Thursday, June 16, 2005
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
t r u t h o u t - New Memos Reveal Bush Deception on Iraq
Someone is letting all the evils of the plotters hatch out.
After the Downing Street memo a string of new documents shows us how Bush Blair set about creating a false case for regime change in Iraq.
Campbell's charge against the BBC that it had not sexed up the case for war is now utterly untenable
Greg Dyke and/or the BBC of today shgould be suing the Government.
"Manning told Blair that given Bush's eagerness for British backing, the prime minister would have 'real influence' on the public relations strategy, on the issue of encouraging the United States to go first to the United Nations and on any U.S. military planning.
Manning said it could prove helpful if Hussein refused to allow renewed U.N. weapons inspections.
'The issue of weapons inspectors must be handled in a way that would persuade Europe and wider opinion that the U.S. was conscious of the international framework, and the insistence of many countries on the need for a legal basis. Renewed refusal by Saddam to accept unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument,' Manning wrote Blair.
Four days after the Manning memo, Christopher Meyer, then the British ambassador in Washington, wrote to Manning about a lunch he had with Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the U.S. deputy secretary of Defense and a leading proponent in the administration of confronting Hussein. Meyer said in the memo that he had told Wolfowitz that U.N. pressure and weapons inspections could be used to trip up Hussein.
'We backed regime change,' he wrote, 'but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe.'
Meyer wrote that he had argued that Washington could go it alone if it wanted to. 'But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrong-foot Saddam on the inspectors and the [U.N. Security Council resolutions] and the critical importance of the [Middle East peace process] as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skillfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board.'"
After the Downing Street memo a string of new documents shows us how Bush Blair set about creating a false case for regime change in Iraq.
Campbell's charge against the BBC that it had not sexed up the case for war is now utterly untenable
Greg Dyke and/or the BBC of today shgould be suing the Government.
"Manning told Blair that given Bush's eagerness for British backing, the prime minister would have 'real influence' on the public relations strategy, on the issue of encouraging the United States to go first to the United Nations and on any U.S. military planning.
Manning said it could prove helpful if Hussein refused to allow renewed U.N. weapons inspections.
'The issue of weapons inspectors must be handled in a way that would persuade Europe and wider opinion that the U.S. was conscious of the international framework, and the insistence of many countries on the need for a legal basis. Renewed refusal by Saddam to accept unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument,' Manning wrote Blair.
Four days after the Manning memo, Christopher Meyer, then the British ambassador in Washington, wrote to Manning about a lunch he had with Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the U.S. deputy secretary of Defense and a leading proponent in the administration of confronting Hussein. Meyer said in the memo that he had told Wolfowitz that U.N. pressure and weapons inspections could be used to trip up Hussein.
'We backed regime change,' he wrote, 'but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe.'
Meyer wrote that he had argued that Washington could go it alone if it wanted to. 'But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrong-foot Saddam on the inspectors and the [U.N. Security Council resolutions] and the critical importance of the [Middle East peace process] as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skillfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board.'"
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Reality is finally seeping through the media spin on Iraq
A substantial majority of Aericans no longer believe the lies they were told on Iraq. Over here they don't even ask us anymore.
"In the Gallup Poll, 56% say the Iraq war wasn't “worth it,” essentially matching the high-water mark of 57% a month ago.
•Of those who say the war wasn't worth it, the top reasons cited are fraudulent claims and no weapons of mass destruction found; the number of people killed and wounded; and the belief that Iraq posed no threat to the United States.
•Of the 42% who say the war was worth it, the top reasons cited are the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the need to stop terrorism and a desire to end the oppression of the Iraqi people."
"In the Gallup Poll, 56% say the Iraq war wasn't “worth it,” essentially matching the high-water mark of 57% a month ago.
•Of those who say the war wasn't worth it, the top reasons cited are fraudulent claims and no weapons of mass destruction found; the number of people killed and wounded; and the belief that Iraq posed no threat to the United States.
•Of the 42% who say the war was worth it, the top reasons cited are the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the need to stop terrorism and a desire to end the oppression of the Iraqi people."
t r u t h o u t - Memogate: More Documents Allege Fixing of Intel
The Downing Street Memo has reached the front page of the Washington Post. The papers are being assembled from leaks and many other sources as shown below that the war was fought on a fabricated false premise.
To make matters worse it becomes ever clearer that the US had no idea how to win the peace. It left the defense department in charge.
It may be they did not care at all about peace as long as they could militarily take control of the oil supply.
"As you know, the Downing Street Minutes said the Bush administration 'fixed' the intelligence around its policy of attacking Iraq. The British Briefing Papers lend further credence to this point.
