REAL STORIES
BY REAL PEOPLE Search
Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Series-WeThePeople- Breaking News Impeachment #32

by Rose Mountain (writer), , December 17, 2007

Congressmen Wexler of Judiciary Comm and others are publicly pushing for impeachment of Cheney, Bill HRES 799, his new website asks citizens to sign petition, over 50,000 signatures in one day!

Amazing news for We The People, Congressman Wexler and others are finally listening to The People and ignoring House Speaker Pelosi's statement "Impeachment Is Off The Table", they're calling for immediate impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney! Plus breaking news Congressman Kucinich is preparing documents for a bill to impeach Bush too!!

BELOW--INFO & ACTIONS TO TAKE & RESOURCES

*AfterDowningStreet http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29386 "WE DID IT! 50,000 SIGNATURES CALLING FOR IMMEDIATE CHENEY IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS COLLECTED IN 1 DAY!"
By dlindorff 2007-12-16 "It's not being reported in the corporate media, which also refused to publish an opinion piece penned by six-term Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). But a whopping 50,000 people responded in just one day to Rep. Wexler's call for people to sign his on-line petition supporting an immediate start to hearings on Rep. Dennis Kucinich's Cheney Impeachment bill (H Res 799). As of Sunday morning, 54,000 people had signed the petition at www.WexlerWantsHearings.com [1] calling for action now. And names are being added at a rate of one every one or two seconds! Wexler has said he wanted at least 50,000 signatures. But why stop there? If people get behind this, and if the impeachment movement spreads the word, he could easily get closer to 500,000 signatures over the next few days. And if each of us were to send out a call to sign to ten of our friends, then we'd have half a million signatures, which would be hard for Conyers and the Democratic leadership, Speaker Nancy Pelosi included, to ignore.So let's do it! http://wexlerwantshearings.com sign the petition! Kucinich's impeachment bill was filed on April 24 and has been ignored now for almost eight shameful months. On Nov. 7, a bipartisan majority of 218 members of the House voted to send it from the floor of the House back to the Judiciary Committee for action. Now it's sat there for over four weeks. We need to tell Congress, and particularly the Democrats who are stalling on this important defense of the Constitution and of democracy itself that time's up. We the American People want action. We want impeachment hearings!"

*Congressman Wexler at http://www.wexlerforcongress.com/news.asp?ItemID=7
"WEXLER CALLS FOR CHENEY IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS
Congressman Robert Wexler, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, is calling upon Congress to immediately schedule impeachment hearings for Vice President Richard Cheney. Wexler - "For the sake of history, and in order to be faithful to our Constitutional obligations, the Judiciary Committee must immediately convene impeachment hearings to determine whether the official actions of Vice President Cheney constitute 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' and require that he be impeached. Each day we fail to act is a validation of the misdeeds of the Vice President and damages the credibility of the Democratic Party."

"The FULL TEXT OF LETTER:

"As a person who supports holding this Administration accountable for their deceptive actions, you may be interested to know about the recent votes in the House regarding H.Res. 333, "Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors."

I share your belief that Vice President Cheney must answer for his deceptive actions in office, particularly with regard to the preparations for the Iraq war and the revelation of the identity of covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson as part of political retribution against her husband. That is why I voted against the motion to table debate on H.Res. 333. Along with only 85 other Democrats, I opposed tabling the measure and supported beginning immediate debate and a vote on the Cheney impeachment resolution. The vote on tabling the Kucinich resolution was rejected, and the House subsequently voted to refer the matter to the Judiciary Committee.

Vice President Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration have demonstrated a consistent pattern of abusing the law and misleading Congress and the American people. We see the consequences of these actions abroad in Iraq and at home through the violations of our civil liberties. The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months.

Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration; and, if it is determined in these hearings that Vice President Cheney has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors, he should be impeached and removed from office. It is time for Congress to expose the multitude of misdeeds of the Administration, and I am hopeful that the Judiciary Committee will expeditiously begin an investigation of this matter.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. I sincerely appreciate your input and hope that you will feel free to contact me anytime I may be of assistance to you.

