REAL STORIES
BY REAL PEOPLE Search
Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Series - We The People - Impeach & War News #33

by Rose Mountain (writer), , December 31, 2007

Below are updates, important overviews of impeach evidence, events for antiwar/impeach activists, new articles on Bush Admin abuses, links to 9 years US censored news by Project Censored.

It's time for We The People to celebrate how far We've come and to have faith that the light is beginning to shine cracks of truth everywhere. Yet We still have much work to do to restore democracy in America, stop the illegal and immoral wars, impeach Bush and Cheney, reveal the Bush Admin's layers of deceptions that permeate the US news and the minds of many in Congress and America.

Due to the heroism of high-level whistleblowers and hundreds of thousands of others, readers of this Series have read the evidence that the US intelligence on Iraq was manipulated by the Bush Admin, that Bush's wars are for oil and global domination, that the "global network of terrorism" is a fabricated myth to create fear in the US to manipulate consent for illegal and immoral wars. Yet it's imperative that each of us do what we can to spread the truth to others. It's true that a majority of Americans want Bush & Cheney impeached and the wars to end, that the mass protests over the years grow only stronger, and that mainstream media is slowly opening up, but there's still much work ahead due to the fear, denial, and ignorance of facts in this country. Many Congresspeople Democrats and Republicans want to believe that waiting for the next election won't cause more harm to the US and world. Meanwhile some citizens who know better, still respond to activists by saying "You're singing to the choir", so there's a saying among activists these days "We know we're singing to the choir, but the choir isn't singing". Overall it really doesn't matter which side the fear and ignorance and denial obstacles come from, for the only solution is We need to save our country now! If this isn't a scary enough challenge, remember the world is depending on We The People to change the course of our country, stop the US abuses in the world so countries worldwide can heal from the last century of covert US and corporate abuse.

This article has update comments by Congressman Wexler on the impeachment of Cheney, update articles on Congress passing bills for war funding which activists were trying to prevent, helpful overviews of evidence on impeachment, events for antiwar and impeach activists to join,etc. This article is divided into sections, first the impeachment updates with overviews and key evidence, then impeach and antiwar events, articles on warfunding, articles on what the US is covertly doing in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, then links to 9 years of US censored news articles by Project Censored with a copy of their overview of the Bush Admin global domination plans, concluding with articles on new Bush Admin abuses.

*GREAT EDITORIAL Congresswoman Moore 24th Co-Sponsor of Bill to Impeach Cheney http://madison.com/tct/opinion/editorial/264111

*SIGN CONGRESSMAN WEXLER'S PUBLIC PETITION FOR IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS TO BEGIN at http://wexlerwantshearings.com Wexler is in the Judiciary Committee where Congressman Kucinich's Bill HRES 799 to impeach Cheney is now. Wexler and others in the Judiciary Committee are trying to push for hearings to begin so they need the support of others including Congressman Conyers the Leader of the Judicial Committee. As of Saturday 12/29/07 at 3PM total signatures reached 162,518. Congressman Wexler originally only asked for 50,000 but that was reached on the first day, so he's set a new goal that he talks about in his letter below. Wexler will show these Petitions to Congress, so the more signatures the better. Congressman Conyers was our first leader of the impeachment movement and our hero. Conyers collected the leaked documents, investigations, evidence and wrote a Report "Constitution in Crisis" published as the Book "George W. Bush versus The U.S. Constitution". Conyers had Bills to form a Committee to impeach both Bush & Cheney. Since 2006 Conyers has been reluctant to push for impeachment since House Speaker Pelosi said "Impeachment is off the table." Wexler's letter is below, followed by overviews of the impeach process and key evidence, then read the recent interview of Conyers on the impeachment issue by Democracy Now.

*CONGRESSMAN WEXLER "Cheney Impeachment - Mainstream Media Wakes Up" By Congressman Robert Wexler posted 12/27/07 at http://afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29589 "As we prepare to celebrate the New Year, my resolution is to hold George Bush and Dick Cheney accountable for their abuses of power. In the last days, we have made real progress: The mainstream media has awakened to this movement and to the extraordinary support you have given it. Your calls, letters, and emails have clearly made a difference. Already 140,000 people have joined us in demanding impeachment hearings for Vice President Dick Cheney by signing up at http://wexlerwantshearings.com The power of these combined voices are already shaking up the established order on Capitol Hill and throughout the mainstream media: This week, the Miami Herald printed an article on our efforts that was syndicated in papers across the country, including the Detroit Free Press, Philadelphia Inquirer,Fort Worth Telegram, Contra Costa Times, Sacramento Bee, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, NC News & Observer, and others. {Click HERE for article http://wexlerforcongress.com/news.asp?ItemID=222 ) In addition,CBS4 in Miami became the first station we know of to run a television segment about the call for hearings. Video http://cbs4.com/local/Robert.Wexler.Dick.2.617621.html
Perhaps most importantly, just this morning the Philadelphia Inquirer courageously ran the full editorial I drafted along with my fellow Judiciary Committee members Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (R-WI). View http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20071227ImpeachCheney_now.html Congratulations to the Inquirer for their willingness to publish a viewpoint that is so widely held by Americans – yet one that other leading national newspapers refused to publish. We have come so far in just a few weeks. No longer can the mainstream media ignore our efforts and dismiss this cause as only part of the fringe left. Already we are seeing tangible results from our combined effort. As you already know, Congress is well behind the American people on this issue. This is an uphill battle, but it's one that has to be fought. It should not be the whole agenda, but it needs be *on· the agenda. When Congress reconvenes in January, I plan to present a list to my Judiciary Committee colleagues of every single person that signed up at WexlerWantsHearings.com. I will go to more of my colleagues and ask them to join a letter in support of hearings. We will build on the momentum you have given us. Last week,I spent an hour on Blog Talk Radio outlining thoughts and answering questions in regards to this work. So many people hit their site that their servers temporarily went down. If you'd like to hear the archived audio http://wexlerforcongress.com/news.asp?ItemID=220 Let's do our best to further spread the message so that list will be up to a quarter million. Please continue to blog, email friends, and insist that your family and friends sign up! Thanks for your commitment." Congressman Robert Wexler

WEXLER'S P.S. I have been running online ads to make more people aware of our impeachment campaign. If you are interested in making a contribution to this effort you can click here


CHENEY IMPEACH BILL IN MAINSTREAM NEWS

Articles Below via http://afterdowningstreet.org

*Florida News on Wexler's Call to Impeach http://miamiherald.com/top_stories/story/356540.html

*Florida News & Video--CBS Affiliate on Florida Protestors support impeachment & Wexler's impeach petition website. http://cbs4.com/local/Robert.Wexler.Dick.2.617621.html

*Washington State Resolution to Impeach Bush & Cheney http://theolympian.com/southsound/story/310232.html

*Citizens For Impeachment Visit Santa Barbara Congresswoman http://afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29574

*VIDEO News Impeach Protestors Will Join Rose Bowl Parade http://afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29562

*East Coasters Will Join Impeach & Anti War Rose Parade http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29577


*CURRENT IMPEACH PROCESS-- Kucinich's Bill to impeach Cheney HRES 799 (was HRES 333)has already been to the Floor of the House of Representatives and got a bipartisan Vote that sent it to the Judiciary Committee. (Everyone says the Republicans Voted this way to try to embarass the Democrats, I guess it's part of their strategy machine that operates constantly. But some of them must know what the US Polls say, I keep wondering if they Voted to save themselves from incrimination.) The Judiciary Committee is where the impeachment Bill must be to begin the process, but it could die in the Committee if the Committee Members don't support it. The impeachment process begins with evidence heard in the House of Representatives, if a majority concur(just over 50%), it's called being impeached (like being indicted), then the case goes to the Senate who acts like the jury, the Senate must concur by a 2/3 Vote in order to remove Bush & Cheney from office. (Above is is a Correction to an Error in Article #28 which said the House of Reps needed 2/3 Vote--The Correction is for Congress to impeach a President/Vice President the House of Reps only needs a majority, to remove them from office the Senate must concur with 2/3 Vote.)

I'm not sure of the process but hopefully the next step for Bush & Cheney could be to stand trial in an official International War Crimes Tribunal. There were already two unofficial international citizen Tribunals on Bush, Cheney, Blair, and US & UK media, in which they were charged and indicted with Crimes Against Humanity. See Article #8 World Tribunals on Bush. (For the record--I don't know what happens when Heads of State are indicted for Crimes Against Humanity, but I don't believe in the death penalty.}

INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW & KEY EVIDENCE--Congressman Kucinich's Impeach Bill for Cheney is now in the Judiciary Committee, and Kucinich is now collecting documents to impeach Bush too. (I wish the Articles of Impeachment against Bush & Cheney included all the evidence of all their deceptions & crimes.) Congressman Kucinich's Bill to Impeach Cheney HRES 799 (was HRES 333) has three Articles of Impeachment, the text is in Article #32 of this Series at http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2783 I suggest readers and activists read the text of the Articles of Impeachment against Cheney,then study the main evidence in Article #4 Iraq Lies & Whistleblowers at http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=1950 Also read Article #7 Carnegie Report Bush Lies, Article #30 WMD Expert VS White House. Remember this Series only has some of the key evidence, the tip of the iceburg of massive amounts of evidence, for all documents see archives at http://afterdowningstreet.org

The Carnegie Endowment foundation is known and respected worldwide. The Carnegie Endowment has a department for the study of Nonproliferation and International Peace, and a member from this department testified in the Congressional Hearing for the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Feinstein of California was part of that Hearing. Article #7 http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2035 has an article written by the Director for Nonproliferation and International Peace that says every claim Bush & Cheney made was a lie, an intentional lie. In Article #7 the Director says that the Congressional Report compiled after the Hearing whitewashed the responsibility of the Bush Admin for manipulating the intelligence. I saw the Hearing on C-SPAN TV the evidence was clear to me, and most every Congressperson was visibly shocked by the evidence including the one lone Republican. At the end of the Hearing, Senator Feinstein said "I've heard enough", the Republican said he was shocked at the evidence and ashamed he was the only Republican in attendance and apologized that other Republicans were not doing their duty. There was also testimony by a "Bush Admin expert" who didn't hold the Bush Admin responsible, however the Carnegie Director looked him straight in the eyes and said, your sources weren't high enough up the ladder to know what really happened.

This is a classic example of what's been happening for 7 years in every department of our government. Either experts and workers are part of the manipulation or they are fired and demoted, others may be ignorant of the manipulations or they try to pretend they don't see the manipulations and abuses, but for many Republicans in Congress the abuses are "in their face" impossible to ignore.

Likewise in Article #30 WMD Expert VS White House http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2692 in the video of the Congressional Hearing and testimony of the expert on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)Valerie Plame Wilson, notice that those Congresspeople who acknowledge what the Bush Admin did to this CIA covert agent are all Democrats, whereas those who may thank her for her service to the country but try to whitewash the evidence or refuse to acknowledge the Bush Admin crimes are the Republican Congressmen. It's clear which Congresspeople listen to the facts versus those using the Bush Admin Talking Points, that are literally created to be spread like propaganda through the GOP Party and the US media.

A Congressman pointed out to activists one of the leaked GOP Talking Points memos, it had opposite statements from the facts known in investigative reports. Also see Article #26 Censored News VS Free Press for the investigation done by Professor McChesney's staff on the Bush Admin and the media, they found 7 strategies that the Bush Admin uses to influence and tamper with the media, including harassing and bribing journalists, creating fake news, etc. There's also an independent investigator Wayne Madsen at http://waynemadsenreport.com who's investigated the rightwing media apparatus in action.