British Knew Iraqi WMD Were Not a Threat: 'There is no greater threat now that [Saddam] will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option.' [Iraq: Options Paper]
Evidence Did Not Show Much Advance In Iraq's Weapons Programs: 'Even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on [the] nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.' [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]
Evidence Was Thin on Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties: 'US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing.' [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]
'No Credible Evidence' On Iraq/Al Qaeda Link: 'There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida.' [Straw Paper, 3/25/02]
Wolfowitz Knew Supposed Iraq/Al Qaeda Link Was Weak: Wolfowitz said that 'there might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence (did we, he asked, know anything more about this meeting?).' [Meyer Paper, 3/18/02]
The full British Briefing Papers have been attached below. When reading them, keep in mind that these Papers were written approximately a full year before the invasion of Iraq. The Papers present a shockingly accurate forecast of what has transpired in the years since, and suggest the Bush administration chose to ignore the advice of our key ally when it came to dealing with Iraq.
British Iraq Options Paper
Manning Paper
Meyer Paper
Ricketts Paper
Straw Paper
British Legal Background Paper
"
To make matters worse it becomes ever clearer that the US had no idea how to win the peace. It left the defense department in charge.
It may be they did not care at all about peace as long as they could militarily take control of the oil supply.
"As you know, the Downing Street Minutes said the Bush administration 'fixed' the intelligence around its policy of attacking Iraq. The British Briefing Papers lend further credence to this point.
British Knew Iraqi WMD Were Not a Threat: 'There is no greater threat now that [Saddam] will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option.' [Iraq: Options Paper]
Evidence Did Not Show Much Advance In Iraq's Weapons Programs: 'Even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on [the] nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.' [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]
Evidence Was Thin on Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties: 'US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing.' [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]
'No Credible Evidence' On Iraq/Al Qaeda Link: 'There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida.' [Straw Paper, 3/25/02]
Wolfowitz Knew Supposed Iraq/Al Qaeda Link Was Weak: Wolfowitz said that 'there might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence (did we, he asked, know anything more about this meeting?).' [Meyer Paper, 3/18/02]
The full British Briefing Papers have been attached below. When reading them, keep in mind that these Papers were written approximately a full year before the invasion of Iraq. The Papers present a shockingly accurate forecast of what has transpired in the years since, and suggest the Bush administration chose to ignore the advice of our key ally when it came to dealing with Iraq.
British Iraq Options Paper
Manning Paper
Meyer Paper
Ricketts Paper
Straw Paper
British Legal Background Paper
"
Monday, June 13, 2005
Prosecute Blair in Britain now
"However, the ICC is unlikely to open a case against the British in Iraq. For starters, the member states have only agreed to include the crime of aggression in the ICC's statute (alongside war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide) in 2009. At the ICC's first major press conference in The Hague (July 16 2003), the Chief Prosecutor acknowledge that nearly 1/4 of the 'communications' his office had received in the institution's first year concerned complaints related to Iraq. But, said Mr. Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC did not envision taking up these cases due to the principle of complementarity, which says that national courts have the first chance to investigate and prosecute incidents attributed to its nationals. "
The Downing Street memo and its more recent follow up so clearly indicate a war of aggression by Blair and Bush we should start a National prosecution now.
The International Court is very unlikely to act until we set our own house into order.
The Downing Street memo and its more recent follow up so clearly indicate a war of aggression by Blair and Bush we should start a National prosecution now.
The International Court is very unlikely to act until we set our own house into order.
Dear people of Oxfordshire
I write to you as a poet, political commentator and ambassador of the Power Enquiry (details below) to ask you to attend and speak to a meeting of people concerned that we do not at present live in a real democracy and want change.RSVP to the e-mail address above.
POWER - An independent inquiry into Britain's democracy
Home
About us
The Commission
The Commission
Publications
Witness Sessions
Give evidence
Get involved
Events
News
Blog
POWER Ambassador events
There will be an event at Oxford Town Hall at 7.30 p.m. Theme RECLAIMING DEMOCRACY
POWER Ambassadors are the public face of the POWER Inquiry in local areas. They are local people ? with knowledge of local community networks and how to reach them ? who have volunteered to organise meetings and events in their local area, publicise them in their local press, ensure they are well attended with a variety of people and make sure that the meetings generate evidence for the Inquiry which is returned to us. There are over 80 POWER Ambassadors. Ambassadors are voluntary unpaid roles. We ask for a minimal commitment of at least one form of evidence gathering.We are still looking for people all around the country to become our POWER Ambassadors, to be our point of contact in their community or town and to help the Inquiry organise events and consultations where they live or work. All evidence gathered by the POWER Ambassadors will be submitted to the research team and the Commission, which is made up of ten people from a variety of backgrounds and interests, from both inside and outside of the traditional world of politics.? Power 2004-05 Contact us About this site Links Top
POWER - An independent inquiry into Britain's democracy
Home
About us
The Commission
The Commission
Publications
Witness Sessions
Give evidence
Get involved
Events
News
Blog
POWER Ambassador events
There will be an event at Oxford Town Hall at 7.30 p.m. Theme RECLAIMING DEMOCRACY
POWER Ambassadors are the public face of the POWER Inquiry in local areas. They are local people ? with knowledge of local community networks and how to reach them ? who have volunteered to organise meetings and events in their local area, publicise them in their local press, ensure they are well attended with a variety of people and make sure that the meetings generate evidence for the Inquiry which is returned to us. There are over 80 POWER Ambassadors. Ambassadors are voluntary unpaid roles. We ask for a minimal commitment of at least one form of evidence gathering.We are still looking for people all around the country to become our POWER Ambassadors, to be our point of contact in their community or town and to help the Inquiry organise events and consultations where they live or work. All evidence gathered by the POWER Ambassadors will be submitted to the research team and the Commission, which is made up of ten people from a variety of backgrounds and interests, from both inside and outside of the traditional world of politics.? Power 2004-05 Contact us About this site Links Top
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’ - Sunday Times - Times Online
What a story!