With warm regards,

Congressman Robert Wexler"
------

*COPY BELOW--LIBRARY OF CONGRESS HRES 799
"Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to... (Introduced in House)

HRES 799 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 799
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 6, 2007
Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:

(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.

(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.

(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.

(F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.

(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts.

(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.

(3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.

(A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'.

(B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'.

(C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article II

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:

(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.

(B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.

(C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa.

(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.

(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:

(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'.

(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'.

(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article III

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:

(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.

(B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.

(C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.

(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:

(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.

(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:

(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.

(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.

(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.

(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian Government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the State Department has branded it a terrorist organization.

(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.

(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.

(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.

(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.

The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office."
-----------

*TO FIND TEXT ABOVE-LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CHENEY BILL HRES 799. (was HRES 333) STEP 1 Click website http://thomas.loc.gov/ STEP 2 See Search Box, Type in HRES 799, Click below box "Bill Number",Click "Search".

*WEXLER WEBSITE--Excerpts Florida's news coverage on Wexler's stand on impeachment. See end for link to news article. http://www.wexlerforcongress.com/news.asp?ItemID=11


TAKE ACTION

*SIGN WEXLER'S IMPEACH PETITION http://wexlerwantshearings.com

*BREAKING NEWS & ACTIONS http://afterdowningstreet.org http://worldcantwait.net http://pdamerica.org

*IMPEACH WEBSITES & EVENTS http://afterdowningstreet.org http://impeachcheney.org http://worldcantwait.net http://impeachbush.org http://citizensimpeach.org/

*EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH BUSH & CHENEY
Archives all Key Documents at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments and http://impeachcheney.org

Series-We The People-Articles #1-#20 http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2484
Evidence in all articles #1-#31, Conyer's & Kucinich's Impeach Bills & Impeach Articles in #1, #11, #12, #28



