Truth About Bush

Congresswoman Louise M. Slaughter

Fox News are spreading the notion that Osama Bin Laden is not important anymore, so the Bush Crime Family can get away with the Iraq war !

The main target of the Iraq war is for “profiting”:
Bush and his oil and war related buddies are there for the money!

Halliburton, Cheney’s company has already made billions of dollars in this Iraq’s invasion!

Record High Gas prices $62/barrel. Gas prices are reaching $2.61/gal of regular gas. Record Profits for Exxon/Mobil and others.

Absolutely no account for our tax-dollars in Iraq:

The Administration has no records of 9 billion in cash lost in Iraq (given away to the war profiteers like Halliburton and others)!

The actual state of the Nation:

- one trillion dollars deficit
- 50 million uninsured american
- 60 billion dollars trade deficit
- states are broken
- lots of job loss to overseas outsourcing

Bush wants to install all the righties judges!!!

Bush wants to terminate Social-Security!!!

Bush does not want free press!!!

Thursday, July 10, 2003 — The Mirror (London)

Mike’s Truth Is Stronger Than Allies’ Fiction
By Brian Reade

It was not just the most brilliant Oscar acceptance speech ever given but the first Great Truth of the 21st Century.

“We live in fictitious times, where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president.

“We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.”

When Michael Moore delivered those words in March he outraged not just the scalpel-riven multi-millionaires in the Los Angeles audience but self-styled patriots on both sides of the Atlantic.

Our Boys are about to go to war, they said, and all this dirty commie bastard can do is abuse the freedoms they are ready to die for.

But their words simply backed up Moore’s belief that we were choking in a smog of fabrication. Ask Rob Kelly, whose son Andrew was the youngest soldier killed in Iraq. Back then he believed the fiction was fact. Now he is incandescent over a young life laid down for a lie.

And now that the truth unravels, the smokescreen grows thicker. New fiction is produced to distract attention away from the fiction which killed, and still kills, so many.

Our government invents a row with the BBC to stop us finding out the true extent of their lies. We hear of dodgy dossiers and dubious intelligence aimed at kidding us we could be wiped out in 45 minutes.

Tony Blair shifts around like a cornered thief claiming it wasn’t Weapons of Mass Destruction that threatened us after all, but Weapons of Mass Destruction Programmes. Programmes being more abstract, and thus easier to “find”.

Meanwhile the poisonous concoction spreads around the world. Washington claims it was fed made-up British intelligence about Iraq obtaining uranium from Niger.

In Iraq Arnold Schwarzenegger, plugging his latest piece of celluloid fantasy, tells US troops that The Terminator is merely an invention but “you guys are the true terminators.”

And as they whoop and holler, the families of 5,000 murdered Iraqi citizens still wail and holler over their loved ones, obscenely terminated for fictitious reasons. George Bush flies into Africa to establish a strategic foot-hold in the next great untapped oil-field.

He looks into a building where Alabama-bound slaves were once held in shackles, talks about our collective shame, yet fails to realise he is holding innocent men in shackles in Guantanamo Bay.

The most powerful man on Earth calls on all human beings to solve poverty in Africa, where half the people live on less than a dollar a day, yet fails to acknowledge he has just spent $ 40 billion fighting a war for bogus reasons.

As for Tony Blair, he counts the days when he can slip out of the firing line and head with Cherie to Cliff Richard’s Barbados mansion, where this merry band of Christians will no doubt hold hands and thank the Lord for their own world of peace and plenty.

Take a bow, Michael Moore. You were spot-on. And nobody realises that more than we British. How ironic that on the day the Foreign Affairs Committee released its non-findings on the great fictional war, Collins Dictionary declared that the word “bollocks” was now an acceptable part of our language.

It has been for many months, folks. Especially at the highest level.

Should there be an investigation of the Downing Street Memo?

SignOnSanDiego.com > News > World — Pakistan’s interior minister says bin Laden could be in southeastern Afghanistan
Pakistan’s interior minister says bin Laden could be in southeastern Afghanistan
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site

ASSOCIATED PRESS

11:28 a.m. July 5, 2005

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan’s interior minister said Tuesday that Osama bin Laden could be hiding in southeastern Afghanistan, but he denied the al-Qaeda chief was in Pakistan.

“It is my assessment that the writ of the government is not so strong in the southern and eastern provinces of Afghanistan,” Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao told reporters. “Those are Taliban-dominated areas and there could be a possibility of his presence.”

Advertisement
Click Me!
The whereabouts of bin Laden, architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, are unknown. But they are suspected of hiding along the rugged Afghan-Pakistani border.

The rugged and remote mountains of eastern Afghanistan is where an elite four-member U.S. commando team was operating when it went missing on June 28. A transport helicopter sent to rescue the team was shot down, killing all 16 Americans aboard. One of the U.S. troops was rescued, the bodies of two others were recovered and the fourth remains missing.

The former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, told a news conference in Kabul last month he did not believe bin Laden or Omar were in Afghanistan, though he did not say where he thought they were.