I will ask my MP to pick up on this
"Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’
Michael Smith
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
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."
I will ask my MP to pick up on this
"Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’
Michael Smith
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
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."
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Britain accused of creating terror fears
"Lord Steyn hailed the Belmarsh ruling as 'a great day for the law', and 'a vindication of the rule of law, ranking with historic judgments of our courts'.
He added: 'Nobody doubts in any way the very real risk of international terrorism. But the Belmarsh decision came against the public fear whipped up by the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom since September 11 2001 and their determination to bend established international law to their will and to undermine its essential structures.'"
Blair and Bush are a double-act. Together, they arer destroying the fabric of human freedom in a just society and replacing it with a police state.
Blair has the support of just one voter in five for his laws.
PUBLIC MEETING, OXFORD TOWN HALL, 7.30PM JUNE 28.
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
He added: 'Nobody doubts in any way the very real risk of international terrorism. But the Belmarsh decision came against the public fear whipped up by the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom since September 11 2001 and their determination to bend established international law to their will and to undermine its essential structures.'"
Blair and Bush are a double-act. Together, they arer destroying the fabric of human freedom in a just society and replacing it with a police state.
Blair has the support of just one voter in five for his laws.
PUBLIC MEETING, OXFORD TOWN HALL, 7.30PM JUNE 28.
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
Bush is spinning the earth backwards
"Documents released by a watchdog group, the Government Accountability Project, show that as chief of staff for the White House council on environmental quality, Philip Cooney watered down government scientific papers on climate change and played up uncertainties in the scientific literature. Mr Cooney is a law graduate and has no scientific training."
We know now that the Iraq invasion was the result of putting a false spin on our feeble intelligence.
Now it has been shown that the world's climate has been changed to fit in with Mr Bush's version of reality.
Bush/Cheney know all about peak oil and all about climate change. That is the only credible reason why they are doing everything to expand the military at a time when their is no real opposition to them. They will invade anywhere and everywhere to keep the resources flowing to America at the expense of the rest of us here on this planet.
Why else send an ambassador to the UN whose main goal is to destroy it.
Come on somebody out there, give me another explanation.
We know now that the Iraq invasion was the result of putting a false spin on our feeble intelligence.
Now it has been shown that the world's climate has been changed to fit in with Mr Bush's version of reality.
Bush/Cheney know all about peak oil and all about climate change. That is the only credible reason why they are doing everything to expand the military at a time when their is no real opposition to them. They will invade anywhere and everywhere to keep the resources flowing to America at the expense of the rest of us here on this planet.
Why else send an ambassador to the UN whose main goal is to destroy it.
Come on somebody out there, give me another explanation.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
t r u t h o u t - Memogate Hearings Scheduled for June 16
Could this be the start of impeachment for Bush?
Will the potential Tory leadership candidate, David Cameron, pick up the DSM as he promised with Blair and Co?
These matters will continue to be unfolded here in Blairy England.
"On Thursday June 16, 2005, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of House Judiciary Committee, and other Democratic Members will hold a Democratic hearing to hear testimony concerning the Downing Street Minutes and the efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence.
On May 1, 2005 a Sunday London Times article disclosed the details of a classified memo, also known as the Downing Street Minutes, recounting the minutes of a July 2002 meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair that describes an American President already committed to going to war in the summer of 2002, despite contrary assertions to the public and the Congress. The minutes also describe apparent efforts by the Administration to manipulate intelligence data to justify the war. The June 16th hearing will attempt to answer the serious constitutional questions raised by these revelations and will further investigate the Administration's actions in the lead up to war with new documents that further corroborate the Downing Street memo.
Those expected to testify include Joe Wilson, Former Ambassador and WMD Expert; Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst who prepared regular Presidential briefings during the Reagan administration; Cindy Sheehan, mother of a fallen American soldier; and John Bonifaz, renowned constitutional lawyer and co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org.
Directly following the hearing, Rep. Conyers, Members of Congress, and concerned citizens plan to hand deliver to the White House the petition and signatures of over a half million Americans that have joined Rep. Conyers in demanding that President Bush answer questions about his secret plan for the Iraq war.