In overview there is fear, ignorance, and party loyalty in the GOP party, there is shockingly also some complicit crimes with some GOP party members and some GOP Congresspeople in certain areas that this Series has never discussed. There is also fear and ignorance in the Democrat Party and the Democrats in Congress. But all that We The People need to know is that all Congresspeople take an oath of office to defend the US Constitution, NOT the President. So activists will have to break through the barriers of fear and ignorance with as many Democrat and Republican Congresspeople as possible if we are to get the votes needed for impeachment.

*CONGRESSMAN CONYERS INTERVIEW on IMPEACHMENT by DEMOCRACY NOW, LINK TO TRANSCRIPT http://democracynow.org/2007/12/20/toimpeachornotto_impeach This is a recent interview of Conyers & former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern who testified at Conyer's Congressional Hearing, the Downing Street Memo Hearing on the Bush Admin manipulation of intelligence on Iraq. See Article #4 Iraq Lies & Whistleblowers for the main evidence of Bush Admin manipulation of US intelligence, which includes the text of all nine British leaked Downing Street documents at the end of Article #4. Links to all the British leaked Downing St Documents are also provided in the next section of this article, after Conyer's Downing St Hearing.

*CONYER'S DOWNING STREET HEARING Conyers Hearing focused on the one Memo printed in the US media, not all the Memos had been leaked yet. In what is called the Downing Street Memo the UK Head of Intelligence says that the US intelligence and facts were being manipulated for a preexisting policy to invade Iraq. Later it is clarified that he had talked to the US Head of Intelligence, Tenet, in a backdoor meeting arranged by Prime Minister Blair to get to the truth. If you haven't read the British leaked Downing Street Memos you'll find them next in this article or at the end of Article #4. The US mass media finally printed one of the Memos of Meeting Minutes, of the 2002 secret pre-invasion strategy meetings between the Bush Admin & the Blair Admin. Blair knew the US had no legal reason to invade but helps the US to strategize.

Conyer's Downing Street Hearing was only attended by the Democrats in Congress, the Republicans refused to attend, and even refused to give Conyers a room to hold the Hearing so they had to meet in the basement in a very small room with a low ceiling, but C-SPAN TV was there so the public could watch the Hearings on TV if you were lucky enough to know about them. And Conyer's kept a video of the Hearing on his website for years, it's probably still there at http://johnconyers.com

Several people testified at the Hearing including former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern, who acknowledged from CIA insiders that pressure was put on them when Vice President Cheney visited the CIA over a dozen times, it's unprecedented for any VP to visit the CIA. Ambassador Wilson testified about his trip to Niger, and writing the whistleblower Op-Ed piece on the Bush Admin, "What I Didn't Find In Africa". He testified that his wife was "outed" by the Bush Admin, (see Article # 30 WMD Expert vs White House), his wife Valerie Plame Wilson was the expert on Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD) for the Middle East/Iraq, a covert CIA operative until her work was stopped and all her secret information channels were jeopardized due to being "outed" by the White House and State Department who gave her name to the mainstream press which revealed her identity. Cindy Sheehan of Gold Star Families for Peace also testified, her son Casey was killed in Iraq for what she realized were no longer noble reasons. She's now running to defeat House Speaker Pelosi in her Congressional district in the San Francisco area. One Congressman testified that a member of the Bush Admin (Rumsfeld I believe) took 11 Members of the Congressional Intelligence Committee to the Pentagon, and showed them alleged satellite photos that he claimed were recent photos of WMD sites, the Congressman said he now knew these were fabricated photos.

See Article #4 for a Pentagon whistleblower that talks about the intelligence manipulations in the Pentagon. Remember the British BBC Investigation "US Secret Plans For Iraq Oil" found that the Bush Admin, State Dept, Pentagon, and Big Oil companies made plans to invade Iraq for oil, weeks after Bush got into office in January 2001.

LINKS---BRITISH LEAKED DOWNING STREET MEMOS

*INTRO--The British newspaper The Sunday Times leaked a total of 8 Downing Street Memos given to journalist Michael Smith. Downing Street is the street name of British Parliament and the Prime Minister's private residence. The 8 Downing Street Memos are about Blair's top cabinet members meeting with Bush Admin in 2002 secret pre-invasion strategy meetings. Blair knew Bush had no legal reasons to invade Iraq so they strategize on how to sell an illegal war to the US & UK & UN. The 8 Memos or documents were not leaked all at once, the US media finally published one. Later a 9th Memo was leaked called the "White House Meeting Memo" which was a conversation between Bush & Blair.

"The Downing Street Memo" is the name given to the one that the US media published, with the famous quote from the British Head Of Intelligence about his conversation with the US Head of Intelligence at Tenet at CIA. (excerpt) "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

*MEMO LINK--The British leaked to Michael Smith at The Sunday Times Online, notice famous quote in 2nd paragraph. (Web addresses with "co.uk" are United Kingdom websites, Britain, Scotland, etc) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

*"THE LEAKED IRAQ WAR DOCUMENTS" by Michael Smith 6/19/05 This is Smith's reprint with important updates. http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article535913.ece

The British don't have a freepress law for whistleblower leaks of classified information so they have to manuever to get information to the British public without being caught, yet journalist Smith said there was an investigation. The British media also censors and distorts news like the US mainstream news, but not as severely as the US has in the last 7 years, so US citizens and many Democrats in Congress have read many UK leaked documents & investigations. The British public was outraged at Blair's lies leading to the invasion of Iraq and 23 Parliament Members tried to impeach him, so Blair promised to step down in a year and did so in 2007.

*US Archived LINKS TO 8 Downing Street Memos http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/833

*AfterDowningStreet archives all documents on Iraq & Iran reports, investigations, whistleblowers, Congressional Hearings,etc. KEY DOCUMENTS at http://afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments


ACTIVIST EVENT PREPARATIONS--Before reading the next articles and activist events below, a few suggestions for new activists. When making signs and talking to others it's important to keep facts simple and memorable and use respected sources of information. For example it's the British BBC News Investigation "US Secret Plans For Iraq Oil", that uncovered the reason for the Iraq invasion, based on inside whistleblowers and 400 pages of documents. The plans were created within weeks of Bush taking office in Jan 2001 with secret meetings between the Bush Admin, State Dept, neoconservatives in Pentagon, and Big Oil Companies. Their plans to invade Iraq were actually 2 conflicting plans says investigative journalist Greg Palast, and they switched to the 2nd plan just after invading. See Greg Palast's book "Armed Madhouse" for all details, see his website for BBC videos and other reports http://gregpalast.com Palast's BBC Article "US Secret Plans For Iraq Oil" is on the BBC website, link below, copy it, give it to people, put it in local stores, send it to Congresspeople and Presidential Candidates, enlarge it for posters and signs. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

IMPEACH UPDATES & JOIN EVENTS & RESOURCES

*JOIN KUCINICH FORUM on CONSTITUTION & IMPEACHMENT 1/6/08 with Gore Vidal and AfterDowningStreet Founder Swanson at http://kucinichtv.com/ Read announcement for forum at http://afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29587

*KUCINICH WANTS TO EDUCATE PUBLIC ON CONSTITUTION & BUSH http://afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29586

*IMPEACHBUSH MARCH 2008 EVENT http://impeachbush.org "Join the National March on Washington, DC March 15, 2008: 5th Anniversary of the War The impeachment movement is at it again, teaming up with antiwar forces on March 15, 2008, for a demonstration on the fifth anniversary of the war. With civil liberties still under attack, the war still raging on, and thousands of lives still being lost in this criminal endeavor on a monthly basis, it is imperative that the antiwar and impeachment movements step up the pressure. Bush may want to keep a lower profile for his last year in office, but we can't let his historic crimes be forgotten for even one moment. Find below a statement from Iraq Occupation 5th Anniversary U.S. Mobilization Committee, who have a new website at http://year5.org Statement from Iraq Occupation 5th Anniversary U.S. Mobilization Committee". "Join us on Saturday, March 15th for a massive demonstration in Washington, D.C., at which we will exercise our rights to assemble and speak on behalf of the majority of Americans, the majority of Iraqis, the majority of U.S. troops, and the majority of people around the world who all say: U.S. Out of Iraq! This gathering will support the Iraq Veterans Against The War Winter Soldier Testimonial. We call on people from throughout the United States, in solidarity with those planning similar events around the world, to come together in massive numbers on March 15th and 19th, 2008, to demand an immediate end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The events we create will mark the end of the fifth year and the start of the sixth year of this criminal, unprovoked invasion and occupation. Over a million Iraqis have been killed, and tens of thousands of U.S. service members have been killed or wounded. The occupation must end, and together we can end it! Join us on Wednesday, March 19th, the anniversary of the invasion, for massive civil disobedience in Washington, D.C., and at the local level all around the United States. On this day, members of Congress will be in their districts. We will provide you with the resources you need to engage in effective nonviolent actions at locations of your choosing, including congressional district offices. On the same day the permanent military-industrial complex will be at work in Washington, and we intend to bring to bear on it the most massive, most creative, and most disciplined nonviolent resistance it has ever seen. Training sessions will be provided from the 15th to 18th. Toward these ends we have formed a short-term committee. Organizations participating are listed below (initial list)-In Solidarity for Peace and Justice, Gold Star Families for Peace, Camp Casey Peace Institute, ANSWER Coalition, CODEPINK Women For Peace, AfterDowningStreet, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation,National Council of Arab Americans,Malik Rahim Co-founder Common Ground Collective New Orleans, Hip Hop Caucus, World Can’t Wait Drive Out The Bush Regime!, ImpeachBush,Cindy Sheehan and Cindy For Congress,Grassroots America,Democracy Rising,
Voters for Peace".

*MOORE RESTORES FAITH OF ACTIVISTS http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29601

*NATIONAL IMPEACHMENT RESOURCE CENTER http://afterdowningstreet.org/?q=taxonomy/term/17

*CONTACT YOUR REPS & SENATORS http://afterdowningstreet.org/congress

*HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH--monitors & Reports worldwide abuses, pressures Govts & corporations to change http://hrw.org


JOIN ACTIVIST GROUPS TO STOP BUSH WARS

*United For Peace "2008: Looking Forward to a Critical Year for Peace and Justice. The national steering committee of United for Peace and Justice recently met in New York City to examine where we are and to look to the work ahead. One thing was very clear: 2008 will be a critical year for ending the war and occupation in Iraq, preventing war on Iran and building a massive peace and justice movement strong enough to change the course of this country." at http://unitedforpeace.org http://unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3817

*Join Monthly Local Nationwide Iraq Moratorium Events (See Events 12/21/07) Join Events for Jan 18,2008 at http://iraqmoratorium.org


CONGRESS PASSED MORE WAR FUNDING BEFORE XMAS

*Largest Anti War Coalition United For Peace & Justice Condemns War Funding http:unitedforpeace.org via http://afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29531

*News from Progressive Democrats of America at http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-12-21-09-57-12-news.php "December 19--In yet another Iraq funding conflict between Democrats opposed to continuing the Iraq Occupation and the rest of Congress, the House approved the Senate version of the $555 billion budget bill in a 272-142 vote. Although the bill increased spending on a number of domestic issues, Congress approved $70 billion dollars for Afghanistan and Iraq-with no strings attached-in a capitulation to Bush and his GOP allies in Congress. The appropriation is expected to fund the occupation of Iraq through September of next year. Before voting against the measure, PDA board member Rep. Jim McGovern rightly commented, “This is a blank check. The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war.” "While this is disappointing news for peace advocates and the majority of Americans who elected Democrats in the midterm election with the hope the U.S. would begin withdrawing from Iraq, it is a good sign that nearly one third of Congress is firmly within the get-out-of-Iraq camp. Progressives should use our strength to ensure the next president will begin a swift, safe, and orderly withdrawal of U. S. troops and use the progressive agenda to bird-dog candidates for Congress to ensure our new president will find strong support."