About the Writer

Rose Mountain is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

14 comments on Series-WeThePeople- Breaking News Impeachment #32

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Rose Mountain on December 17, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Thanks to Supportive Readers of this Series the newest Article #32 is now back in the paper, in the Political Section only. As soon as it was published it got "Excellent" Votes & Reviews plus the Jerry Springer Show knocked it with "Awful" Votes & Reviews (like always), so due to Broowaha internal formulas that give most weight to "Awful" Votes & Reviews it disappeared into the archives. You wouldn't think that could happen with a Series of Articles that have been read 17,000 times. To help stop this game with each new article, please sign-up with Broowaha so you can Vote & Review all articles you've read. Most Readers of this Series are not signed-up. However Congressmen confirm data-mining by Govt on internet of innocent US citizens especially anti-war activists--So don't use real name & info, but you do need a mailbox. Thanks for everything. Please keep spreading the news and keep the faith.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Rose Mountain on December 17, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Remember Congressman Conyers of Judiciary Comm a few years ago compiled evidence (before new crimes) in document "Constitution In Crisis" published as book "George W. Bush versus The U.S. Constitution". Conyers also had bills to impeach both Bush & Cheney with over 120 Congresspeople co-sponsoring. Congresspeople take an oath of office to defend the Constitution, so they have no choice, which is what we need to remind them, however millions of We The People know more information than some of the Congresspeople because we've been getting the raw documents since the media has been censoring them and censoring the whistleblowers, plus the Bush Admin has been lying and manipulating Congress too, which Conyers and Kucinich included in their Articles of Impeachment. Congressman Wexler is asking the public to sign a petition as a reminder that the national polls keep showing the majority want both Bush & Cheney impeached, as a top priority, for feelings of safety. Conyers did Petitions with the public too, with certain questions and evidence against the Admin, then Conyers delivered them to the White House. First Conyers held a press conference then delivered the boxes of petitions. The White House guards were shocked to see how many boxes kept coming through the White House gates, each filled with petitions from We The People. A beautiful sight of the Power Of The People.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Rose Mountain on December 18, 2007 at 05:03 pm
DEAR SUPPORTIVE READERS--Congratulations you found this newest Article #32. This is the 2nd time since published yesterday it's been knocked off the paper to the archives. So please give it Votes & Reviews so it can come back into the Political Section so everyone can read it. Thought I'd copy this below, to bring more faith & light during these dark times...Credo in New York wrote a wonderful article about how children need a mother's love so that our society can be filled with loving beings, and here's my Comment under his article. "Credo I'm so glad you wrote an article on the Power of Love, that's what I hoped to write about as I evolve my Series. This wonderful statement of yours contains the essence of what I've always known.. "Everything that we do in our lives we do it for love or a lack thereof." The entire world can be understood by the presence or lack of love, and it can be healed with the heart of compassion... Like you and millions of others in the world I can sense the full presence of love and compassion or the lack thereof by degree, within all human endeavors--in individuals and the ways people think/feel, relationships, groups, social systems, social policies, governments, businesses, the corporate climate, academic frameworks for all subjects like economics, history, and psychology, the architecture of cities and buildings, the resonances of music, etc etc My experience has led me to see that there are two components at work, 1) wounding from childhood which continues into adulthood until healed, 2) the degree to which one is born heart-evolved. If one has worked with children and chimpanzees you know that love & compassion & forgiveness are natural gifts we're all born with. So it becomes clear how many wounded emotional attitudes are taught by society & parents, like racism, sexism, greed, selfishness, etc etc Yet many people have a gift of being deeply loving and compassionate which often persists regardless of upbringing, and others have the gift of love with the heart courage to lead a nation, like Martin Luther King Jr & Gandhi, etc As they say--"Either Love is present in our every act and word, our every thought, or it is not. And to the degree that Love is absent or waning, so too our healing is diminished and postponed. For love heals people--the ones who give it and the ones who receive it." The courage to heal is rooted in the heart, healing requires honesty and emotional authenticity with oneself and then others, then we can heal our society and the world." In Peace Rose Mountain
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Rose Mountain on December 19, 2007 at 04:25 am
Dear Brooklyn Genes, I guess the rightwing called for your assistance, why don't you ask them why they're so fixated on my Series, if they don't like it why don't they focus on their own articles and readers? As I've tried to explain to them, and I will try to explain to you, millions of Americans across the political spectrum are horrified by the Bush Admin and what is happening to our country. And like millions of other citizens and hundreds of high-level government whistleblowers I am trying to spread the news. The US media is censoring most everything, including the British BBC News Investigation called "US Secret Plans for Iraq Oil", the BBC airs worldwide. Read my Article #20 called London News Blasts Bush, it's an Editorial from the London Financial Times, asking the US Supreme Court to stop Bush abuses since Congress won't, it's a plea to our country to begin acting like a democracy. Why do you think Blair had to step down? 30 members of Parliament tried to impeach him, and he promised the British citizens he would step down. Many of the documents about the illegal war and the Bush Admin intentions came from the Blair Admin. So most everyone in the world knows when they hit the British press. The British press keeps commenting on the silence of the US media. What you may not realize is that the United Nations never authorized the US to invade Iraq, the British and the Blair Admin knew the US had no legal grounds to invade, and the whole world knows that the Bush Admin invaded to steal the oil. And this is only the tip of the iceburg. If you don't believe me, read Article #2, Iraq Veterans Against War. They give reasons why they want an immediate withdrawal, and say this is a criminal illegal war for oil. Betrayal is hurtful and scary, if you want to stay in denial that is your choice, but most Americans are trying to save our country. I wish you peace, and I wish you would leave my Series in Peace.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By Steven Blake on December 19, 2007 at 05:47 am