AfterDowningStreet.org is a rapidly growing coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed "
Will the potential Tory leadership candidate, David Cameron, pick up the DSM as he promised with Blair and Co?
These matters will continue to be unfolded here in Blairy England.
"On Thursday June 16, 2005, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of House Judiciary Committee, and other Democratic Members will hold a Democratic hearing to hear testimony concerning the Downing Street Minutes and the efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence.
On May 1, 2005 a Sunday London Times article disclosed the details of a classified memo, also known as the Downing Street Minutes, recounting the minutes of a July 2002 meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair that describes an American President already committed to going to war in the summer of 2002, despite contrary assertions to the public and the Congress. The minutes also describe apparent efforts by the Administration to manipulate intelligence data to justify the war. The June 16th hearing will attempt to answer the serious constitutional questions raised by these revelations and will further investigate the Administration's actions in the lead up to war with new documents that further corroborate the Downing Street memo.
Those expected to testify include Joe Wilson, Former Ambassador and WMD Expert; Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst who prepared regular Presidential briefings during the Reagan administration; Cindy Sheehan, mother of a fallen American soldier; and John Bonifaz, renowned constitutional lawyer and co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org.
Directly following the hearing, Rep. Conyers, Members of Congress, and concerned citizens plan to hand deliver to the White House the petition and signatures of over a half million Americans that have joined Rep. Conyers in demanding that President Bush answer questions about his secret plan for the Iraq war.
AfterDowningStreet.org is a rapidly growing coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed "
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Justice pursues Bush and Blair
There are movements for justice on Iraq formed all over the world slowly moving forward in their efforts to bring our war criminal leaders to justice.
Check out this story.
"The World Tribunal on Iraq
In 1967, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell convened the International War Crimes Tribunal. The Tribunal was charged with conducting �a solemn and historic investigation� of U.S. war crimes in Vietnam in order to �prevent the crime of silence.�
Drawing on this tradition, the WTI�composed of lawyers, former parliamentarians and judges, journalists, artists, and victims of U.S. aggression�has held people�s tribunals on multiple continents in order to build �a moral, political, and judicial record that contributes to build a world of peace and justice� as part of a broader campaign to �put an end to impunity enjoyed by the United States and its allies.�1"
Check out this story.
"The World Tribunal on Iraq
In 1967, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell convened the International War Crimes Tribunal. The Tribunal was charged with conducting �a solemn and historic investigation� of U.S. war crimes in Vietnam in order to �prevent the crime of silence.�
Drawing on this tradition, the WTI�composed of lawyers, former parliamentarians and judges, journalists, artists, and victims of U.S. aggression�has held people�s tribunals on multiple continents in order to build �a moral, political, and judicial record that contributes to build a world of peace and justice� as part of a broader campaign to �put an end to impunity enjoyed by the United States and its allies.�1"
Articles, government corruption, freedom of speech, truth
The Americans are thinking of rewriting their declaration of Independence brfore Bush takes it all away.
My American friend reminds me that we are all mere subjects subjected to the Royal Will over here.
The European commissioner fro Human rights says we are at fault on that score.
What about an update on madna carta
the original is certainly not a lot of good to us.
"'What we will need as a nation to overcome this continual lying and deceit from our own government is a new Declaration of Independence, modified from it's original state to declare that we, as Americans, will stand united against the tyranny brought about by the current Bush administration and his band of followers,' said Glenn, adding that he is seeking assistance from others more skilled at literary and legal matters as he is not a trained writer or lawyer"
My American friend reminds me that we are all mere subjects subjected to the Royal Will over here.
The European commissioner fro Human rights says we are at fault on that score.
What about an update on madna carta
the original is certainly not a lot of good to us.
"'What we will need as a nation to overcome this continual lying and deceit from our own government is a new Declaration of Independence, modified from it's original state to declare that we, as Americans, will stand united against the tyranny brought about by the current Bush administration and his band of followers,' said Glenn, adding that he is seeking assistance from others more skilled at literary and legal matters as he is not a trained writer or lawyer"
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
POWER - An independent inquiry into Britain's democracy
I have become a Power ambassador.
I am organising a meeting in Oxfordshire to get feedback on what is wrong with democracy locally and what we can do about it.
More later.
POWER - An independent inquiry into Britain's democracy: "
The POWER Inquiry has been set up to explore how political participation and involvement can be increased and deepened in Britain. It is based on the primary belief that a healthy democracy requires the active participation of its citizens.
Since the historically unprecedented decline in turnout in 2001 many political organisations have put considerable effort into analysing the roots of voter abstention and the current state of political engagement in the UK. This widely shared concern over declining electoral turnout is our starting point for a broader investigation into the health of the connections between the public and the political process.
The Inquiry aims to understand why the decline in popular participation and involvement in formal politics has occurred and to provide concrete and innovative proposals to reverse the trend."
I am organising a meeting in Oxfordshire to get feedback on what is wrong with democracy locally and what we can do about it.
More later.