*Peace/Impeach Movement Commentary on Congress via sports video http://afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29551

*Pelosi Needs To Go on Dem Underground http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2534356

*Article on Senator Mikulski & Democrats Agenda http://afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29593


WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING IN IRAQ/IRAN/AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN

*"PEOPLE'S REPORT ON IRAQ" BY UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE http://unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3757

*Article "From Afghanistan to Iraq: Connecting the Dots with Oil" by Richard W.Behan. This is an important article with key evidence and major historical pieces.(excerpts) "The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not prompted by the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They were not waged to spread democracy in the Middle East or enhance security at home. They were conceived and planned in secret long before September 11, 2001 and they were undertaken to control petroleum resources." "The 'global war on terror' began as a fraud and a smokescreen and remains so today, a product of the Bush Administration's deliberate and successful distortion of public perception. The fragmented accounts in the mainstream media reflect this warping of reality, but another more accurate version of recent history is available in contemporary books and the vast information pool of the Internet. When told start to finish, the story becomes clear, the dots easier to connect. Both appalling and masterful, the lies that led us into war and keep us there today show the people of the Bush Administration to be devious, dangerous and far from stupid. The following is an in-depth look at the oil wars, the events leading up to them. and the players who made them possible." http://alternet.org/story/47489

*Article "The Criminalization of US Foreign Policy" by Michel Chossudovsky 2/5/07 on website Global Research. (excerpt)"The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity". NOTE--This article was written in February before the mainstream media finally printed the news that Iran has no WMD, and the International Atomic Energy Agency told the US to back off, so hopefully this information will not be necessary. But it includes new info on the neocons strategy and readiness for wars. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070201&articleId=4659

*Article "Assasinations,Terrorist Strikes and Ethnic Cleansing: Bush's Shadow War in Iraq" by Chris Floyd, TruthOut.org 2/15/07 (excerpts) "And behind the scenes, in a shadow world of double-cross and double-bluff, covert units of the occupying power run agents on both sides of the civil war, countenancing -- and sometimes directing --assasinations, terrorist strikes, torture sessions, and ethnic cleansing." "Of course Kerr and his Baghdad black-op crew are not alone in the double-dealing world of Iraqi counterinsurgency. The Pentagon's ever-expanding secret armies are deeply entrenched in such efforts as well." "..the vast majority of atrocities then attributed to 'rogue' Shiite and Sunni militias were in fact the work of government-controlled commandos and 'special forces', trained by Americans, 'advised' by Americans and run largely by former CIA agents." http://alternet.org/story/48016

*4/7/06 Robert Fisk on IRAQ & PALESTINE, chief Middle East Correspondent for London Independent. http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/07/144219

*DEMOCRACY NOW--6 RECENT STORIES of US & PAKISTAN
1) Deception: How the United States Secretly Helped Pakistan Build Its Nuclear Arsenal 2) Crackdown On the Press: General Musharraf Shuts Down Two of Pakistan’s Biggest Private Television News Channels 3) Under House Arrest, Pakistani Human Rights Leader Asma Jahangir Speaks Out on Musharraf’s Crackdown 4) Thousands Arrested in Pakistan Defying Musharraf’s Crackdown 5) Pakistan’s Musharraf Gets U.S. Backing for Crackdown Just Days Before Court Decision on Case Challenging His Rule 6) British-Pakistani Author Tariq Ali on Pakistan, Afghanistan LINK http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2007/12/27/recentdemocracynowcoverageof_pakistan

*KUCINICH-12/27/07 BREAKING NEWS ASSASSINATION of BHUTTO IN PAKISTAN Represents Dangerous Moment For The World via AfterDowningStreet WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) issued the following statement after learning of the death of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto was killed in Rawalpindi, Pakistan in a suicide attack following a campaign rally. “This is a very dangerous moment for the world,” Kucinich said. “Benazir Bhutto represented a courageous effort to bring principles of liberty to Pakistan. She was truly dedicated to the people of Pakistan. “The United States must change its policy direction in the region. It must stop adding fuel to the fire.” Kucinich met with Bhutto several times over the years in both Washington, D.C. and New York City. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29584

*DEMOCRACY NOW 12/28/07 INTERVIEWS-WHO ASSASSINATED BHUTTO http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/28/pakistaninturmoilafterbenazir_bhuttos

*12/27/07 Pakistan's Missing Are Doubly Lost" http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122707O.shtml
Bruce Wallace reports for the Los Angeles Times, "With a Supreme Court installed by Musharraf, hundreds allegedly picked up by security forces have no champion in the judiciary."


PROJECT CENSORED ARTICLES

Project Censored was in Article #26, and many readers are returning to read all the articles, especially those of previous years. So to make it easier for readers, below are additional links to years of news articles from Project Censored. Their 2008 book edition of articles was in #26 http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2540 Project Censored is run by 200 professors and students who review and yearly publish a book of the top 25 news stories of social significance that are censored or underreported by the US media, since the late 1970's. Below are links from their website to nine years of censored news, mostly Bush Admin years. The news stories are shocking, yet this Series has covered some of them, like the PNAC Bush Admin global domination plans (copied later)and the 9/11 lies.

*2008 TOP 25 STORIES http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2008/index.htm

*2007 TOP 25 STORIES http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm

*Archives-2005,2004,2003,2001,2000,1999,1996 http://projectcensored.org/publications/index.htm

From Project Censored's page "About US" http://projectcensored.org/about/index.htm (excerpt)"Project Censored http://projectcensored.org is a media research group out of Sonoma State University which tracks the news published in independent journals and newsletters. From these, Project Censored compiles an annual list of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported or self-censored by the country's major national news media. Between 700 and 1000 stories are submitted to Project Censored each year from journalists, scholars, librarians, and concerned citizens around the world. With the help of more than 200 Sonoma State University faculty, students, and community members, Project Censored reviews the story submissions for coverage, content, reliability of sources and national significance."

In Article #26 Project Censored gave the names of some of their guest reviewers for their articles/books, one of the guest reviewers listed was Howard Zinn who's an historian, professor, activist, and author of many books including "A People's History Of The United States 1492-Present", copyright 1980 & last copyright 2003. This is an important history book to transform the way We understand the US and world. Mainstream media likes to paint a portrait of Zinn as on the fringe but in actuality he's in great company with other professors who know the truth about US history. So these are the types of obstacles that We The People are up against, in order to heal generations of belief systems and layers of deceptions about US history past and present.

COPIED BELOW IS the first article in Project Censored's 2004 book "The Neoconservative Plan For Global Dominance" http://projectcensored.org/publications/2004/1.html (Remember the document published in the UK paper is in this Series Evidence To Impeach #1, plus other articles)

"Sources:

The Sunday Herald, September 15, 2002, Title: "Bush Planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President", Author: Neil Mackay;

Harper's Magazine, October 2002, Title: "Dick Cheney's Song of America", Author: David Armstrong;

Mother Jones, March 2003, Title: "The 30 Year Itch", Author: Robert Dreyfuss

Pilger.com, December 12, 2002, Title: "Hidden Agendas",
Author: John Pilger;

Random Lengths News, October 4, 2002, Title: "Iraq Attack-The Aims and Origins of Bush's Plans", Author: Paul Rosenberg.

Project Censored wishes to acknowledge that Jim Lobe, the Washington, D.C. correspondent for Inter Press Service (IPS) has been covering the ways in which neo-conservatives, using the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) among other mechanisms, used the 9/11 attacks to pursue their own agenda of global dominance and reshaping the Middle East virtually from the outset of the Bush admin’s “war on terrorism.” For more info, please use link: http://www.ipsnews.net/focus/neo-cons/index.asp Faculty Evaluators: Phil Beard Ph.D. and Tom Lough Ph.D. Student Researcher: Dylan Citrin Cummins Corporate Media Partial Coverage: Atlantic Journal Constitution, 9/29/02, The President's Real goal in Iraq, By Jay Bookman"

(TEXT)
"Over the last year corporate media have made much of Saddam Hussein and his stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Rarely did the press or, especially, television address the possibility that larger strategies might also have driven the decision to invade Iraq. Broad political strategies regarding foreign policy do indeed exist and are part of the public record. The following is a summary of the current strategies that have formed over the last 30 years; strategies that eclipse the pursuit of oil and that preceded Hussein's rise to power: In the 1970s, the United States and the Middle East were embroiled in a tug-of-war over oil. At the time, American military presence in the Gulf was fairly insignificant and the prospect of seizing control of Arab oil fields by force was pretty unattainable. Still, the idea of this level of dominance was very attractive to a group of hard-line, pro-military Washington insiders that included both Democrats and Republicans. Eventually labeled "neoconservatives," this circle of influential strategists played important roles in the Defense Departments of Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr., at conservative think tanks throughout the '80s and '90s, and today occupies several key posts in the White House, Pentagon, and State Department. Most principal among them are: ·Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, our current Vice-President and Defense Secretary respectively, who have been closely aligned since they served with the Ford administration in the 1970s; ·Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the key architect of the post-war reconstruction of Iraq; ·Richard Perle, past-chairman and still-member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board that has great influence over foreign military policies; ·William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and founder of the powerful, neo-conservative think-tank, Project for a New American Century. In the 1970s, however, neither high-level politicos, nor the American people, shared the priorities of this small group of military strategists. In 1979 the Shah of Iran fell and U.S. political sway in the region was greatly jeopardized. In 1980, the Carter Doctrine declared the Gulf "a zone of U.S. influence." It warned (especially the Soviets) that any attempt to gain control of the Persian Gulf region would be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the U.S. and repelled by any means necessary, including military force. This was followed by the creation of the Rapid Deployment Force — a military program specifically designed to rush several thousand U.S. troops to the Gulf on short notice. Under President Reagan, the Rapid Deployment Force was transformed into the U.S. Central Command that oversaw the area from eastern Africa to Afghanistan. Bases and support facilities were established throughout the Gulf region, and alliances were expanded with countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Since the first Gulf War, the U.S. has built a network of military bases that now almost completely encircle the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. In 1989, following the end of the Cold War and just prior to the Gulf War, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and Paul Wolfowitz produced the 'Defense Planning Guidance' report advocating U.S. military dominance around the globe. The Plan called for the United States to maintain and grow in military superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge us on the world stage. Using words like 'preemptive' and military 'forward presence,’ the plan called for the U.S. to be dominant over friends and foes alike. It concluded with the assertion that the U.S. can best attain this position by making itself 'absolutely powerful.' The 1989 plan was spawned after the fall of the Soviet Union. Without the traditional threat to national security, Cheney, Powell and Wolfowitz knew that the military budget would dwindle without new enemies and threats. In an attempt to salvage defense funding, Cheney and company constructed a plan to fill the 'threat blank'. On August 2, 1990 President Bush called a press conference. He explained that the threat of global war had significantly receded, but in its wake a new danger arose. This unforeseen threat to national security could come from any angle and from any power. Iraq, by a remarkable coincidence, invaded Northern Kuwait later the same day. Cheney et al. were out of political power for the eight years of Clinton’s presidency. During this time the neo-conservatives founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The most influential product of the PNAC was a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defense," http://newamericancentury.org which called for U.S. military dominance and control of global economic markets. With the election of George W. Bush, the authors of the plan were returned to power: Cheney as vice president, Powell as Secretary of State, and Wolfowitz in the number two spot at the Pentagon. With the old Defense Planning Guidance as the skeleton, the three went back to the drawing board. When their new plan was complete, it included contributions from Wolfowitz's boss Donald Rumsfeld. The old 'preemptive' attacks have now become 'unwarned attacks.' The Powell-Cheney doctrine of military 'forward presence' has been replaced by 'forward deterrence.' The U.S. stands ready to invade any country deemed a possible threat to our economic interests."