Actually almost everyone knows the UN didn't approve. It’s common Knowledge. What isn't common knowledge is the fact that everyone in the political realm against the war except for one VOTED for war. Now have used it as a political turncoat. Look you want to bash Bush I don't blame you, but when you do remember that most of BOTH parties agreed and VOTED to go to war. This has become a political scapegoat. Next don't say these are my articles when you copied and pasted, it doesn't help your fight at all. Thirdly I am a veteran and I would tell you "your" number 2 is off base. But what do I know.... I would say that the whole article sounds like a media frenzy trying to stir the pot...but it must be true it was written and not by you. Finally, three things; first we "check" these articles because naive people like you believe what they have to say and we want to correct it, secondly everyone agrees there was misconception by some portion of the government (not necessarily Bush, although I don't rule him out), and finally Bush is trying to do the right thing unlike many politicians cause its bad for their career. Reality of it is we are there as a nation and we fucked it up! We have a responsibility to try and make it better and not just walk away. We can't call mommy and daddy to bail "the nation" out of what we did. We MUST stand behind the action at this point and make it right. Look, don't be just blinded by what you hear and read. Investigate more please and write your own articles; you do yourself a great discredit when you copy and paste because you it makes you the same as everyone that originally agreed to go to war. GUILTY I am sorry if I offended you in anyway but this is one sailors' opinion who has some experience in the government.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 3
By Rose Mountain on December 19, 2007 at 01:55 pm
Stephen, I'm trying to spread the news, there's too much deception and layers of lies in the public sphere. But there's no way for you to know that unless you saw the hundreds of whistleblower testimonies and leaked documents with your own eyes. For example--Blair's Admin never tried to pretend that the British leaked Downing Street Documents weren't true. The British media printed all nine, and mentioned the silence of the US media, the US media finally printed one of nine. The memo about the British Head of Intelligence that had just come back from a meeting with the US Head Of Intelligence, it was a backdoor channels meeting set-up by Blair to get the truth from the Head Of CIA, Tenet. The British Intelligence Head was told that the US Intelligence was being manipulated. US Congressmembers were also directly deceived, which is why this has been included in the Articles Of Impeachment, lying to US citizens, Congress and the United Nations. But I agree on one point you make, the Democrats running for President except Kucinich, have not done all their homework to discover the truth under all the deceptions. So they're still brainwashed about a few things, which is why the Democrat Voters are angry with them. And most Americans were relying on the Democrat leaders in Congress to save the country.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Rose Mountain on December 20, 2007 at 02:07 am
So I guess you think everyone is crazy--the US Military Intelligence, CIA whistleblowers, FBI whistleblowers, Pentagon whistleblowers, Bush Admin whistleblowers, the International Atomic Energy Comission, the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace Director for NonProliferation, British BBC News Investigations, 32 British Parliament Members who tried to impeach Blair, the United Nations Security Council, Amnesty International, 60% of the American public, 200 US Congressmembers, etc. You guys are out of your league if you're trying to claim everyone crazy.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Rose Mountain on December 20, 2007 at 02:31 am
Whistleblower List continues....US covert expert on Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Middle East, US Head Of Counterterrorism for Bush Admin, Bush Admin Transportation Secretary, Bush Admin White House Press Secretary, former President Nixon's Legal Advisor, US Supreme Court, Florida State Supreme Court,etc etc
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Rose Mountain on December 20, 2007 at 02:36 am
*Copy LIBRARY OF CONGRESS HRES 799 "Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to... (Introduced in House) HRES 799 IH 110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. RES. 799 Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES November 6, 2007 Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary RESOLUTION Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate: Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit: (1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction: (A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace. (B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. (C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney. (D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention. (F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States. (A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts. (B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence. (3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies. (A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'. (B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'. (C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'. The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq. In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. Article II In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit: (1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda: (A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference. (B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia. (C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa. (F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation. (G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney. (H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney. (I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney. (2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including: (A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'. (B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'. (C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'. The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq. In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. Article III In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit: (1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following: (A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference. (B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney. (C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney. (D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia. (2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following: (A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007. (B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007. (C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007. (3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following: (A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue. (B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region. (C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran. (D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian Government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the State Department has branded it a terrorist organization. (E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups. (4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force. (A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States. (B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal. (C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal. The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States. In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office."
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Rose Mountain on December 20, 2007 at 02:42 am
Article by the Director of Nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says not one Iraq claim by Bush and Cheney was true. (see C-Span for Carnegie Report & testimony at Congressional Intelligence Committee Hearing 6/26/2006) "Not One Claim Was True" By Joseph Cirincione, Director of Nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This article first appeared in the January/February 2005 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. To access this publication, visit www.thebulletin.org. Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War By John Prados Reviewed by Joseph Cirincione "As George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lower their hands after being sworn in for their second terms, they will be smiling. And with good reason. They will have gotten away with the greatest con in the history of the American presidency. They willfully and systematically misled the American people and our closest allies on the most crucial question any government faces: Must we go to war? Not one of the dozens of claims they made about Iraq’s alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, missiles, unmanned drones, or most importantly, Iraq’s nuclear weapons and ties to Al Qaeda, were true. Not one. Yet no one in the administration has been held accountable for the hundreds of false statements or—if you believe they made the statements in good faith—for their faulty judgments and incompetence. Almost all the key officials, save former CIA Director George Tenet, will still be in office to celebrate the administration’s reelection. (When Tenet resigned for “personal reasons,” Bush praised him for having done “a superb job”; he has since made more than $500,000 in speaking fees.) We now know with absolute certainty, as Cheney likes to say, that during the buildup to the 2003 Iraq War Saddam Hussein did not have any of these weapons, did not have production programs for manufacturing these weapons, and did not have plans to restart programs for these weapons. The most that Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, was able to tell Congress in October was that Saddam might have had the “intention” to restart these programs at some point. The weapons were not destroyed shortly before the war, nor were they moved to Syria, as some still claim. They never existed. As Duelfer reported, the weapons and facilities had been destroyed by the United Nations inspectors and U.S. bombing strikes in the 1990s, and he found no evidence of “concerted efforts to restart the program” (Washington Post, October 7, 2004). In short, administration officials “hoodwinked” America, as John Prados carefully and convincingly documents in his book by that name. Because Prados wrote and published his research in early 2004, one might think it has been overtaken by subsequent events, including the publication of the Senate Intelligence Committee report that provided new details of the false claims. But it has not. It is still a fascinating read for two reasons, apart from the author’s skill as a storyteller. First, Prados does what the Senate Committee refused to do. He describes the political process behind the development of the false intelligence. The Senate report, a valuable and solid piece of work, pulled its political punches. The committee concluded that while “most of the major key judgments” in the October 2002 national intelligence estimate (NIE) were “either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence report,” the failures were a result of “systematic weaknesses, primarily in analytic trade craft, compounded by a lack of information sharing, poor management, and inadequate intelligence collection” as well as a “groupthink” mentality, rather than administration pressure. In other words, they blamed the lower-ranking analysts. Au contraire, says Prados. The president and vice president had decided even before September 11, 2001 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. This was to be the beginning of an historic crusade to forcibly remake the geopolitics of the Middle East (for more on this, see Walter C. Uhler, “Preempting the Truth,” September/October 2004 Bulletin). But the drive for war ran into serious opposition in summer 2003, particularly from respected Republican moderates such as retired general Brent Scowcroft. Prados quotes Scowcroft’s prescient warning that an invasion of Iraq “could turn the whole region into a cauldron and, thus, destroy the war on terrorism.” The administration’s response, says Prados, “was to craft a scheme to convince America and the world that war with Iraq was necessary and urgent, a scheme, unfortunately, that required patently untrue public statements and egregious