On Monday, Sherpao told the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan news agency that Omar and al-Zawahri may also be in southeastern Afghanistan. He said Tuesday: “We don’t have any evidence that Osama is in Pakistan.”

Pakistan is a key ally of the United States in the war against terrorism and its security forces have captured more than 700 al-Qaeda suspects including several top figures in the terror network.

July 9th, 2005 5:34 pm
Military to Pay Halliburton Another $5B

WASHINGTON (AP) — The military has agreed to pay a Halliburton subsidiary up to $5 billion for another year of care and feeding of U.S. forces in Iraq, a military spokeswoman said Thursday.

The task order calls for Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc. of Arlington, Va., to provide things like food and laundry service, showers, drinking water and other ‘’quality of life'’ services for troops in Iraq, said Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill. The job also includes some fuel transport and other services.

The order is under a larger contract the military initiated with KBR after the Sept. 11 attacks to support U.S. troops in war zones.

The order took effect May 1 and covers a period through April 30, 2006, Theis said.

Halliburton has reported being paid $10.7 billion for Iraq-related government work during 2003 and 2004. The company reported its pretax profits from that work as $163 million.

Pentagon auditors have questioned tens of millions of dollars of Halliburton charges for its operations there. The company says it is a good steward of taxpayer dollars.

The Houston-based company has 50,000 employees spread between Iraq and Kuwait.

Vice President Dick Cheney headed the company from 1995 to 2000, and Democratic members of Congress have repeatedly questioned whether Halliburton received favored treatment because of Cheney’s former connection with the company.

Other items in this section

Mike’s Letter
Latest News
In The News

suggest

RSS Feed

RSS Feed

RSS Feed

More of Mike’s Latest News

July 10th, 2005 1:41 pm
Memo says US, UK readying Iraqi withdrawal-report

July 10th, 2005 1:12 pm
Suicide bombers kill 27 Iraqis in new spate of attacks

July 10th, 2005 12:46 pm
Allawi: this is the start of civil war

July 10th, 2005 5:13 am
Matt Cooper’s Source

July 9th, 2005 9:44 pm
Penobscot soldier injured in Iraq attack returns to Maine

July 9th, 2005 5:34 pm
Military to Pay Halliburton Another $5B

July 9th, 2005 5:18 p

July 10th, 2005 5:13 am
Matt Cooper’s Source

What Karl Rove told Time magazine’s reporter

By Michael Isikoff / Newsweek

July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. “Subject: Rove/P&C,” (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. “Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation…” Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, “please don’t source this to rove or even WH [White House]” and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.

Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute “personal consent” from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.

For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame’s identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove’s words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. “I didn’t know her name. I didn’t leak her name,” Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper’s lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.

The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson’s column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson’s credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife.

In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson’s criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time’s editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine’s corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a “big warning” not to “get too far out on Wilson.” Rove told Cooper that Wilson’s trip had not been authorized by “DCIA”—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, “it was, KR said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.” Wilson’s wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: “not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there’s still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger… ”

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame’s name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak’s column appeared; in other words, before Plame’s identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. “Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper,” Luskin told NEWSWEEK.

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was “absolutely no inconsistency” between Cooper’s e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. “A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame’s identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false,” the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson’s trip to Africa.

Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probing—and provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq.

Welcome to MichaelMoore.com!
Friday, July 8th, 2005
THE WAR ON TERROR: PROGRESS?

Four years ago this September, the world changed. George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, rose from the rubble of tragedy to boldly lead a war on all those who hated freedom. We were going to smoke them out of their caves.

We invaded Afghanistan, toppled their brutal dictators and set up a provisional government that became an elected government that will celebrate its democracy this fall at the polls.

The war there, however, is not over and was never won. The Taliban launched a spring offensive, heroin sales are booming, non-aligned war lords rule much of the outlying country, and the citizens stuck in between are feeling uneasy.

The #1 Evildoer hasn’t been found–nevermind the leader of the Taliban who also vanished. Now Pakistan says Osama might be in Afghanistan. Afghanistan says he might be in Pakistan but wherever he is, he’s not in Afghanistan.

Finding this guy is enough to make anyone’s head spin and so we gave up and went to Iraq.

In the name of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism we toppled a brutal dictator and fulfilled the President’s promise to use American power for nation-building.

More than two years into this invasion, the Iraqi people have voted for a leader, the government is drafting a plan to draft a constitution, the people often have no power, and the anti-invasion insurgency is always about to end.

Here is a look at Iraq by the numbers:

Number of U.S. troops in Iraq — 135,000;

Number of coalition troops in Iraq — 23,250;

Number of Iraqi security forces — 168,581;

Number of insurgents & militants — 16,000.

That’s 326,831 coalition soldiers fighting 16,000 insurgents at the cost of $180,000,000,000.00.

The President assures us that entire hundreds of foreign fighters have been captured or killed:

Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others

1,751 American Military Deaths

And like Afghanistan, the innocent (and newly-freed) citizens stuck in between feel uneasy. At least 12,000 just feel dead (and that’s a minimum).