"UPDATE by David Armstrong Just days after this story appeared, the Bush administration unveiled its “new” National Security Strategy, which effectively validated the article’s main thesis. The NSS makes clear that the administration will pursue a policy of pre-emption and overwhelming military superiority aimed at ensuring US dominance. Since that time, the major media have generally come around to the point of view presented in the article. The New York Times, which originally rejected the article’s premise, now makes a virtual mantra of the notion that the current security strategy is little more than a warmed-over version of the policy drafted during the first Bush administration of preventing new rivals from rising up to challenge the US in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse. The article circulated widely, particularly in the run up to the war in Iraq, and was entered into the Congressional Record. It also became a topic of discussion on such outlets as the BBC, NPR, MSNBC, various talk radio shows, and European newspapers. In the process, it has substantially helped shape the debate about the Bush administration’s foreign policy."

"UPDATE by Bob Dreyfuss For months leading up to the war against Iraq, it was widely assumed among critics of the war that a hidden motive for military action was Iraq's oil, not terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. In fact, "No Blood for Oil" became perhaps the leading slogan and bumper sticker of the peace movement. Yet, there was very little examination in the media of the role of oil in American policy toward Iraq and the Persian Gulf, and what coverage did exist tended to pooh-pooh or debunk the idea that the war had anything to do with oil. So, I set out to place the war with Iraq in the context of a decades-long U.S. strategy of building up a military presence in the region, arguing that even before the war, the U.S. had turned the Gulf into a U.S. protectorate. Perhaps most importantly, I showed that a motive behind the war was oil as a national security issue, as a strategic commodity, not as a commercial one — and that, in fact, most of the oil industry itself was either opposed to or ambivalent about the idea of war against Saddam Hussein. Yet the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, whose forebears had proposed occupying the oil fields of the Gulf in the mid-1970s, sought control of the oil in the region as the cornerstone of American empire. Since the end of this war, it has become clear that the United States (and the U.K.) have aggressively sought to maintain direct control over Iraq's oil industry. When looters devastated Baghdad, only the Ministry of Oil was unscathed, since U.S. marines protected it. Since then, handpicked Iraqi officials have been installed in the ministry, under the supervision of U.S. military and civilian officials, and there is movement toward privatization of Iraq's oil industry, a point that I emphasized in my writing on the topic before the war. Not only that, but it is increasingly clear that France, Russia, and China are likely to be excluded from either rebuilding the industry and securing contracts for future Iraqi oil delivery. I can't say that the media followed up on my exposure of this issue, except that I appeared on a number of radio and television talk show programs as a result of my writing on Iraq, in both Mother Jones and The American Prospect, as well as C-Span, CNBC, and CBC-TV in Canada. I was also invited to make a presentation on "The Thirty-Year Itch" at the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. According to Mother Jones, the article drew more traffic to its web site than any other article."(end)

As We The People try to unravel the deceptions and myths of the neoconservatives and Bush Admin, as well as other myths, it's helpful to remember and integrate the information that comes from whistleblower John Perkins at http://johnperkins.org Perkins was a top economist and economic hitman who was hired by the US Government the National Security Agency (NSA) and told to work for a private corporation, he calls this secret US global empire the "corporatocracy". BBC Journalist Greg Palast knew Perkins when he worked for the US Secret Empire. Perkins' two whistleblower books have been quoted in past articles in this Series #3,#6,#15,#19. Especially chilling and informative is that the US is a target too, not just countries worldwide.

Milton Friedman's classic books on capitalistic theory like "The Freedom To Choose" have brainwashed Americans. Friedman's books have been used for decades in Ivy Leaque schools and State Universities. Perkins says his job was to deceive countries around the world about the economic projects that the US corporations could provide for them, which created poverty and misery worldwide. But Perkins who studied under Friedman began to see an even a greater danger, the immoral basis for the economic theories that say giving to the rich helps the poor. In the President Reagan years this was called the "trickle-down theory".

NEW ABUSES & REPORTS

*12/26/07--DEMOCRACY NOW-MORE MEDIA CONSOLIDATION "Today's Decision Would Make George Orwell Proud" http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/26/fccmichaelcopps

*DEMOCRACY NOW INTERVIEW 12/19/07 SURVIVING CIA TORTURE http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2007/12/19/survivingaciablacksite

*THE TORTURE TAPE COVER-UP HOW HIGH DOES IT GO 12/27/07 by Marjorie Cohn via AfterDowningStreet(excerpt)"When the hideous photographs of torture and abuse emerged from Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2004, they created a public relations disaster for the Bush administration. The White House had painstakingly worked to capitalize on the 9/11 attacks by creating a "war on terror." Never mind the absurdity of declaring war on a tactic. Central to Bush's new "war" was the portrayal of us as the good guys and al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein as the bad guys. But the Abu Ghraib photos of naked Iraqis piled on top of one another, forced to masturbate, led around on leashes like dogs shined the light on U.S. hypocrisy. After the Abu Ghraib revelations, the Bush administration could not tolerate more bad publicity. So in 2005, the CIA destroyed several hundred hours of videotapes depicting torturous interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, probably including water boarding. The former U.S. official involved in discussions about the tapes reported widespread concern that "something as explosive as this would probably get out," according to the Los Angeles Times. This destruction of evidence may violate several laws. And it remains to be seen how high up the chain of command the criminality goes. Now that the videotape scandal has come to light, Bush and his men are back in damage control mode. CIA Director Michael Hayden minimized the significance of the destruction, claiming the tapes were destroyed "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquiries." These claims are disingenuous. The tapes likely portray U.S. officials engaged in torture, which violates three U.S.-ratified treaties as well as the U.S. Torture Statute and the War Crimes Act." (excerpt) http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29591

*12/27/07 "GOOGLE THINKS IT KNOWS YOUR FRIENDS" by Miguel Helft http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122707P.shtml

*BUSH ADMIN & JUSTICE DEPT DEMOCRAT GOV POLITICAL PRISONER http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90002004 http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29566

*NEWSWEEK CHENEY SUBVERTS CLASSIFIED INFO RULES http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=taxonomy/term/4

*OFFICIAL CHALLENGES CHENEY http:



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!