manipulations of intelligence.” White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card set up a special White House Information Group chaired by political guru Karl Rove in August 2002 to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the new campaign. Prados takes readers step by step through the stages of this political operation, weaving together the strands of official statements, media stories, and behind-the-scenes struggles in the intelligence community. By also reproducing key intelligence documents, speeches, and press releases—all annotated to pinpoint false statements, exaggerations, and contradictions—Hoodwinked does double duty and is a valuable research tool for scholars and experts. Most of the documents are available on the web, but it is helpful to have them all assembled in printed form. And Prados’s annotations, of course, are available only in the book. Mistakes and Misdirections--The key document in the administration’s campaign was the CIA White Paper on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. The White Paper was hurriedly produced and distributed to the public in October 2002 as an unclassified version of the now-infamous NIE that was given to Congress in the same month, just a few days before the vote to authorize the use of force. These two documents convinced the majority of congressional members, experts, and journalists that Saddam had a powerful and growing arsenal. I have pored over these two deeply flawed documents (Prados cites work from the January 2004 Carnegie study, WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications, which I coauthored). There is not one claim in the reports that proved true, except the finding that Saddam was highly unlikely to transfer any weapons to terrorist groups—a finding that the administration ignored and was not included in the public White Paper. Prados does a superb job of detailing not only the major false statements, but also the many subtle, yet critical, misdirections. The first paragraph of the White Paper concludes that Iraq “probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.” This claim was then repeated endlessly to the public. The classified NIE, Prados notes, predicted Iraq might acquire a bomb some time from 2007 to 2009, “a time frame that is far in the future, negating President Bush’s claim that Iraq poses an urgent national security threat.” Setting aside the fact that the estimate itself was wildly wrong, by dropping the dates, the public was told to “fear for tomorrow as well as 2007,” Prados correctly notes. (This technique is now cropping up in the debate over Iran. Those who favor military action are again making the threat appear closer than it is by minimizing the substantial technological and engineering obstacles that Iran must overcome to be able to enrich uranium and manufacture a weapon.) We Got Tubed--Michael Gordon of the New York Times published a lengthy article on October 3, 2004, detailing how the administration manipulated the evidence to support a claim that Iraq had imported aluminum tubes for centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, presented much of that research in his report “Iraq’s Aluminum Tubes: Separating Fact from Fiction,” in December 2003. Others, myself included, have weighed in on the tubes, including Seymour Hersh for the New Yorker, Spencer Abraham and John Judis for the New Republic, and Jonathan Landay and others at Knight-Ridder. Despite this, Prados’s treatment of the story of the tubes—central to the administration’s case—is still worth reading. He provides a critical element: “The way the tube allegation surfaced bears every mark of an orchestrated leak by the Bush administration, quite possibly one planned by the White House Information Group.” The New York Times has never acknowledged this, not in Gordon’s otherwise excellent article, nor in its inadequate May 26, 2004 apology (buried on page 10) regarding its coverage of the administration’s pre-war claims. I agree with Prados. It has always seemed to me that the story on aluminum tubes made it to the front page of the September 8, 2003 New York Times because the unnamed administration officials quoted in the piece gave the paper much-treasured inside information. Having set up the Times story, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Cheney were primed when they appeared on the Sunday talk shows that same day, pointing to the article as confirmation of their claims. We now know that when Rice said that the tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,” she knew it was untrue. She had already been briefed on the disagreements in the intelligence community and knew that leading U.S. experts did not think the tubes were at all suitable for centrifuges. Prados published his book too soon to take advantage of the Senate report, which provides a fascinating exchange of e-mails between a State Department expert and an Energy Department expert fuming about the way higher-ups at the CIA were twisting the intelligence. By exaggerating the evidence on Iraq, one expert warns the other, “the administration will eventually look foolish, i.e., the tubes and Niger.” Foolish, but reelected. Now the president is purging from the CIA the officials who opposed the intelligence manipulation, not the ones who ran the con. Hoodwinked contains an abundance of valuable information. It is hard to read without becoming infuriated, but it is worth it. This book should be part of your Iraq War collection." Joseph Cirincione, Director of Nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is coauthor of WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications (2003), which is available at www.ProliferationNews.org. Copyright © 2007 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All Rights Reserved. http:carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=print&id=16364
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Rose Mountain on December 20, 2007 at 02:59 am