In the latest justification in the ever-shifting plates of war, our President says we are taking the fight to the terrorists so that they won’t have a chance to hit us at home like they did on 9/11.

Unfortunately, he stopped looking for the leader of these terrorists long ago.

Unfortunately, the real leaders of the terrorists are still safe and sound, somewhere outside Iraq–where they never were to begin with–and they’re still in charge:

The message by Ayman al-Zawahri — his first video since February — appeared to be an attempt by Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network to co-opt the rising wave of reform movements in the Middle East.
….
On at least seven occasions in the past six years, a statement by al-Zawahri has been followed by a significant al-Qaida attack within three weeks, an NBC News analysis of the statements show. In four cases, the attacks came within a week.

Unfortunately, the terrorists already brought the fight home.

Unfortunately, George W. Bush is losing the war on terrorism.

THE FUTURES THIS MORNING, or MEANING WHAT YOU SAY
London bombings leave more than fifty dead as police dig in with implacable resolve.

Early reports suggested that British police had warned the Israeli embassy of possible terror attacks just prior to the blasts. But apparently no such thing happened.

July 9th, 2005 2:51 pm
Is Rove Going Down?

By Arianna Huffington / AlterNet

How is it that the second most powerful man in America is about to take a fall and the mainstream media are largely taking a pass? Could it be that the fear of Karl Rove and this White House is so great that not even the biggest of the media big boys are willing to take them on? Does the answer to that one go without saying?

Chatter about the Rove story has come to dominate the downtime at the Aspen Institute’s five-day Ideas Festival. Whenever participants are not in sessions, they’re gathering in small groups and dissecting, analyzing, and speculating about the outcome of this surprisingly slow-breaking scandal.

One such discussion took place just after David Gergen had finished a conversation with Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose-Driven Life,” which has sold 25 million copies in hardback. A cluster of high-powered media insiders quickly switched over to “The Gossip-Driven Reality.” The well-informed suppositions were flying faster than the peloton at the Tour de France. I can tell you what was said, I just can’t tell you who was saying it. (Just look at it as an anonymous twist on the HuffPost BozBlog).

According to the players, the key to whether this story has real legs — and whether it will spell the end of Rove — is determining intent. And a key to that is whether there was a meeting at the White House where Rove and Scooter Libby discussed what to do with the information they had gotten from the State Department about Valerie Plame being Joe Wilson’s wife, and her involvement in his being sent on the Niger/yellowcake mission. If it can be proven that such a meeting occurred, then Rove will be in deep trouble — especially if it is established that Rove made three phone calls leaking the info about Plame and her CIA gig? one to Matt Cooper, one to Walter Pincus, and one to Robert Novak.

Other than intent, the other big legal question raised was: will Rove be able to get away with claiming that he did not know Plame was an undercover agent?

We all know what happened after Rove placed those calls. The question is, what will happen now? From the way they’ve acted so far, the mainstream media would rather this scandal just go away (bloggers take note). Just look at the way Newsweek handled the Rove-outed-Plame story in this week’s edition. The editors obviously knew they had a hot story and could have pushed it hard. Instead, it’s clear that they lawyered it within an inch of its life — a bunch of legal eagles with faint hearts removing any juice and most of the meat from it.

As one of the Aspen wags put it: “Once Newsweek flushed the Koran down the toilet, you can bet they’ll think twenty times before they pull down the handle again.”

Want another example? Just look at how the White House press corps is dealing with the story: by avoiding it completely.

Today’s press gaggle took place aboard Air Force One on the way to Scotland. Now, given that Rove may or may not be the subject of a federal investigation, one would think that our intrepid White House reporters might, you know, ask the White House spokesman about that.

But if you do a text search for the word “Rove” in this transcript, you’ll see that not a single press person thought that the fact that the President of the United States’ most trusted advisor is, at the very least, a key player in a criminal investigation was worth a single question to Scottie McClellan. Not a one.

This is all the more significant because of the role McClellan may eventually play in Rove’s fate. As Newsweek reported and I blogged about, when this story began heating up, McClellan went out of his way to defend Rove — saying that he’d been “assured” that Rove was not involved in the leaking.

“Rove will have no compunction about lying through his teeth to save himself, counting on the fact that Cooper’s emails are, apparently, not cut and dried,” one of the group said. And it doesn’t hurt that Rove’s underlings would rather fall on their swords than tell the truth… which, in the Bush White House, is seen as selling out. All of which would leave McClellan to “take one for the team and eat major crow about all the assurances he’d given the press.” Of course, if they continue to avoid asking him about it, he may not even have to do that.

As the group started walking to the next seminar, my mind turned back to the Gergen-Warren conversation. Near the end, a woman stood up, identified herself as Jewish and asked Warren if she would be saved. He told her that he believed that you can only be saved through Jesus Christ. I only wished I had stood up and asked Warren: What will it take for Karl Rove to be saved?