66 comments on Series - We The People - Impeach & War News #33

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By Alex Dezen on December 31, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I'm just gonna come out and say this, unveiled, and without anonymity. I appreciate your effort and enthusiasm. It's relentless. That's clear. I know I speak for all of me when I say your political diatribes could use a more appropriate venue. I know it's been said before in comments to your other articles, but should collage "copy and paste" efforts really be in the Broowaha headlines? I think it undermines the integrity of the paper.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Rose Mountain on January 01, 2008 at 01:25 am
Alex, what you and a few others don't understand is the reason that hundreds of people read my articles is because the US mass media has been censoring news for the last 7 years. I'm providing news to help save our country, our democracy. Read Article #20, to see the Editorial by the London Financial Times that pleads with America to act like a democracy and pleads with the US Supreme Court to stop Bush since Congress won't. What you don't realize, is that the whole world is shocked and watching the US, the United Nations never authorized the invasion of Iraq, people on 5 continents protested before the US invaded Iraq for oil. The British leaked documents that confirmed that Bush had no legal grounds to invade which is why Prime Minister Blair was forced to step down, and the British have pulled back many of their troops, the British citizens were outraged because the documents made clear that Blair was going along with the Bush manipulations. So members in his Admin resigned in protest, and 30 Members of Parliament tried to impeach Blair which hasn't been done for 198 years. The British newspapers keep mentioning the silence of the US media and how the US media is refusing to publish the leaked documents, investigations like the British BBC News "US Secret Plans For Iraq Oil" etc. The US media finally published one of 9 leaked documents. But after publishing it the media dropped the issue from the news. In the US there's at least 200 high-level whistleblowers on the Bush Admin that the US media refuses to mention or attempts to attack them, including 2 former Bush Admin cabinet members like the Head of Counterterrorism, and recently his former Press Secretary, plus a Pentagon official, Military Generals,etc and many Republicans. Plus the Republican turned whistleblower who created the Vote-Switching software for the vote machines, which is one of the main ways their stealing the elections nationwide. If you say you haven't heard any of this, that's exactly my point. But millions of Americans do know this news and hundreds of Congresspeople, which is why they're trying to impeach Bush & Cheney for High Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Rose Mountain on January 01, 2008 at 01:35 am
Alex--So the real question is not why I'm spreading the news to try to save our country, as millions of other Americans are, but why aren't you joining the effort? Why don't you read the news I've published to see the overwhelming evidence? Many Republicans have joined this effort, including President Nixon's legal advisor, who said if there were no WMD's in Iraq that Bush should be impeached.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Credo on January 01, 2008 at 03:30 am
Rose Mountain I appreciate you constant efforts and you courage which is something that is not readily found these days. What you inscribe in your articles is information that is hidden in the minds of many fearful Americans and secretly they worship your tenacity. Whether this electrifying information is pasted from other sources or not is irrelevant, it is the thought that you would risk so much of yourself to bring this kind of information to the forefront that I applauded. These are the qualities of leaders and heroes. Thank you. Credo
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Rose Mountain on January 01, 2008 at 03:48 am
Thanks Credo, So nice to see a friendly face here and here some friendly words. I'm listening to funk music as a type. I have faith that 2008 will be better than 2007. Surprised you found my article since it was knocked out of the headlines and off the newspaper entirely now only in the archives due to attacks by the rightwing censor machine. You must have used the link from the "Friends email notice" to find this article. One of these days they'll be so shocked to discover we were telling them the truth. At any rate Happy New Years!! Many blessings to you. Good ole' Funkadelic "Something about the music, it got into my..."
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Rose Mountain on January 01, 2008 at 04:20 am
Thank You to Credo and all my other supportive readers who got this newest article back into the headlines from the archives. HAPPY NEW YEARS 2008! May truth comfort your soul and warm your heart, until Love and Truth and Peace Prevail on Earth! Sly Stone "I want to Thank You for letting me be myself, again..."
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Jen on January 01, 2008 at 06:34 am
Rose. Hundreds of people dont read this. Maybe they click on it for a momemt because the headline is intruging but about 30 seconds in they realize it is the ramblings of an extemely passionate albiet misguided far left liberal. At least...that's what happened for me the first time I clicked in (its OK. really...I have good friends that fall into the same catagory and we get along just fine). And...not to say that our politics dont mesh...but you are...well...not really writing articles. I mean...I wanted to read your shit...Im a liberal...Im a dem...I belive there are more reasons to impeach dubya than simply getting some head...but it's not writing. I can google this shit for myself if I want to read it. And before you tell me that you have a bunch of readers that find your articles amazing might I remind you that the rest of us can recognize syntax as welll as you can...and Im pretty sure that you...or some well meaning buddy of yours...has more than one account. Again...maybe its just some friend of yours...but these comments of support arent fooling anyone...and...honestly...they sorta hurt your credibility. Research...analyze...condense...and present it in a format to really make your point wether or not FOX of CNN agree with you. THAT is what citizen journalism is all about. Its NOT about vomiting up what someone else thinks. Again...pasting this shit is not enlightening me...its not making me think...its not providing me with an idea that perhaps I hadn't thought of before...its simply annoying me that you and your many aliases might actually destroy what might be a really great site. I wish you the best on your crusade, but seriously...you've lost me...and I actually WANT to be with you. P.S. Go ahead and give me a slew of 1's. Im not anonymous and Im out in the open here. I worked really f'in hard on most of those articles and I know its good research and good writing. My slow and steady pageviews PER ARTICLE tell me that. Good luck to ya. Hope you find what you're looking for in this world.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Rose Mountain on January 01, 2008 at 04:05 pm
Hi Jen, My Series made clear from Article #1 that I was providing news from the most respected sources that has been censored from the US mass media, for those people without time to do the research. Each article has US & UK leaked documents, US & UK investigations, US & UK high-level whistleblowers, Congressional Hearings & Reports, etc etc that reveal the deceptions of the Bush Admin and the evidence to impeach. My readership took time to grow but it was steady. All my new readers would overtime read each of my articles in the Series. When my readership began to skyrocket more & more I had between 200-400 readers. This is when my Series first got hit hard, on Nov 4, by 2-3 rightwing authors. I have never rated anyone's article unless I give it Excellent Votes & Reviews. I'm not interested in playing games with people. I feel that readers reading articles speak for themselves. I'm also a little surprised that since you know where to go to get the same information that I publish, why don't you also understand why it's so crucial to spread the censored news to whoever is eagerly awaiting to know it? All the respected websites are collecting and archiving the links to documents,investigations, etc since they exist nowhere else, and the whistleblowers come directly to this respected activist community since the mainstream won't publish their accounts. The activist community worked closely with Congressman Conyers so that he could compile the evidence for his report "Constitution In Crisis" which got published as the book "George W. Bush versus The U.S. Constitution". The British press keeps talking about the silence of the US media. The British BBC News published an investigation "US Secret Plans For Iraq Oil, based on 400 pages of documents and inside whistleblowers, that as soon as Bush first came into office in Jan 2001, within weeks the Bush Admin, State Dept, neoconservatives in the Pentagon, and Big Oil Companies made secret plans to invade Iraq for oil, and to do regime change which is not legal under International Law. The Bush Admin & the State Dept officials, based on Grand Jury Testimony, see the chart in the Congressional Hearing, are also the ones who "outed" the Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD) expert for the Middle East/Iraq, the CIA covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson. And there's a whistleblower from the Pentagon who watched the intelligence manipulations. And the British Head of Intelligence went through backdoor channels and talked to the US Head of Intelligence who admitted that the intelligence was being manipulated to fit the Bush Agenda as seen in the British leaked Downing Street Documents. The British leaked 8 Downing Street Documents plus the 9th White House Meeting Memo a converation between Blair & Bush, this is how the British public knew what was happening and got outraged, which is why Blair promised to step down within a year. Thirty members of Parliament were trying to impeach him, which hadn't been done for 198 years. The US media finally printed one of these Memos, an important one, but then dropped it from the news. The British newspapers keep talking about the silence of the US media and how they refused to air a BBC News documentary "Power Of Nightmares" which expalins how the US neoconservatives fabricated myths over the decades, to cause fear in citizens, for their own power and agenda, the newest myth fabricated being the "global network of terrorism" which doesn't exist. So if you know all this information, I'm unclear why you wouldn't feel this is important to spread to others? These are High Crimes for impeachment and Crimes Against Humanity. There are many people who don't realize that the United Nations Security Council never authorized the US to invade Iraq, and many people don't realize that people on 5 continents protested prior to the US illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq for oil. The whole world is watching the US, wondering what the hell is going on. The London Financial Times recently ran an Editorial pleading with the US to act like a democracy, pleading with the US Supreme Court to stop Bush, since the Congress refused to. I see nothing more important that people spreading the news to save our country, our democracy, and try to save the lives of innocent Iraq citizens who have been slaughtered. And further investigation leads to 200 professors who are also publishing the US censored news and have been since the late 1970's. I have been busy working and had no idea how much the media has been censoring news.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Steven Blake on January 01, 2008 at 04:58 pm
Dude.... where are you getting your Crack??? Cause I want to make sure I am not getting the same crap you are. You have lost it Rose! Completely and utterly lost it! You are sooo diluted you don't even know what is real anymore. Jen had some good points in there, they are not your articles,they are not your readers, and half your stuff is propaganda. But that is just what I think.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Rose Mountain on January 02, 2008 at 03:44 am
You guys are so funny, you sit here in your secluded website,and think you know what's happening in the world. Do you believe you know more than the 120 Congresspeople that Co-sponsored Congressman Conyers Impeach Bills against Bush & Cheney prior to 2006? Do you believe you know more than 200 Professors who have been publishing US censored news since 1976? Do you believe you know more than the hundreds of high-level whistleblowers across the political spectrum that are trying to save our country?
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Steven Blake on January 02, 2008 at 10:35 am
Funny is fopr you to live in your warped and twisted mind but... First I do not sit here just "secluded" in this website. Secondly Half of the stuff you are quoting is coming from propaganda sites(that is sites that twist and turn facts to make it how they want to see it so that they can pass along the info to idiots like you who will believe it and accept it for fact cause they said so.) I was in the Navy and still work with the VFW and still have a pretty good clue whats happening. If all these things were happening that you say(that you cut and paste, I don't want to twist things and let people think you wrote it) were happening, they would of already impeached Bush hung up by a string and tied him to a cross and lit him a blaze. But you keep thinking that in your neurotic mind. Okay and "hundreds of high-level whistleblowers" is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. EVERY ADMINISTRATION has them. These are the people that dont agree with the policy. So stop sending out this propaganda crap... research you own facts and findout for yourself. Oh and just so you know http://www.truthout.org http://www.afterdowningstreet.org http://www.democracynow.org http://projectcensored.org http://www.democraticunderground.com ARE NOT VALID SOURCES FOR STORIES!! THEY HOLD AS MUCH WEIGHT AS THE INQUIRER NEWSPAPER DOES! Of course you probably have a stack of those laying around to.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Rose Mountain on January 02, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I feel sorry for you guys, who've been betrayed by whoever you get your news from, 70% of Americans no longer trust the mainstream media or the Bush Admin, and most conservative & moderate Republicans no longer trust the Bush Admin, it's just the rightwing who want to believe. World-respected news like British BBC News and British UK Guardian mention the silence of the US media on British investigations and leaked documents and documentaries on the Bush Admin, that the US refused to publish. Even PBS TV did documentaries on the manipulation of US Intelligence by the Bush Admin. Longtime PBS journalist Bill Moyers who's respected nationwide said "we're in for the fight of our lives" to save US media & US democracy. The survival of a democracy requires a free press, an informed public, fair elections. Professor McChesney's staff did an investigative report on the Bush Admin harrassing, censoring and bribing the media,etc. The mass media is now owned by just a handful of corporations. PBS Moyers has been the Keynote Speaker at the National Conferences on Media Reform which began in 2003, Professor McChesney has sponsored the Conferences along with other nationwide groups for media reform. The Conferences are attended by journalists and Congresspeople and citizens across the political spectrum.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By Rose Mountain on January 02, 2008 at 12:48 pm
The British BBC News airs worldwide, in their investigative report "Secret US Plans for Iraq's Oil", journalist Greg Palast uncovered the reason for the invasion of Iraq, along with Harper's Magazine. As revealed by insiders and 400 pages of secret documents, that weeks after Bush entered office in Jan 2001, the Bush Admin, State Dept, neoconservatives in the Pentagon, and Big Oil Companies created secret plans for Iraq's Oil. BBC LINK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm Excerpt-- "The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed". "Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq. Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered. In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists". "Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants. Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US. We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming. An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat. Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration. The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas. Former Shell Oil USA chief stalled plans to privatise Iraq's oil industry. The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department. Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces." See full report with documents & videos at http://gregpalast.com The BBC News investigative journalist Greg Palast, is an American, who also does news for other UK papers, has done many courageous investigations on the Bush Admin. At http://gregpalast.com you can read and watch British BBC news of Palast's previous Reports. One is on the history of the Bush Family who has been in the oil business for decades, and has been doing oil deals with the Bin Laden Family for decades. (Which used to be common knowledge and in US mainstream news.) A recent Palast investigation is on the ties between the Bush Admin, the Justice Dept firing of US Proscecutors, and GOP "caging lists" used to steal US Elections. Caging lists are illegal. Palast says the lists are names of citizens--all Democrats, some elderly, some soldiers in Iraq, mostly black people because as a demographic group blacks vote in high percentage for Democrats. The GOP used these caging lists to take legal voters off the registration rolls. Another document Palast obtained is an email written by Rove to another Admin official that says he's glad none of Palast's investigations have been reported in the US media. Palast reported on the recent assasination attempts by the US on President Chavez of Venezuala, because that country has a large oil reserve and Chavez is a popular President that cares about the people so he wants use the oil profits to finance social programs, so he nationalized the oil so it couldn't be controlled by international corporations. Chavez is also helping other South American countries to do the same thing.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By Rose Mountain on January 02, 2008 at 12:56 pm
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. Article below 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 TV for Carnegie Report & testimony at the Congressional Senate 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." 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: -1
By Rose Mountain on January 02, 2008 at 01:19 pm
BELOW--British News Article by British journalist who leaked the Downing Street Documents that reveal the Bush Admin manipulation of Intelligence on Iraq, and how Blair knew the US had no legal reason to invade Iraq but went along with the US. The British public was outraged and Blair had to step down. -------- LINK http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article535913.ece 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." (end)
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Rose Mountain on January 02, 2008 at 01:27 pm
For anyone concerned about truth please read the above British leaked document discussed by the British journalist that leaked it to the British press. Use the link provided at the beginning so you can read the Brithsh news article online. All United Kingdom websites (for Britain, Scotland etc)their web address has "co.uk".
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Jen on January 02, 2008 at 02:32 pm
Rose. It is quite outrageous to assume that readers of this newspaper are not informed or that we get our news only from the Broo. In fact...it is downright insulting. The fact that their were no WMD etc. in Iraq and the fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the WTC attacks on 9/11 is not exactly news to most people. These facts actually have been "leaked" to places like the NY and LA times among other credible news sources. It is also a fact that as of Sept 12, 2007 33% of Americans STILL believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/12/opinion/pollpositions/main3253552.shtml This is despite no evidence making said link. This was admitted by VP Cheney on Meet the Press on Sept 10, 2006. Beginning of Transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/ Admission of NO evidence (page 3): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/page/3/ That 33% doesn’t care. They simply don’t care. Pres. Bush could spend Sunday dinner with these people outlining how they have no credible evidence and they probably STILL wouldn't believe or care. You are shouting at the rain and cluttering up this site. There is always going to be a certain percentage of people that CHOOSE to remain ignorant and those people are more than likely as not to see this, if they see it at all, as the ramblings of a screaming liberal brainwashed by the "liberal" media. If you really want to effect change…vote. THAT should be your crusade. Maybe for your next piece you could tell us about your favorite candidate for the upcoming 2008 election. But please don’t just send us to his/her website. Write something and tell us why you feel he or she is the best candidate for President. PEACE
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Jen on January 02, 2008 at 02:34 pm
OMG: The fact that thier were no...? s/b the fact that there were no...
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By Steven Blake on January 03, 2008 at 03:09 am
Hi can I sell you the Inquirer or maybe some other tabloid? Just as good kiddo. Find FACTS
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Rose Mountain on January 03, 2008 at 03:24 am
Hi Jen, I'm addressing your comments. Notice the guys comments above that come here to harass me, they don't know the information that you wrote about Iraq above. But I actually feel compassion for them because of the shocking things happening in our country and the distortions of truth. These are very scary times for people, and all for different reasons, depending on people's sources of information, and how much of the actual facts people know. So the issues I'm trying to address in my Series, and all the activists I know are trying to deal with is the major problem with the absence of factual information that can be trusted because the media has censored 98% of the evidence on the Bush Admin, and disorted most of the rest. So the only people who have the raw evidence are those who have researched it, and gone to certain US & UK sites that archive it. Which means for the first time in current history some people in America have access to the massive amounts of evidence, versus there's only certain Congresspeople that know the evidence, and many of them only know a portion of it, many of them know part facts with part propaganda. Whereas at least most citizens are aware enough not to trust the Bush Admin. So I figure the thing that people need the most is the facts by reliable sources. And what used to be reliable sources just 7 years ago, are no longer reliable sources. So I just focus on providing research by the most credible sources.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Steven Blake on January 03, 2008 at 03:30 am
DUDE seriously! YOU ARE DILUTED!!!! I am not mislead, ill informed, or navigated away from the truth. YOU ARE LIVING IN A PROPAGANDA WORLD! I am not out to harass you. I would love for you to figure out the way it really works but you seem to live in LA LA land. I HAVE STONE COLD FACTS FROM RELIABLE SOURCES...YOU DON'T
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Steven Blake on January 03, 2008 at 03:35 am
Oh and I don't need your compassion. I lived it! You have no right or place to tell me what happens in this government. I can figure stuff out on my own without being lead by a propaganda site
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Rose Mountain on January 03, 2008 at 04:28 pm
I'm here providing research articles for my supportive readers. You all have your own articles and readers, yet you're writing comments on the San Franciso Paper under my articles. So I just tried to be helpful, give you information you could trust, links to British investigations & leaked documents that British citizens and Parliament used to oust Blair from office and take troops out of Iraq. But I guess you're not interested, so I'll return to my readers and articles, and you can return to your readers and articles. In Peace
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Jen on January 03, 2008 at 05:25 pm
Yes. Well...since there isn't an actual board of editors at the broo it is up to the community to keep the site credible and worthy of being called a newspaper. That would be done by people that care about what they have written. People who care to see citizen journalism take off as an alternative to the mainstream media. I happen to be one of those people. If I clicked on one of these “pieces” the first time I came here I may never have discovered some of the actual research and writing that is on this site. I would have hit my back button fearing it is just another CL R&R junk basement not worth my time. That's what I and the rest of these people that “just want to shut down the truth” are actually afraid of here Rose. That’s what the rating system is all about. If its crap it gets a bad rating and it gets buried so that people don’t accidentally stumble on it and determine that this is just another bullshit site where people go to rant. You got your bad ratings not because we’re all afraid of the truth. You got them because this isn’t writing and it’s practically unintelligible. It follows no course of logic and one would be hard pressed to find the point other than you hate bush and think afterdowningstreet.org is a credible website. I went through your links…and you have ONE...ONE link to the BBC in this particular gem and the rest carry about as much weight as quoting off my buddy’s blog (sorry bro). BTW…just because something is a dot org…doesn’t make it credible and would not be accepted by me as source documentation when grading papers for class so they are not going to be accepted as source documentation by me here. You want to know why I’m over here in SF broo commenting on your article. Well…One of the comments on one of your articles summed it up perfectly. It’s called "quality control". That's why I’m here commenting on your article. I’m tired of seeing these “articles” showing up in the newsroom. 15 comments back to back from Kent J, Charles Jr. etc. buries new article submissions and makes it more difficult for anyone else to get read or get new readers. I haven’t written in awhile and will not likely have time to write an actual article for some time so this doesn’t really affect me, but making up a bunch of shill accounts to praise your work and artificially increase your page views so that you can stay in the headlines and spam the newsroom with fake comments subverts the system…however flawed it may be its still pretty good…and hurts ALL of the writers here. You should be ashamed of yourself.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Steven Blake on January 04, 2008 at 12:46 am
Jen I love you right now!!!!! Oh and by the way you are not giving supportive research, it is a crock of shit. Happy N Year. Research your own shit
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -3
By Steven Blake on January 04, 2008 at 12:49 am
oh and keep marking my comments down everywhere cause I dont care I say the truth
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Rose Mountain on January 04, 2008 at 03:52 pm
The lack of integrity, civility and professionalism on this site makes it difficult for my readers, and I hesitate before giving the address of my articles to my colleagues, friends, relatives, my parents and their colleagues and friends. The sources of info in my articles are former Bush Admin officials, British BBC News which airs worldwide, Professors, Congresspeople, Constitutional Lawyers, respected PBS journalists, etc
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on January 04, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I just thought you should know that as I was scrolling down through this mountain (sorry) of liberal whining, to the far right (sorry again) of the screen appeared an advertisement with link to subscribe to Ann Coulter's news letter. After attempting to find a mocodum of new information that had not been previously published somewhere else (I believe that there is a proper name for it -- ah yes, plagarism) I subscribed to Ms. Coulter's weekly e-mail article if for no other reason than to really annoy the hell out of you Rose.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on January 04, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Rose:

You rabidly scream that there was no UN sanction for the use of force in Iraq.  But since you like to cut and paste your "articles"  I would like for you to read the following:


"...two independent sources of law provided the United States and its allies with authority to use force in Iraq: UN Security Council resolutions and the right to self-defense.  Resolution 678 authorized member states “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”24 One of the most significant “subsequent relevant resolutions” was Resolution 687. Pursuant to Resolution 678, the United States could use force not only to enforce Resolution 687’s cease-fire, but also to restore “international peace and security” to the region."

You can find this on page 8 of the .PDF file located at http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=boaltwp

Once you have read this, you will see that even though the resolution was passed in 1990, it was still in effect and was used as Saddam Hussein continued to violate what amounted to 19 subsequent resolutions demanding that weapons inspectors be allowed unfettered access to all potential manufacturing facilities.

Furthermore, I refer you (yet again) to my article Hussein Verdict To Come Down Today, Pt. II (or Can The Oil Connection Ever Be Dropped?) located at http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=322 and please note that Iraq only accounts for about 5% of America's source of oil.  So again, you are behaving like a typical liberal only interested in spouting lies, half-truths, rumors and heresay. A mantra that reads like the old bumper sticker, "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts."  It's funny how as 2006 and 2007 have both passed, you seem to be the only person still wishing that an oil connection can be made.  The rest of us have wised up and come to realize that the oil argument was stupid at best and it is time to move on.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -3
By D. E. Carson on January 04, 2008 at 11:17 pm

And another question:  exactly how are foreign news outlets getting their hands on this kind of material?  You and I both know that with the feverish liberal slant of American "main scream media", anything that slams Bush would be front page, headline stuff.  You say that American Press censors news?  You're right, it does.  Case in point:  remember the Marines at Haditha?  Remember how the American Press was all over them like white on rice and out there leading the charge was John Murtha, the most anti-Bush person in Congress?  But once the case was ajudicated and the Marines were aquitted of any wrongdoing, where was the American Press?  You could have heard a pin drop around those Marines.  The American Press did everything it could to bury the aquittal story.  As long as it made Bush's policy in Iraq look bad, Haditha was a page one above the fold.  Once it turned around and bit the press in the butt, it was gone!  That's what censorship looks like Rose.  Talk about hiding truth.

Your sources are crap and they make the Weekly World News look like The Washington Times.  They belong in the same bullcrap category as Rosie O'Donnell who went on national television and made a complete fool of herself saying that the collapse of WTC7 was "the first time in history that fire ever melted steel".  Well how the hell does she think steel girders and cast iron skillets are made?

BTW: just how much is George Soros paying you to regurgiate his propaganda garbage?

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -3
By D. E. Carson on January 04, 2008 at 11:24 pm

Jen said: "making up a bunch of shill accounts to praise your work and artificially increase your page views so that you can stay in the headlines and spam the newsroom with fake comments subverts the system…and hurts ALL of the writers here. You should be ashamed of yourself."

I say: "AMEN!"

