The release of the documents comes at a bad time for Bush. He faces growing congressional and public unease after 27 months of war in Iraq. Opinion polls show public support for the Iraq war at or near all-time lows. "It's not collapsing. ... (But) there are signs people are becoming uneasy," said Christopher Gelpi, a Duke University political science professor who studies public opinion and the use of force. Gelpi said the impact of the British memos is unclear, since they haven't received wide media attention until recently. "The notion that the public has been lied to could have a very toxic effect on public support," he said. Precisely when Bush made an irrevocable decision to invade Iraq remains murky. "We still don't know - and this is not unusual - exactly when the presidential decision was made," said journalist James Mann, author of "Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet." The White House maintains it tried to avert war almost until the last minute. Despite the outcry over the British documents, which have come to be known as the "Downing Street memos," much of what they say was known - or knowable - at the time, Mann said. It's well documented that Bush began looking at military options for overthrowing Saddam's regime as early as November 2001, with formal military planning beginning early in 2002. Knight Ridder, for example, reported on Feb. 13, 2002, that the president had decided in principle on overthrowing the Iraqi leader and ordered "a combination of military, diplomatic and covert steps" to achieve that goal. Six days later, then-Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., visited U.S. Central Command headquarters and, Graham said in a memoir, was told by Gen. Tommy Franks that despite ongoing operations in Afghanistan, "military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq." Franks denied making the comment. Richard Haass, the State Department's director of policy planning, told an interviewer that in an early July 2002 chat with then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, he questioned putting Iraq at the center of the U.S. war against terrorism. He said Rice advised him "essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath." The British memos document in crisp, sometimes wry, prose how advanced political preparations were even more than a year before the March 2003 invasion. Moreover, they echo other accounts of Bush's determination to unseat Saddam, who once tried to assassinate his father. In a March 22, 2002, letter to British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Blair political adviser Peter Ricketts advised steering the public rationale for war away from "regime change." "'Regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam," Ricketts wrote. Bush came into office with aides, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who believed that the United States erred gravely by allowing Saddam to remain in power after the 1991 Gulf War. Four days after the Sept. 11 attacks, during a crisis meeting at Camp David, Wolfowitz argued for attacking Iraq in response, as first recounted in journalist Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack." Later that month, Wolfowitz helped arrange a trip by former CIA Director James Woolsey to the United Kingdom to look for evidence of an Iraqi role in Sept. 11. Richard Clarke, at the time a veteran White House counterterrorism official, has written that Bush ordered him to look for the same evidence the day after the attacks. The search for evidence, along with claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, continued for more than a year. No Iraqi link to Sept. 11 has been found, and most of the intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction has since proved to be bogus. In that sense, the British memos seem almost prophetic. "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," Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's MI-6 spy service, told Blair and his top advisers after talks in Washington, according to the first memo to be leaked. It was dated July 23, 2002. "US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al (Qaida) is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts reported earlier in his March 2002 letter to Straw. In his own letter to Blair three days later, Straw also seemed to question the scale of the threat. "In the documents so far presented, it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran and North Korea as to justify military action," he wrote. All of the documents leaked thus far - by persons unknown - date before Bush's August 2002 decision to take his case against Saddam to the United Nations, as recommended by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. While Bush continues to assert that he tried diplomacy, things looked different in the spring and summer of 2002, at least as seen through the prism of the British government. Blair's advisers found a deep distrust of the United Nations in Washington. The National Security Council, led by Rice, "has no patience with the U.N. route," according to Dearlove's report to Blair and his advisers at the July 23, 2002, meeting. In yet another memo, Christopher Meyer, then Blair's ambassador to Washington, said he met with Wolfowitz on March 17, 2002, and discussed how to build support for military action. "I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors," Meyer reported to London. The two governments discussed ways to craft an ultimatum to Saddam on U.N. weapons inspectors that he would be sure to reject, providing an excuse for war and a path to building international support. Said Mann: "Going to the U.N. was always a box to be checked and a necessity for winning the support of the British government." © Copyright 2005 Knight-Ridder

 

If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

+ $1,751,132,130,359 Social Security Trust Fund
– $7,805,708,317,936 The Gross National Debt

Time will tell all the Truth.

VT