Truth About Bush

Air America Radio |
They want war. The America-hating Republican Neo-Conservatives who are eating the U.S. alive want more war. Iran is next in their sites. And it matters not what Iran does or does not do. These evil thugs want war and they want it before the elections this fall. The leading MSM enabler of the Bush Crime Family – the New York Times – today published on the newspaper’s front page an article stating that some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States, even though those threats simply do not exist. (See: Iraq! WMDs!) Put more honestly, the warmongers now in control of our nation want the same sort of lies and deceptions made public that were used to invade and occupy Iraq. More death! More war! More insanity! And who or what is acting to stop this madness? The Democratic Party leadership? The military? Millions of Americans in the streets saying no to these killers? Is it not time for us to do exactly that?

THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY:

In the 1980s, the Republican team of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush tried to destroy the Central American nation of Nicaragua. After a century of U.S. support for yet another right-wing dictatorship dedicated to the protection of America’s corporate interests, Nicaraguan freedom fighters – the Sandinistas - overthrew the Somoza family and began the difficult work of salvaging their country. The leader of the Socialist revolution was Daniel Ortega and for most of the decade the Regan-Bush team tried to kill him, his family, his army and his country. The killers – the Contras – hired by the Regan-Bush hit team failed. Daniel Ortega served as president from 1985 to 1990 and was defeated in the 1990 election. Now there is news that Ortega is leading in the latest poll of that country’s top presidential contenders. A footnote to US intervention in Nicaragua in the 80s is the fact that so many of the hired killers, whose objective was murder and counterrevolution, are once again working in a Bush Administration: The criminal enterprise of George W.

Idiot or Liar? Either Way, Bush Is Unfit for Office
John V. Whitbeck • Special to Arab News

JEDDAH, 19 August 2003 — On July 25, President George W. Bush made a truly staggering statement to the press after a meeting with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan: “The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program?

And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.”

This statement is worth reading carefully. The president of the United States has stated, in a public forum, that he invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein would not allow weapons inspectors back into his country.

So far as I am aware, this statement has not been the subject of any serious critical analysis in the mainstream American media.

I will therefore provide my own brief analysis.

Assuming, as seems reasonable, that the president of the United States was neither drunk nor on LSD, there can be only two possible explanations for this statement:

Explanation 1: The president of the United States believed what he said. In this case, he is so dim-witted and/or totally divorced from reality as to be mentally unfit to hold his current job — or, indeed, any job — and should be taken into medical care.

Explanation 2: The president did not believe what he said but, rather, believes (unfortunately not without compelling post-Sept.11 evidence) that the vast majority of the American people are so dim-witted and/or uninformed and the vast majority of the American media is so sycophantic and/or terrified of being branded “unpatriotic” (or simply losing White House “access”) that he can now tell any lie, no matter how obvious and outrageous, and get away with it. In this case, he is morally unfit to hold his current job and should, by constitutional means, be forced to relinquish it as soon as possible.

Either explanation should scare the wits out of anyone who is not comatose.

When a single individual combines ignorance, immorality, dry-drunk syndrome, a publicly proclaimed commitment to perpetual military domination of the entire world by his country, a publicly expressed belief that God personally instructs him to make war on specific countries and a wildly irrational born-again brand of Christianity that views the Battle of Armageddon and the consequent end of life on earth as desirable developments and, at the same time, has command authority over an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction more than sufficient to achieve the end of life on earth, it is difficult to argue that this individual is not the most dangerous person who has ever lived.

When (if ever) will the American people wake up to the real threat facing America and the world?

— John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer.

Mail Article | Print Article | Comment on Article

jbcard’s Xanga Site
Is Bush aIS l-Is Bush al-Qaeda’s ‘Useful IdioIS t’?Qaeda’s ‘Useful Idiot’?

By Robert Parry
August 2IS6, 2005

If Western intelligence agencies are right – that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the two-year-plus military occupation have been recruiting boons for Islamic terrorism – why is it logical to commit American troops to an indefinite deployment there? Won’t that just create more terrorists?