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -4
By Steven Blake on January 05, 2008 at 01:29 am
I say invite everyone you can!!!! So even your "friends" know what a idiot evryone thinks you are. One of my friends worked in the E ring. Does mean any thing? That makes me God right and everything I say correct? By your own theory
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -4
By Steven Blake on January 05, 2008 at 01:31 am
Oh and thanks Lois! Ass
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Rose Mountain on January 05, 2008 at 02:59 am
Here's a fact you'll love, West Point Graduates have a website that says they're against the war due to the violations of International & US Laws that Bush committed against the Constitution, they say they take an oath to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic, and they are only to follow legal orders and since the war is illegal, they are not supposed to follow this order. So as you trounce all over this Comment Section with your crude fabrications please remember the rightwing is a very small minority in the US and getting smaller as your leaders destroy the Constitution, and the rightwing can never win a Presidential election only steal them, because the American People are not mean-spirited.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -3
By Jen on January 05, 2008 at 06:43 am
1. Many soldiers are against this war. Many aren't. ying...yang. The telling information would be in what percentage of westpoint graduates supports this statement. Will you provide that for us? Some hard…and properly referenced…facts would be so refreshing. To quote Fox Mulder (as portrayed by the Oh so sexy David Duchovney) "I want to believe". Unlike him...I need more than some sketchy photos and swamp gas to be persuaded . 2. Rightwing is a very small minority? Have you seen the f'ing map? Most of the blue states are on the coast...Illinois being some kind of weird Corn Belt anomaly. The "right" practically owns the middle of the country and for some weird reason they think these bozos relate to them. They think they could have supper with these “born with a silver spoon in their mouths" jackasses that couldn’t give a rats ass about em and most certainly would never tee off with em. Again...some people CHOOSE to be ignorant. And hey...Bush has Jesus on his side and how can you argue with THAT? Ever been to the corn belt Rose or have you just been living in the Haight making lanyards for the last 20 years? Do you have any idea what you are up against here? We might question the existence of “God” here on the coast. But there…God is like their next door neighbor who comes over for nickel bet canasta on Tuesdays. 3. I'll give you that 2000 was sketchy. I believe Gore was robbed (STFU all you Gore lost get over it people...I am...and I’m onto bigger issues…I’m just sayin'). I believe he should have been President. He got the popular vote...but ya gotta consider population densities blah blah blah. This is one of those complex issues I’m not going to go into on the comment section. Perhaps I'll write about it one day putting forth my own thoughts and analysis about the electoral college...since that's what actual writing entails. Its too f'in late for me to go goggling this shit and I know you wont actually pay attention anyway, but I know this is not the first time the electoral college failed to reflect the popular vote. Last time the bozo didn’t get a second term. Which leads me to #4... 4. If Gore hadn’t been such a pompous jackass throughout the campaign he might have won. Bush actually came off as Mr. Humble I’m with ya working folk lets go bowling together. Gore came off as Mr. Pompous and overly educated I know more than you stupid god fearing folk so just listen to me cause I know what’s best for you and this country (ring familiar there Rose? Didn’t think so). And if Kerry hadn’t bought the whole "take a stand on gay marriage" bait they threw him so we can deflect the debate from the FUBAR that is Iraq he might have had a chance too. Honestly...the Dems could learn a few lessons from the repubs when it comes to campaign strategy. Bottom line (and maybe a little off topic…but hey…it follows with the body of the article so I’ll run with that). The dems needs to learn how to campaign. They need to learn how to say "that has nothing to do with my ability to govern this country anymore than receiving a blow-job from a naive and desperate for attention intern does". Why you might ask? The reason is because the right has no problem doing that. The right seems to have no problem saying STFU I’m "The Decider" and if you don’t like it move to Canada or France or something. You want to be mad at someone? Be mad at the Dems for not having the f'ing balls to stand up to the repubs. Be mad at yourself for embarrassing the libs with this wild ass shit you post. Again...you should be ashamed of yourself. You should be as ashamed of yourself as the devil himself…Mr. George W. Bush and his hard right Christian conservative political agenda should be ashamed for the mess he and his administration have gotten this country into Unfortunately…I am not surprised that you don’t see the similarity between yourself and the people you profess to hate so very much. But it’s late…and while I’m having such fun debating these issues…I’m tired…and I want to go to bed. So I will. Until next time you say something completely ridiculous and unsupported by facts… Good night…and Good luck.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Steven Blake on January 05, 2008 at 10:07 am
First where is the imfamous "website" or is it just more propaganda? I would bet propaganda since when you're in the military it is a punishable crime to talk bad about your Commander and Chief. http://milcom.jag.af.mil/milcom2004-complete.pdf But you knew that too right? When did this war become illegal by US law? I believe congress voted on it....hmmm I could be wrong but I am not. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ HAVE FACTS and valid references to back it up. NOT "crude fabrications please" as you so put it.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -4
By Steven Blake on January 05, 2008 at 02:01 pm
I agree let her have her opinion, but back your statements up with facts and not B.S. Which is what she does. She listens to propaganda sites and blog sites those arent facts. Thats someone making and opinion and her stating it as fact.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Rose Mountain on January 05, 2008 at 03:31 pm
Hi Ed, You're the only reasonable-sounding person on this Comment Section, so let me explain to you what's happening. Below is the type of news with links that is in my articles, as evidence to impeach. British evidence from investigations and leaked documents in the British News that were used by the British citizens and Parliament to force Blair to leave office early, and used along with other evidence by 120 US Congresspeople who co-sponsored Congressman Conyers' Bills for a committee to Impeach both Bush & Cheney. That bill was prior to 2006, there's now a new Bill to impeach Cheney in the Judiciary Committee with 25 Congresspeople Co-Sponsoring so far. Soon a Bill for Bushn too. My articles have the links to the news with key evidence including the following British news and documents. The British BBC News which airs worldwide did an investigation called "US Secret Plans For Iraq Oil", based on insiders and 400 pages of documents obtained by Freedom of Information Act from the US State Dept, revealed that weeks after Bush got into office in Jan 2001, secret meetings and plans were created with the Bush Admin, State Dept, Pentagon, Big Oil Companies to invade Iraq for their oil, and for regime change which is illegal under International Law. Another British Newspaper leaked the Downing Street Documents, there are 8 total, the US media published one, plus another British newspaper leaked the White House Meeting Memo. These are all British Memos on the secret prewar strategy meetings between the Blair Admin & Bush Admin. What they revealed to the British public is that Blair knew the US had no legal reasons to invade, but Blair helped the Bush Admin strategize how to sell an illegal war to the US & UK & UN. Blair sent his Head of Intelligence (MI6)through backdoor channels to talk to the US Head of Intelligence CIA ,Tenet. Tenet acknowledged the WMD Intelligence and other claims were being manipulated around a pre-existing policy to invade. (This document was in the US media) Plus there are hundreds of US high-level whistleblowers across the political spectrum from every department in the US Government, including former Bush Admin Head of Counterterrorism, former Sec Of Treasury, former Press Secretary McClellan, US Generals, Officials in the Pentagon,etc etc etc This is the type of key evidence with links that is in my articles. Bill HRES 799 by Congressman Kucinich in the Judiciary Committee to impeach Cheney, later Bush, so far 25 Congresspeople are Co-sponsors. Plus members of the Judiciary Committee want immediate hearings and are asking the public to sign a Petition. Congressman Wexler asked the New York Times and Washington Post to print a letter by him and other Congressmembers to alert the public about the Impeach Bill, but they wouldn't print it.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Steven Blake on January 05, 2008 at 03:40 pm
I wonder why a creditable newspaper wouldn't print it??? And again with this illegal war(it was voted by congress..LEGALLY)? I think you read this stuff and all of a sudden it is gospel without any proof or fact finding. Oh and Rosie....I know I am reasonable and think intellectual and can back up soundly my statements! How about you? Hmm? Oh yeah they are not even your statements, they are someone elses blog or Conspiracy theory. Just bring the proof please. Not the B.S.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Rose Mountain on January 05, 2008 at 03:47 pm
And let me repeat one last time, I never have and never will rate anyone's articles unless I give them Excellent Votes & Reviews. I'm not here to play games with people. I'm here to spread the news to those people with a desire to know. You all can say what you want but I carefully constructed my articles so that I would attract readers and I did, slowly I built up my readership, then my veiws began skyrocketing and each of my articles had been read between 200-400 times, before I got the first big attack on my articles. My readership continued to grow and new readers read each of my articles.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -4
By Steven Blake on January 05, 2008 at 03:50 pm
Yeah right then Rose! So then dpread NEWS not blogs, propoganda, or conspiracy theory PLEASE! Oh and you don't contruct your article you copy and paste.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Rose Mountain on January 05, 2008 at 03:53 pm
Why don't you have the courage to read the British website for the news, I gave you the links in a Comment above the other day, when I copied the British News Investigation and the British leaked Downing Street Documents in this Comment Section.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Rose Mountain on January 05, 2008 at 03:55 pm
Why don't you have the courage to read Pres Nixon's legal advisor, Dean's legal analysis for impeachment of Bush, I told you about that too.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Rose Mountain on January 05, 2008 at 03:56 pm
Why don't you have the courage to read the White House Press Secretary McClellan statement about Bush & Cheney? Is everyone wrong but you?
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -4
By Steven Blake on January 05, 2008 at 04:15 pm
So I have read that article. There was NO factuall knowledge. It was a theory piece by Greg Palast with two possible plans that this guy thought was possible and he felt that oil won as the plans go. If you notice he always uses according to this person. He watches his step very carefull not to say this is factual. Oh and just so everyone has the actual site since she only says it by BBC. Here it is. I bet she hasn't even read it herself, she just heard it was said on the BBC and it must be good. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -4
By Steven Blake on January 05, 2008 at 04:29 pm
Look.....Dean's legal analysis for impeachment of Bush has not caused him to get impeached or go to the creditable news sources. AND REMEMBER IT IS HIS ANALYSIS, it does not make it fact. . . Next White House Press Secretary McClellan does he work for them anymore? Hmmmm? could there be animosity? NONONO It must be factual cause he was telling us the truth when he was press secretary, and don't even play the card he didnt know or he was left in the dark or he was told to. Cause at the end of the day he was still responsible! . . Check into your crap
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Rose Mountain on January 05, 2008 at 09:43 pm
You people need to choose---if you want to live in a democracy then stop harassing my articles and allow me free speech for those who want to read my articles. I tried to accomadate you and give you links to British news that you could trust, since trust is a major issue these days since US censored news and US distorted news,if you don't believe me read it on the British newspapers, but so far it seems no one cares to read the news, only harass me. So I wish you peace to return to your articles and readers and leave mine alone.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -3
By D. E. Carson on January 05, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Right stole any election?  Before you go off on your "UK sources say..." let me give you the correct answer: NO.  It has happened in American history before that a candidate running for president won the popular vote and lost the electoral college.  Frankly, I'm glad we still have the electoral college and the movement to ban it is a bunch of fools.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -4
By D. E. Carson on January 05, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Dear Anonymous calling All Attackers Cowards:

You're the coward Rose.  You haven't even got the cajones to use your real name when posting a prop-up comment for your own story, try using your name next time to show the rest of us that 99% of your "faithful readers" are you.

DEC

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on January 05, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Rose:

Let me see if I can make you understand something.  We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic.  The two terms are NOT interchangeable -- regardless of what your third-rate dictionary may say.  They have distinctly different meanings.

Second, no one here is against free speech.  We are, however, against  plagiarism, of which you are notoriously guilty.   Plagiarism shows that the  plagiarist has no capacity for reason or understanding.  It also proves that the  plagiarist has no creativity.  Now if you were to take what you have read on your lie-infested British Propaganda sites and make a logical case for your point, you might get some real readers and real supporters, but I can assure you that by  plagiarising your posts and then using "ghost accounts" to boost your own ratings you have done nothing but undermine your own efforts and further perpetuate the lunatic mentality of the ultra-liberal left.

I can also assure you that as a former journalist myself, who actually studied the field in college, received a degree in journalist and know a little something about the field,  plagiarism is not tolerated in the "main scream media".  In fact, it can get you (and has gotten many  plagiarists) fired with a very bad reputation that follows you for the rest of your life.  My reasons for leaving the field are personal but I can honestly say that I never submitted a  plagiarised story in my entire career.  You, on the other hand, have submitted nothing but  plagiarised stories and your reputation around BrooWaHa  precedes you.  You lack credibility because of your  plagiarism.  As a side note, even though you say, "I got this from xyz website", you're still  plagiarising because you're cutting and pasting someone else's work no matter how fictional or erroneous it may be.

DEC

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Rose Mountain on January 06, 2008 at 04:07 pm
British News- The Sunday Times June 19, 2005 http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article535913.ece "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." (end)
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Rose Mountain on January 06, 2008 at 04:34 pm
Make sure to read paragraph in above British News article "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... " The British leaked a total of 8 Downing Street documents, the US media finally printed one, the one above. There was also a 9th leaked British document called White House Meeting Memo. Congressman Conyers held a Downing Street Hearing on the first leaked document which the GOP Congress refused to attend. Testimony by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern who said the CIA felt pressure by Cheney, Ambassador Joseph Wilson who investigated the alleged claims by the Bush Admin on Iraq/Niger that the British and CIA said they no longer trusted the source, Amb Wilson and other countries found that the Bush Admin allegations were false, and later found they were forged documents. A Congressman from the Senate Intelligence Committee said the Bush Admin took them to the Pentagon, and showed them what later turned out to be fabricated WMD photos. A Pentagon whistleblower said she saw the manipulations of Intelligence. Head of Counterterroism & CIA & FBI told Bush that Alqueda is in Afghanistan, Bush said he wanted to know about Iraq. White House Press Secretary McClellan says Bush & Cheney responsible for leaks on the WMD expert, the grand jury testimony & Congressional Hearing reveals Bush Admin & State Dept leaked the name of the expert on Weapons Of Mass Destruction, the Bush Admin "outed" her covert status thus stopping her WMD work in the Middle East/Iraq and jeopardized her sources, and her family. (see VIDEO & CHART OF LEAKS of Congressional Hearing on Valerie Plame Wilson, in Article #27). (Article #4 Iraq Lies and whistleblowers has all documents above) See British BBC News Investigation "US Secret Plans For Iraq Oil" with Bush Admin, State Dept, Pentagon, Big Oil Companies. See Congressman Conyers Judicial Staff investigative Report with all documents and evidence "Constitution in Crisis" published as book "George W Bush versus US Constitution"
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -3
By D. E. Carson on January 06, 2008 at 10:04 pm

My God.  Even her responses to logic and facts are plagiarized, cut and paste, liberal, British propaganda.  It's Conspiracy Theory 101!

In case you've forgotten, Rosie, not ALL of Britain likes America and will do what it can to undermine us.  There's still the sting of 1776 and 1812 over there.

Sheesh!  I'm supposed to believe some nut job from England?  Right, just like I was supposed to believe the screw-balled, moron from France who allegedly revealed how 9/11 was an inside job and the attack on the Pentagon was done by a missle and not a plane.