(British Paper)"From The Sunday Times June 19, 2005 "The Leaked Iraq War Documents" by Michael Smith "The level of interest in the now famous Downing Street Memo, published in the May 1 edition of The Sunday Times, and in the leaked documents published over subsequent weeks, has been extraordinary This new web page is designed to give our readers access to all the stories we have written about three highly classified documents on the Iraq war that were leaked to The Sunday Times ahead of the British General Election on May 5, 2005. These three documents include the now famous Downing Street Memo which contains the minutes of a meeting, of what was effectively Tony Blair’s war cabinet, held in Downing Street, on July 23, 2002. The meeting was a crucial one. President George W Bush was due to make a decision on which military plan should be used for the invasion of Iraq. The British had a number of deep concerns over the US plans which Blair would have to raise with the US president. The Foreign Office was particularly concerned over US lack of interest in planning for the aftermath of the war and the lack of a legal justification for ousting Saddam. Regime change for its own sake is illegal under international law. It was therefore seen as essential that the allies went first to the UN to obtain a Security Council resolution backing the use of force to oust Saddam. It was in this context that the main players on the British side met. Blair chaired the meeting, which was also attended by the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw; the then Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon; the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith; Sir Richard Dearlove, the Chief of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (better known as MI6); the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee John Scarlett; and Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, who as Chief of Defence Staff was head of Britain’s armed forces. The key quotes in this particular document came from: Dearlove, who had just returned from Washington where he had talks with George Tenet, and was quoted as saying that there was “a perceptible shift in attitude” in the US capital. “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, though 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... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.” Straw, who said: “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.” Britain 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.” And Geoff Hoon, who in what may yet turn out to be the most damaging quote of all, said that “the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime”. (See British Bombing Raids were Illegal, says Foreign Office, June 19, 2005) An inside-page article set out the context for the publication of the leaked document (see Blair planned Iraq war from the start, May 1, 2005), and it was in fact the second of the documents, the Cabinet Office briefing paper, Iraq: Conditions for Military Action, on which we based our first front-page story (Blair hit by new leak of secret war plan, May 1, 2005). This document distributed on July 21, 2002 two days before the Downing Street meeting was designed to brief the participants on the latest situation with regard to the US war planning. It gives an astonishing feel of the official concern felt within Whitehall over the way in which things were going, the lack of legal justification, the failure to prepare for the post-war situation in Iraq and most particularly the fact that there was no way that Britain could get out of going to war (See Ministers were told of need for Gulf War excuse, June 12, 2005). For as the briefing paper made clear very early on “When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change.” At the time, this was the most damaging part of any of the documents. Despite Blair’s repeated insistence throughout 2002 that no decision had been taken to go to war with Iraq, political analysts had long believed that the decision was in fact made at the Bush-Blair summit at the president’s range at Crawford, Texas, in early April 2002. Not only did this confirm it, but it did so in terms that were highly damaging to the prime minister. Despite having been warned by his officials that “regime change per se is illegal” he had agreed to back military action to achieve it. There were three conditions attached to his agreement. But the most crucial of these, that “options for action to eliminate Iraq’s WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted” would never be achieved. The third leaked document was Foreign Office legal advice, which was appended to the briefing paper. This is a useful background document on the British view of international law the text of which is now also published on this website. The recent circulation on the internet of the text of five other similar memos, which were leaked to me last September, has raised some interesting issues, largely because I destroyed the original copies I was given to protect my source. A number of supporters of President Bush have even suggested that this somehow “proved” that the documents were not genuine. Firstly, all of the documents have been authenticated not just by me, but by the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press. Secondly, the various documents included quotes from a dozen senior officials, including Blair, Straw and Hoon, none of whom have come forward to dismiss them as fakes. Thirdly it is a matter of record that a police Special Branch leak investigation took place into how I came to get hold of the documents, something that would not have occurred were they forgeries. The leak investigation should come as no surprise to anyone who has read the Downing Street Memo, which carries the stern warning, “This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.” The irony is of course that the attention given to the document by the internet bloggers once it appeared on this website has almost certainly made it the most widely read secret British document in history."
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Rose Mountain on December 20, 2007 at 03:14 am
If anyone can read the above documents and still have the lack of awareness to harass me, then I wish you peace and I wish you'd leave my Series in Peace.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Rose Mountain on December 24, 2007 at 05:11 pm
TO ALL MY SUPPORTIVE READERS--- I wish you all a peaceful and joyful holiday. Remember We are the leaders now and there's millions of us. We each have much work ahead of us to bring Truth & Peace & healing to US and thus world, I suggest-focus on what you can do, relax as needed, keep your faith alive, find inspiration from whatever works best for you including friends, groups, music, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr,etc, etc. In Comraderie of Future Peace and Joy For All
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Credo on October 28, 2013 at 09:42 am

Most people are acutely afraid of any truth, and thus, they have to smash it where ever they discover it.

However it makes them appear, like they have a lot to hide, especially when they react in such a hostile and immature manner.

They all talk about how they love God and country and believe in equality, yet their premises aren't authenticated when it shows that they don't love Truth.

:)Credo

 Report abuse



Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.


Rate This Article


Your vote matters to us



x


x