Put differently, has George W. Bush’s Iraq policy done more to help than hurt al-Qaeda, from Bush’s hasty decision to redirect U.S. military assets from Afghanistan to Iraq while Osama bin-Laden was still at large, to the loose talks about an American “crusade,” to supplanting Iraq’s secular government with one favoring Islamic fundamentalism?

In the 1980s, when I was covering the wars in Central America, neoconservative theorists liked to call U.S. peace activists “useful idiots” because their opposition to the hard-line Reagan administration was seen as unwittingly aiding and abetting communists and other leftist enemies. In that vein, is Bush now al-Qaeda’s “useful idiot”?

These q

Bush’s Iraq Idiocy
by mcjoan
Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 04:21:38 PM PDT

Scarborough’s question has reverberated in the last few days, as the news from Iraq becomes increasingly bleak. There’s little question that, if not an idiot, he’s dangerously disconnected from what his Iraq Debacle has wrought. Try as he might, he can’t create a new reality. A few days ago, we learned that he’s peeved with the Iraqis for not being more grateful to America. Yeah, hard to imagine the Iraqis aren’t grateful for all this.

But reality is coming back to bite BushCo in the butt–all the purple fingers in Iraq can’t actually bring about democracy. An election conducted during a foreign occupation and absent any domestic normalization or reconciliation isn’t a real election, and the violence just keeps getting worse.

Along with a sharp increase in sectarian attacks, the number of daily strikes against American and Iraqi security forces has doubled since January. The deadliest means of attack, roadside bombs, made up much of that increase. In July, of 2,625 explosive devices, 1,666 exploded and 959 were discovered before they went off. In January, 1,454 bombs exploded or were found….

“The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels,” said a senior Defense Department official who agreed to discuss the issue only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for attribution. “The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.”

A separate, classified report by the Defense Intelligence Agency, dated Aug. 3, details worsening security conditions inside the country and describes how Iraq risks sliding toward civil war, according to several officials who have read the document or who have received a briefing on its contents.

The administration continues to steadfastly deny that Iraq is sliding toward civil war, much less in the throes of one right now. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they insist that everything is going according to plan. Meanwhile, commanders on the ground have to try to marshall limited resources to respond to increasing violence around the country, like some kind of gruesome game of whack-a-mole, deploying troops first here and then there, with casualty counts continuing apace and serious injuries increasing.

Some see movement in the administration on Iraq, an indication that perhaps what can only be called the real reality is sinking in.

You Can Impeach the President
By Dan DeWalt

In mid January of this year, in a moment of quixotic zeal, I wrote a five point resolution calling for the impeachment of G W Bush. With 5% of the towns registered voters signing on, it went to the selectboard and was included in the warning for Newfane Town Meeting on March 7.

By the end of Town Meeting day, five towns across Vermont had overwhelmingly adopted this resolution. My phone started ringing within an hour or two, and a day and a half later, I had given more than 30 interviews to media outlets, from FOX and CNN radio to several Boston and local Vermont radio stations, from a Massachusetts ABC-affiliate to Bloomberg News, the Washington Times (snake in the grass), Boston Globe and Reuters.

I soon found out that Vermonters had already been hard at work drafting the “Rutland Resolution,” which is an impeachment resolution to be passed by the state legislature, and forces the federal House of Representatives to forward it to the Judiciary Committee. We are continuing our efforts and are making headway, with over half of the state’s Democratic County Committees passing it. The state Democratic Committee will be considering this on April 10. Several legislators have expressed a willingness to go along, if not to lead.

I also discovered that all across the country, this call for accountability is being received with welcome and relief. People who have identified themselves as Republicans, evangelicals, many veterans, many elder Americans, contacted me or Newfane to say that they are supporting us and appreciate our speaking out.

Those who support this effort can bring it to their home towns. Whether you have Town Meeting, town council, county supervisors, or any other local political structure, you can petition them to adopt a resolution. Gathering signatures to persuade them may be easier than you would imagine. Support for this president’s actions is very thin. As more revelations dribble out from the mainstream press, more Americans are willing to reconsider their willingness to be unquestionably led by this malignant administration.