When you decide to stop fertilizing your brain, let us know.  And by the way, thanks for the  "All 1" rating on my latest story over on BrooWaHa-LA.  It's nice to know that you care so much.  Did you even read it or did you just rate it all 1's out of spite?  At least I read yours before slamming it.

DEC

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Rose Mountain on January 07, 2008 at 01:05 am

As always you guys have great imaginations fueled by your own issues, if I told you the truth about myself you'd never believe it anyway, just like you don't read or believe the British news of leaked documents from the British government on how Bush & Blair strategized to sell the US & UK & UN an illegal war. So keep fantasizing, and by all means keep attacking the messenger with mean words and the articles with Awful Votes, we wouldn't want any truth getting out to the American people.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Rose Mountain on January 07, 2008 at 01:14 am

Professional journalists take seriously their role in a democracy, for they know that a democracy depends on an informed public for its survival. Which is why there's been a National Coference on Media Reform since 2003 with keynote speaker PBS Bill Moyers. But you guys never seem to care. Have you thought even for one moment that maybe Bush lied to you, that the whistleblowers from his own Admin are correct, that the massive evidence and the British news are correct?

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By Rose Mountain on January 07, 2008 at 01:19 am

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the earth is not flat. How to prove this to people in denial is impossible. However there is such a thing as civility. Which means read the documents and investigations from which comes from sources across the political spectrum. If you can't handle the truth. Give yourself time. This stuff is scary to all of us who love our country.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Rose Mountain on January 07, 2008 at 01:38 am

Now you're accusing the British newspapers of propaganda?? Amazing. It's true there's much censorship these days, even in British papers but the BBC did the investigation "US Secret Plans For Iraq Oil", read Congressman Conyers Report "Constitution In Crisis", it has all the evidence with a timeline for all the manipulations and lies. But all you have to know is that the United Nations Security Council never authorized the US invasion of Iraq.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Rose Mountain on January 07, 2008 at 01:55 am

Excerpts from Article #4 Iraq Lies & Whistleblowers

*Recently British Courts are allowing lawsuits questioning the legality of the Iraq War. News 6/18/07 "Lords To Look At Legality Of Iraq War" in The Guardian, by Clare Dyer, the legal editor. (excerpt) "Britain's highest court is to hear a case which could force the government to hold an independent inquiry into the way the attorney general reached his conclusion that the war in Iraq would be lawful. The law lords have agreed to hear an appeal by the mothers of the two soldiers killed in Iraq, who argue that the government violated their sons' right to life by rushing into war on inadequate legal grounds. ' The legality of the war on Iraq - the most important question of law of our generation - remains unresolved by any court or other independent and authoritative body in the United Kingdom,' begins the petition which persuaded the judges to let the appeal go ahead. The petition was drafted by two of the country's leading human rights QCs .." http://guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2105195,00.html



*Suskind's book "The Price of Loyalty" (excerpts) "Paul O’Neill and others from Bush Admin have given the journalist Ron Suskind documents for a new book, "The Price Of Loyalty", revealing that as early as the first three months of 2001 the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein. “There are memos,” Suskind told CBS. “One of them marked ‘secret’ says ‘Plan for Post- Saddam Iraq’.” Another Pentagon document entitled Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oil Field Contracts talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interests in Iraq. O’Neill is also quoted in the new book saying the President was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded. " “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it,” said O’Neill. “The President saying, ‘Go find me a way to do this.’” "The Sunday Herald previously uncovered how a think-tank – run by vice-president Dick Cheney; defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Bush’s younger brother Jeb, the governor of Florida; and Lewis Libby, Cheney’s deputy – wrote a blueprint for regime change as early as September 2000. The think-tank, the Project for the New American Century,...."

*"The West's Battle for Oil" by Sunday Herald News 10/6/2002,Scotland Award-winning Independent Newspaper, on a report commissioned by US Sec Baker under former Pres George H W Bush Senior, submitted to Vice Pres Cheney April 2001. (excerpts)"Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq ... to secure control of its oil. Neil Mackay on the document which casts doubt on the hawks. It is a document that fundamentally questions the motives behind the Bush administration's desire to take out Saddam Hussein and go to war with Iraq. Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of 'military intervention' as a means to fix the US energy crisis. The report is linked to a veritable who's who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs. It was commissioned by James Baker, the former US Secretary of State under George Bush Snr, and submitted to Vice-President Dick Cheney in April 2001 -- a full five months before September 11. Yet it advocates a policy of using military force against an enemy such as Iraq to secure US access to, and control of, Middle Eastern oil fields. One of the most telling passages in the document reads: 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. 'This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader ... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. 'The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.' At the moment, UN sanctions allow Iraq to export some oil. Indeed, the US imports almost a million barrels of Iraqi oil a day, even though American firms are forbidden from direct involvement with the regime's oil industry."
http://www.sundayherald.com/28224



*BBC News "Secret US Plans for Iraq's Oil" by Greg Palast investigative journalist with Harper's Magazine, revealed by insiders and a 323-pg secret document, just weeks after Bush entered office in Jan 2001, the Bush Admin, State Dept, neoconservatives in the Pentagon, and Big Oil created secret plans for Iraq's Oil. Palast's article at BBC Newsnight (excerpts) "The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed". "Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq." "In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists". "Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants. Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US. We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming. An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat. Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration. The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm



*National Journal News "Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Congress Panel" by Murray Waas 11/ 22/2005. (excerpts)"Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter. The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the “President’s Daily Brief,” a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders. One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime." (excerpt) "The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm



*Bush Advisor turned whistleblower, Richard Clarke Head of Counterterrorism for last four presidents at the National Security Council (NSC). Clarke's information can be found in Congressman Conyer's Investigation Report "Constitution in Crisis" Chapter 3, Clarke's TV interview on "60 Minutes", Clarke's book "Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror-What Really Happened". Summary--Clarke testified at the 9/11 Commission that after 9/11 Bush didn't focus on Osama Bin Laden instead he fixated on Iraq & Saddam Hussein. On 9/12/2001 Bush asked Clarke to find a connection to Iraq, Clarke reminded Bush that the AlQaeda were in Afghanistan, Bush said I know but repeated his request. Clarke gathered a team of FBI & CIA experts to examine if there were ties between Iraq & 9/11 attacks, but confirmed that Iraq & Hussein had no connection to the 9/11 attacks. They wrote a Report then sent findings to the CIA & FBI and asked if they would sign it, they all cleared the report. Clarke said we sent the Report to the the White House, the President, and it got bounced back by the National Security Advisory Deputy, saying "wrong answer...do it again."

*News 11/7/05 Agence France Presse on US declassified document article "US Military Intelligence Warned Bush Admin As Early As February 2002" (excerpts) that its key source on Al-Qaeda's relationship with Iraq had provided "intentionally misleading" data, according to a declassified report. Nevertheless, eight months later, President George W. Bush went public with charges that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had trained members of Osama bin Laden's terror network in manufacturing deadly poisons and gases. These same accusations had found their way into then-secretary of state Colin Powell's February 2003 speech before the UN Security Council, in which he outlined the US rationale for military action against Iraq." http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110705G.shtml



*"The New Pentagon Papers", revealed by Salon.com is the personal account by an inside whistleblower from the Pentagon--"A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war." By Karen Kwiatkowski, March 10,2004 (excerpts) "In July of last year, after just over 20 years of service, I retired as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force." "From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The seizure of the reins of U.S. Middle East Policy was directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia policy office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do about it. I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies. I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the President. While this commandeering of a narrow segment of both intelligence production and American foreign policy matched closely with the well-published desires of the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, many of us in the Pentagon, conservatives and liberals alike, felt that this agenda, whatever its flaws or merits, had never been openly presented to the American people. Instead, the public story line was a fear-peddling and confusing set of messages, designed to take Congress and the country into a war of executive choice, a war based on false pretenses, and a war one year later Americans do not really understand. That is why I have gone public with my account."
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/index.html



*BBC NEWS 3/18/2003 Resignation Speech of British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in House of Commons--just prior to invasion.(excerpts)"We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council. To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse. Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition." "Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.""It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement." "Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq. The threshold for war should always be high.""For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2859431.stm



*In 2003 CNN News on web, a legal analysis of impeachment, Article "Is Lying about the Reason For A War An Impeachable Offense?" by John Dean former White House Counsel to Pres Nixon. Dean wrote this article before WMD's declared not found by UN Inspectors in Iraq. Dean concluded,based on Bush's repeated public statements about WMD's, that if no WMD's are found Bush committed a High Crime.
http://cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd



*BBC News 9/24/03 in article "No WMD in Iraq,Source Claims". (excerpt)"No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group looking for them, according to a Bush Admin source who has spoken to the BBC. This will be the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group's interim report, the source told the presenter of BBC television's Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil. Downing Street branded the story 'speculation about an unfinished draft of an interim report.' Mr Neil said the draft report - which the source said is due to be published next month - concludes that it is highly unlikey that weapons of mass destruction were shipped out of the country to places like Syria before the US-led war on Iraq."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3135932.stm



*The New York Times finally apologized in an Editorial for misleading the public about the nonexistent WMD's in Iraq, their front page journalist Judith Miller was found to be writing propaganda directly from the White House.



*BBC News 8/23/03 "Hutton Documents Released". (excerpts) "Thousands of documents submitted to the Hutton inquiry into the death of government weapons expert Dr David Kelly have been published on the internet." " Government scientist Dr Kelly was the source for the BBC's story about the Iraq dossier being "sexed up" at the behest of Downing Street to make the case for war."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3176329.stm


*Bush Admin lies & deceptions on Iraq . Congressman Conyers used this  timeline of evidence at http://rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/pathofwartimeline613.htm

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Rose Mountain on January 07, 2008 at 02:01 am

Not all links to above documents are still active, I did research a few years ago, but most work. So you can Google for those no longer active.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By Rose Mountain on January 07, 2008 at 02:13 am

British News Article by British journalist who leaked the Downing Street Documents that reveal the Bush Admin manipulation of Intelligence on Iraq, and how Blair knew the US had no legal reason to invade Iraq but went along with the US. The British public was outraged and Blair had to step down. --------

LINK http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article535913.ece

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: -1
By Rose Mountain on January 07, 2008 at 02:15 am

Okay I'm done now. Those with a desire to know what the rest of the world knows, can read....above

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By Rose Mountain on January 07, 2008 at 01:01 pm

People across the political spectrum don't trust the Bush Admin. As I said before, I'm sorry you few Commentators were all brainwashed by the Bush Admin, the betrayal of trust is a terrible thing. I'm also sorry you feel the need to attack the articles from the US & UK whistleblowers who are trying to save America. I wish you Peace.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -3
By Steven Blake on January 07, 2008 at 02:34 pm

Rose you are the one brainwashed. You dont look at thing objectively. EVERY EVERY administration has these whistleblowers! I mean have you only been alive the last 7 years or what? The one who needs help here is you

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -3
By Steven Blake on January 07, 2008 at 02:36 pm

oh and go ahead and mark all my stuff down again with another account,  cause I  don't care! ASS

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 3
By Rose Mountain on January 07, 2008 at 05:28 pm

You guys are so funny, you have no idea what the rest of the world knows, what US journalists know, what Americans across the political spectrum know, what San Franciscans know.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -3
By Steven Blake on January 07, 2008 at 06:41 pm

Yeah Rose we all have no clue right?? Really? Really? Wake UP

 Report abuse



Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.


Rate This Article


Your vote matters to us



x


x