POWER - An independent inquiry into Britain's democracy: "
The POWER Inquiry has been set up to explore how political participation and involvement can be increased and deepened in Britain. It is based on the primary belief that a healthy democracy requires the active participation of its citizens.
Since the historically unprecedented decline in turnout in 2001 many political organisations have put considerable effort into analysing the roots of voter abstention and the current state of political engagement in the UK. This widely shared concern over declining electoral turnout is our starting point for a broader investigation into the health of the connections between the public and the political process.
The Inquiry aims to understand why the decline in popular participation and involvement in formal politics has occurred and to provide concrete and innovative proposals to reverse the trend."
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
When is Someone Going to Toss Rumsfeld Into a Cage? (mparent7777.blog-city.com)
"'See, in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda,' Bush said."
Tell a big lie often enough and forcefully enough and the people will believe it.
that is the business you are in Mr Bush
You keep telling us there is no problem with Global warming.
Sorry to tell you that we don't believe you. The worlds scientists are getting together to tell you that.
But you like propaganda rather than truth, don't ya Mr Dubbya.
Tell a big lie often enough and forcefully enough and the people will believe it.
that is the business you are in Mr Bush
You keep telling us there is no problem with Global warming.
Sorry to tell you that we don't believe you. The worlds scientists are getting together to tell you that.
But you like propaganda rather than truth, don't ya Mr Dubbya.
The Bush Bolton version of the United states
The fight to keep Bolton out of the U.N. is a very important one. Listen to his opinions, look at him speak.
Bush wants to replace the U.N. with the U.S.
So maybe any other choice he makes will be as bad.
So, hey, lets look forward to Pax Americana, the new world empire.
Bush makes Ghengis Khan look civilised.
Bush wants to replace the U.N. with the U.S.
So maybe any other choice he makes will be as bad.
So, hey, lets look forward to Pax Americana, the new world empire.
Bush makes Ghengis Khan look civilised.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
The Other Bomb Drops (mparent7777.blog-city.com)
It looks like the democrats are so mired in resonsibility for the Iraq war they dare not start to impeach Bush for starting the war without the blessing of congress or the U.N.
It is now crystal clear that the war was begun a very long time before troops moved into Iraq, and its defences were already pulverised. No wonder they reached Baghdad so quickly.
My M.P. a contender for the Tory leadership, has promised to ask the right questions on my behalf in Parliament and report back. Are the Tories willing to make an issue of it here when they backed the war so strongly.
We shall see.
Sadly it will take a lot of energy to impeach Blair. I expect he will run away long before it gets to that here.
"It only takes one member of Congress to begin an impeachment process, and Conyers is said to be considering the option. The process would certainly be revealing. Congress could subpoena Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, Gen.Tommy Franks and all of the military commanders and pilots involved with the no-fly zone bombings going back into the late 1990s. What were their orders, both given and received? In those answers might lie a case for impeachment.
But another question looms, particularly for Democrats who voted for the war and now say they were misled: Why weren't these unprovoked and unauthorized attacks investigated when they were happening, when it might have had a real impact on the Administration's drive to war? Perhaps that's why the growing grassroots campaign to use the Downing Street memo to impeach Bush can't get a hearing on Capitol Hill. A real probing of this 'smoking gun' would not be uncomfortable only for Republicans. The truth is that Bush, like President Bill Clinton before him, oversaw the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam against a sovereign country with no international or US mandate. That gun is probably too hot for either party to touch. "
It is now crystal clear that the war was begun a very long time before troops moved into Iraq, and its defences were already pulverised. No wonder they reached Baghdad so quickly.
My M.P. a contender for the Tory leadership, has promised to ask the right questions on my behalf in Parliament and report back. Are the Tories willing to make an issue of it here when they backed the war so strongly.
We shall see.
Sadly it will take a lot of energy to impeach Blair. I expect he will run away long before it gets to that here.
"It only takes one member of Congress to begin an impeachment process, and Conyers is said to be considering the option. The process would certainly be revealing. Congress could subpoena Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, Gen.Tommy Franks and all of the military commanders and pilots involved with the no-fly zone bombings going back into the late 1990s. What were their orders, both given and received? In those answers might lie a case for impeachment.
But another question looms, particularly for Democrats who voted for the war and now say they were misled: Why weren't these unprovoked and unauthorized attacks investigated when they were happening, when it might have had a real impact on the Administration's drive to war? Perhaps that's why the growing grassroots campaign to use the Downing Street memo to impeach Bush can't get a hearing on Capitol Hill. A real probing of this 'smoking gun' would not be uncomfortable only for Republicans. The truth is that Bush, like President Bill Clinton before him, oversaw the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam against a sovereign country with no international or US mandate. That gun is probably too hot for either party to touch. "
Thursday, June 02, 2005
The Lone Star Iconoclast Online
The U.S. Britain and Israel have used these Depleted Uranium weapons of mass destruction. Other counties have been sold them.
It should be headlines everywhere. But it stays a dirty big secret.