Already efforts are underway in California, Hawaii, Indiana, Arizona, Utah, as well as more in VT, just to name some locations where initiatives have sprung up in response to our Town Meeting actions.

If you want to read a concise primer on how to take on an initiative in your town, go here.

Dan DeWalt is a woodworker and selectboard member in the town of Newfane, Vermont, and the author of a successful town resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

Roll out the welcome wagon: Cindy SheehanÂ’s moving to Crawford

Friday, July 28, 2006

By Katy Moore and Mike Copeland

Tribune-Herald staff writers

CRAWFORD — When peace activist Cindy Sheehan returns here next month to protest the war in Iraq, she won’t be a guest. She’ll be one of Crawford’s newest residents.

Sheehan’s peace group, Gold Star Families for Peace, said on its Web site Thursday that Sheehan had purchased five acres on State Highway 317, about a half-mile north of the sole traffic light here. County records indicate she is acquiring the property through a third party who himself recently purchased it.

On her Web site, Sheehan says she’s already planning to mount next month’s war protest on the property, again timed for the period when President Bush routinely spends his vacation at his Central Texas ranch. The Bush ranch is several miles west of Sheehan’s place, and area residents are largely defensive of the president.

“Well, there’s not much we can do about it,” said Jamie Burgess of the Red Bull gift shop in town. “I guess she has the right to buy (property) here.”

Longtime Crawford resident Bobby D. Ramsey sold a little more than five acres to Gerald T. Fonseca, a New Orleans native who said he was displaced by Hurricane Katrina last fall. Fonseca was in Crawford along with hundreds of other war protesters when the hurricane destroyed his home Aug. 29.

Fonseca, who identifies himself as a Vietnam veteran and a member of Veterans for Peace, had been living more recently in Eagle Rock, Mo., with relatives. He has been in Crawford the past four weeks, staying at the Crawford Peace House.

Transfer planned

While Fonseca’s name is on the deed as the land’s new owner, Sheehan’s protest group will use the property for this year’s Camp Casey, the peace camp named for Sheehan’s son, Casey Sheehan, a 24-year-old Fort Hood soldier killed in Iraq in 2004.

In September, Fonseca said, ownership of the land will be transferred to Sheehan.

Ramsey, who soon may find unexpected neighbors when protesters move into a huge tent on the property he sold, said he was unaware before the sale that it would be used by Sheehan to host Camp Casey in August.

“(Fonseca) said he was going to build a home and, one day, a shop (on the land),” Ramsey said Thursday, speaking from his adjacent property in Crawford. “He told me that Katrina wiped him out.. . . . It didn’t even occur to me that he could use it for this.”

Fonseca confirmed he never indicated to his new neighbors that the land would be transferred to Sheehan, but he said that was always the plan. He said the $52,500 used to pay for the property — a spread of rustic, wooded prairie with no houses — came from Sheehan and her Gold Star Families for Peace.

Fonseca said he acted as “an agent” for Sheehan, negotiating the purchase and closing the deal with Ramsey.

“They’re really good neighbors,” Fonseca said of families nearby. “The idea again is that we’re here to be good neighbors, to make it as comfortable as we can for everyone.”

While Sheehan frequently attacks Bush for his policy on the war in Iraq, she has often discussed, like Bush, how much she likes Crawford and Central Texas. On her Web site, Sheehan says she originally “never understood how George Bush could pick such a place as Crawford to have his home.”

She goes on to say, however, that “after spending an entire year there in every season, I totally understand. I even get upset when people put Crawford down in any way.”

Bush, whose presidency has been marked by frequent retreats to his Prairie Chapel Ranch, purchased his property near Crawford in 1999. Crawford has been the site of numerous protests since he became president in 2001.

Sheehan gained international fame last August when she led war protests from a roadside ditch near the president’s ranch, demanding Bush interrupt his vacation to meet and discuss the war. The month also saw counterprotests staged by supporters of the president.