"ICONOCLAST: Essentially then, you�re saying that we�re conducting a nuclear war.
MORET: Yes, and that�s exactly what it is. We�ve conducted four nuclear wars since 1991. Yeah, these are nuclear wars. DU is a nuclear weapon.
ICONOCLAST: From the point of view of a scientist, what needs to happen to correct this?
MORET: Well, we need to stop the use of it. We�ve built an international movement to stop the use, the manufacture, the storage, the sales, and the deployment of depleted uranium weapons.
ICONOCLAST: Are the munitions we sell to other countries contained with depleted uranium?
MORET: We have. In 1968 the first depleted uranium weapons systems that we found a patent for suddenly appeared in the U.S. patent office. It was for the Navy. It was sort of a Gatling gun style weapon system that you mounted on ships. It rapidly fires like 2,500 bullets a minute. It�s over 3,000 now. They�ve improved the design. Then in 1973, we gave depleted uranium weapons systems to the Israelis and supervised their use. They used them in the Arab-Israeli war and completely wiped out the Arabs in five days. Then the show was on the road. That was the first actual battlefield demonstration of this new weapon system.
Hughes Aircraft developed the full-length system which is for the Navy. That�s the Gatling gun system. They still use it. That was produced in 1974 and tested. Within six months the U.S. government had sold the DU weapons system to 12 entities which included many branches of the U.S. military and other counties. We�ve sold DU weapons systems to about � we don�t know exactly for sure � it�s been about 12 or 17 countries. The good news is that normally such a weapons system that effective would have been sold to 80, 100, or 120 countries by now. But because"
It should be headlines everywhere. But it stays a dirty big secret.
"ICONOCLAST: Essentially then, you�re saying that we�re conducting a nuclear war.
MORET: Yes, and that�s exactly what it is. We�ve conducted four nuclear wars since 1991. Yeah, these are nuclear wars. DU is a nuclear weapon.
ICONOCLAST: From the point of view of a scientist, what needs to happen to correct this?
MORET: Well, we need to stop the use of it. We�ve built an international movement to stop the use, the manufacture, the storage, the sales, and the deployment of depleted uranium weapons.
ICONOCLAST: Are the munitions we sell to other countries contained with depleted uranium?
MORET: We have. In 1968 the first depleted uranium weapons systems that we found a patent for suddenly appeared in the U.S. patent office. It was for the Navy. It was sort of a Gatling gun style weapon system that you mounted on ships. It rapidly fires like 2,500 bullets a minute. It�s over 3,000 now. They�ve improved the design. Then in 1973, we gave depleted uranium weapons systems to the Israelis and supervised their use. They used them in the Arab-Israeli war and completely wiped out the Arabs in five days. Then the show was on the road. That was the first actual battlefield demonstration of this new weapon system.
Hughes Aircraft developed the full-length system which is for the Navy. That�s the Gatling gun system. They still use it. That was produced in 1974 and tested. Within six months the U.S. government had sold the DU weapons system to 12 entities which included many branches of the U.S. military and other counties. We�ve sold DU weapons systems to about � we don�t know exactly for sure � it�s been about 12 or 17 countries. The good news is that normally such a weapons system that effective would have been sold to 80, 100, or 120 countries by now. But because"
Crime against humanity
The strongest motivation for my writing Blairy England has continued to be this country's use of depleted uranium as a tool of wars against people on this planet. It was the pictures of what this stuff is doing to the unborn children of Earth that made this writing more important than novels, plays or poetry. But it is taking a very long time for the message to start to penetrate; unlike the DU, which penetrates humans like it was oxygen, even though the victims include the wests own troops and their unborn children. One study claims 67% of U.S. veterans have had children with birth defects after Gulf War 1.
"But the worst horrors for our soldiers--and for children here at home--may be yet to come. I have never read a more chilling account than the Texas Iconoclast’s interview this week with Lauren Moret, a world-renown scientific expert on depleted uranium. How can a leader who touts “family values” force our soldiers and their families to suffer such unspeakable nightmares as these?
Moret tells of teenage women soldiers returning from Iraq with uterine cancer and male soldiers with rectal cancer, caused by sitting on crates of depleted uranium weapons in their fighting vehicles. She warns of birth defects likely to occur in children of these soldiers, based on Gulf War vets who fathered children born with missing limbs, brains, and eyes. Depleted uranium in our atmosphere is contaminating every portion of our planet. Left unchecked, Moret predicts grimly, “It’s going to kill off the world’s population.”
"But the worst horrors for our soldiers--and for children here at home--may be yet to come. I have never read a more chilling account than the Texas Iconoclast’s interview this week with Lauren Moret, a world-renown scientific expert on depleted uranium. How can a leader who touts “family values” force our soldiers and their families to suffer such unspeakable nightmares as these?
Moret tells of teenage women soldiers returning from Iraq with uterine cancer and male soldiers with rectal cancer, caused by sitting on crates of depleted uranium weapons in their fighting vehicles. She warns of birth defects likely to occur in children of these soldiers, based on Gulf War vets who fathered children born with missing limbs, brains, and eyes. Depleted uranium in our atmosphere is contaminating every portion of our planet. Left unchecked, Moret predicts grimly, “It’s going to kill off the world’s population.”
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Open letter to David Cameron, M.P.
Dear David Cameron,
I am writing an urgent open letter to you as an aspirant and possible future leader of the Tory party on this matter of great National importance,
You once wrote to me that we should have invaded Iraq bwcause we "all know he has W.M.D." We all know now he did not. The evidence is becoming overwhelming now that this was an illegal war of aggression, as Ms Wilshurst described it at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Please respond to a report in the London Times on Sunday, May 29, indicating that British and U.S. aircraft increased their rates of bombing in 2002 in order to provoke an excuse for war in Iraq. Much of this information is provided by the British Ministry of Defense in response to questions posed by Liberal Democrat Sir Menzies Campbell.
As you may know, on May 6, John Conyers wrote to President Bush, along with 88 of his colleagues in the House of Representatives, asking him to respond to allegations first revealed in the London Times on May 1, that the U.S. and British government had a secret plan to invade Iraq by the summer of 2002, well before the Bush Administration requested authorization for military action, from the U.S. Congress. A response is still pending on that request.
The allegations and factual assertions made in the May 29 London Times are in many respects just as serious as those made in the earlier article. They include the following:
"The RAF and U.S. aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs in 2002 .... The attacks were intensified from May .... By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive." Then British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon reportedly told a British Cabinet Meeting in July, 2002, that by this time "the U.S. had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime." The newly released information also appears to show that "the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001."
According to the article, this increase in the rate of bombing was "an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." As I am sure you are aware, allied commander Tommy Franks has previously acknowledged the existence of increased military operations which he asserted were needed "to 'degrade' Iraqi air defenses in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf War."
The new information goes on to indicate that our military decided "on August 5, 2005, for a 'hybrid plan' in which a continuous air offensive and special forces would begin while the main ground force built up in Kuwait for a full-scale invasion." According to the article, "despite the lack of an Iraqi reaction, the air war began anyway in September with a 100-plane raid."
If true, these assertions indicate that not only had the Administration secretly and perhaps illegally agreed to go to war by the summer of 2002, but it also took specific and tangible military actions before asking Congress or the United Nations for authority, and absent an actual or imminent threat.
Thus, while there is considerable doubt as to whether the U.S. had authority to invade Iraq, given, among other things, the failure of the U.N. to issue a follow-up resolution to the November 8, 2002, Resolution 1441, it would seem that the act of engaging in military action via stepped up bombing raids that were not in response to an actual or imminent threat before our government asked for military authority would be even more problematic from a legal as well as a moral perspective.
As a result of these new disclosures, I would ask that you, as my Member of Parliament, take up this issue as promptly as possible with the British Government as to the following questions:
Did the RAF and the United States military increase the rate that they were dropping bombs in Iraq in 2002? If so, what was the extent and timing of the increase?
What was the justification for any such increase in the rate of bombing in Iraq at this time? Was this justification reviewed by legal authorities in the U.K.?
Was there any agreement with any representative of the U.S. Government to engage in military action in Iraq before authority was sought from the Congress or the U.N.? If so, what was the nature of the agreement?
In connection with all of the above questions, please ask the Government to provide you with any memorandum, notes, minutes, documents, phone and other records, e-mails, computer files (including back-up records) or other material of any kind or nature concerning or relating thereto which are in the possession of or accessible by the Department of Defense.
I would encourage you to provide responses to these questions as promptly as possible, as they raise extremely grave and serious questions involving the credibility of our Administration and its constitutional responsibilities. In the interest of time, please feel free to forward me partial responses as they become available.
Sincerely,
I am writing an urgent open letter to you as an aspirant and possible future leader of the Tory party on this matter of great National importance,
You once wrote to me that we should have invaded Iraq bwcause we "all know he has W.M.D." We all know now he did not. The evidence is becoming overwhelming now that this was an illegal war of aggression, as Ms Wilshurst described it at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Please respond to a report in the London Times on Sunday, May 29, indicating that British and U.S. aircraft increased their rates of bombing in 2002 in order to provoke an excuse for war in Iraq. Much of this information is provided by the British Ministry of Defense in response to questions posed by Liberal Democrat Sir Menzies Campbell.
As you may know, on May 6, John Conyers wrote to President Bush, along with 88 of his colleagues in the House of Representatives, asking him to respond to allegations first revealed in the London Times on May 1, that the U.S. and British government had a secret plan to invade Iraq by the summer of 2002, well before the Bush Administration requested authorization for military action, from the U.S. Congress. A response is still pending on that request.
The allegations and factual assertions made in the May 29 London Times are in many respects just as serious as those made in the earlier article. They include the following:
"The RAF and U.S. aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs in 2002 .... The attacks were intensified from May .... By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive." Then British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon reportedly told a British Cabinet Meeting in July, 2002, that by this time "the U.S. had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime." The newly released information also appears to show that "the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001."
According to the article, this increase in the rate of bombing was "an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." As I am sure you are aware, allied commander Tommy Franks has previously acknowledged the existence of increased military operations which he asserted were needed "to 'degrade' Iraqi air defenses in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf War."
The new information goes on to indicate that our military decided "on August 5, 2005, for a 'hybrid plan' in which a continuous air offensive and special forces would begin while the main ground force built up in Kuwait for a full-scale invasion." According to the article, "despite the lack of an Iraqi reaction, the air war began anyway in September with a 100-plane raid."
If true, these assertions indicate that not only had the Administration secretly and perhaps illegally agreed to go to war by the summer of 2002, but it also took specific and tangible military actions before asking Congress or the United Nations for authority, and absent an actual or imminent threat.
Thus, while there is considerable doubt as to whether the U.S. had authority to invade Iraq, given, among other things, the failure of the U.N. to issue a follow-up resolution to the November 8, 2002, Resolution 1441, it would seem that the act of engaging in military action via stepped up bombing raids that were not in response to an actual or imminent threat before our government asked for military authority would be even more problematic from a legal as well as a moral perspective.
As a result of these new disclosures, I would ask that you, as my Member of Parliament, take up this issue as promptly as possible with the British Government as to the following questions:
Did the RAF and the United States military increase the rate that they were dropping bombs in Iraq in 2002? If so, what was the extent and timing of the increase?
What was the justification for any such increase in the rate of bombing in Iraq at this time? Was this justification reviewed by legal authorities in the U.K.?
Was there any agreement with any representative of the U.S. Government to engage in military action in Iraq before authority was sought from the Congress or the U.N.? If so, what was the nature of the agreement?
In connection with all of the above questions, please ask the Government to provide you with any memorandum, notes, minutes, documents, phone and other records, e-mails, computer files (including back-up records) or other material of any kind or nature concerning or relating thereto which are in the possession of or accessible by the Department of Defense.
I would encourage you to provide responses to these questions as promptly as possible, as they raise extremely grave and serious questions involving the credibility of our Administration and its constitutional responsibilities. In the interest of time, please feel free to forward me partial responses as they become available.
Sincerely,
'Tank Girl' Army Accused of Torture
The Brits are arming the women of Iran to start a revolution against the Mullahs?! What a story for the Guardian. Pity about the use of torture, but I expect it is just "torture light"; the feminine touch and all that.
Once was a time we were busy arming Mr Saddam Hissein to go gas the Mullahs. Those Mullahs must be real bad guys. I guess they are just not good Christians. Is this more evidence of the Blair Government's born-again nature?
"'Tank Girl' Army Accused of Torture
Guardian and Human Rights Watch find evidence of abuse by Iranian revolutionaries under US protection
by David Leigh in Nijmegen, Netherlands
A bizarre revolutionary army supported by British politicians who want more 'regime change' in the Middle East, has been accused of torture and brainwashing.
Evidence obtained by the Guardian backs a report by Human Rights Watch. This makes detailed accusations of abuse, including deaths under interrogation, against the 'People's Mujahideen' of Iran (MKO).
The Mujahideen are a 4000-strong anti-Iranian dissident army, currently under US protection in a camp in Iraq. They have a vociferous public relations campaign in Britain and the backing of some Washington neo-conservatives.
The group, known as the 'tank girls' because of the preponderance of women in its ranks, has also won the support of the Daily Telegraph, which wants it to help overthrow the mullahs in Tehran. It says in a leader: 'We should back the main resistance group, the People's Mujahideen ... Give them the tools and they will finish the job'. "
Once was a time we were busy arming Mr Saddam Hissein to go gas the Mullahs. Those Mullahs must be real bad guys. I guess they are just not good Christians. Is this more evidence of the Blair Government's born-again nature?
"'Tank Girl' Army Accused of Torture
Guardian and Human Rights Watch find evidence of abuse by Iranian revolutionaries under US protection
by David Leigh in Nijmegen, Netherlands
A bizarre revolutionary army supported by British politicians who want more 'regime change' in the Middle East, has been accused of torture and brainwashing.
Evidence obtained by the Guardian backs a report by Human Rights Watch. This makes detailed accusations of abuse, including deaths under interrogation, against the 'People's Mujahideen' of Iran (MKO).
The Mujahideen are a 4000-strong anti-Iranian dissident army, currently under US protection in a camp in Iraq. They have a vociferous public relations campaign in Britain and the backing of some Washington neo-conservatives.
The group, known as the 'tank girls' because of the preponderance of women in its ranks, has also won the support of the Daily Telegraph, which wants it to help overthrow the mullahs in Tehran. It says in a leader: 'We should back the main resistance group, the People's Mujahideen ... Give them the tools and they will finish the job'. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)