Citing concerns about traffic safety and roadside sanitation, county commissioners later passed an ordinance outlawing anyone from camping along the road near Bush’s ranch, which subsequently sparked legal challenges over free speech issues.

‘It will keep traffic off’

McLennan County Commissioner Ray Meadows, whose precinct includes both the Bush ranch and the five acres Sheehan will soon own, said he was glad to see the so-called “peace mom” moving in because it would likely preclude last summer’s roadside protests near the Bush ranch.

“It’ll keep the traffic off Prairie Chapel Road,” he said Thursday. “I am ecstatic about it. It will keep them off the road and keep traffic moving.”

He went on to jest that Sheehan’s protest group was “all just a part of summer now.”

On her Web site, Sheehan said she was enthusiastic about the new Crawford site because the peace movement had outgrown sites used last year, “and we needed to move on to bigger property.”

Sheehan says this summer’s war protest will run from Aug. 13 to Sept. 2. White House reports indicate President Bush plans to spend far less time at his ranch this August than usual.

Retired postmaster Joyce Holmes said she could understand how property owners near the Sheehan spread might be anxious about next month.

“I know if I were living out that close, I’d be just like they are,” Holmes said. “I wouldn’t want all that commotion around me.”

Tommy Witherspoon contributed to this story.

MichaelMoore.com : US involved in planning Israel’s operations in Lebanon
August 14th, 2006 6:08 pm
US involved in planning Israel’s operations in Lebanon

NEW YORK (AFP) - The US government was closely involved in planning Israel’s military operations against Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, a US magazine reported.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel’s security concerns and also serve as a prototype for a potential US preemptive attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations.

Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Hersh said Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah — and shared it with Bush administration officials — well before the July 12 kidnappings.

“When they grabbed the soldiers in early July, that was then a pretext” for Israel’s assault on Hezbollah, Hersh said Sunday on CNN television.

“We (the US) worked closely with them (Israel) months before, not necessarily … knowing when it was going to happen, but when there was an incident they will take advantage of the incident, what I call a fortunate timing’,” Hersh said.

“Nobody is suggesting that Israel wouldn’t have done what it did without the Americans,” he added.

Hezbollah responded to Israel’s attacks by firing missiles into Israel to escalate the month-long conflict that killed some 1,200 people on both sides.

A UN-organized cessation of hostilities planned for Monday, it was hoped, could bring an end to the fighting.

In the article Hersh suggests the White House had several reasons for supporting an Israeli bombing campaign in Lebanon.

If Washington wanted to pursue a military attack against Iran over its nuclear program, the United States had to get rid of the weapons Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation against Israel, he writes.

Citing a US government consultant with close ties to Israel, Hersh also reports that before the Hezbollah kidnappings, several Israeli officials visited Washington “to get a green light” for a bombing operation following a Hezbollah provocation, and also “to find out how much the United States would bear”.

“The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits,” the magazine quotes the consultant as saying. “Why oppose it? We’ll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.”

US government officials have denied the charges, but Hersh defended his piece Sunday saying he had strong sources for the article which was thoroughly vetted by New Yorker editors.

“This White House will find a way to view what happened with the Israelis against Hezbollah as a victory, and they’ll find a way to see it as a positive for any planning that is going towards Iran,” he told CNN.

In the magazine Hersh writes that a former senior intelligence official said some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff — a council of the president’s top military advisors — remain concerned that the administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should.

“There is no way that (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this,” Hersh quotes the former official as saying.

“When the smoke clears, they’ll say it was a success, and they’ll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.”

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Bush Seeks Retroactive Immunity From US War Crimes Prosecution
Bush Seeks Retroactive Immunity From US War Crimes Prosecution
by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 09:41:03 AM PDT
Now that the Bush team faces possible prosecution for war crimes under US law, the team is quietly changing the law to provide a “legal escape hatch.” The recent US Supreme Court decision in Hamdan removed a potential defense from war crimes prosecution that the Bush team had been relying upon. So now the Decider is quietly changing this US law to exempt himself and other officials from criminal prosecutions that may not occur until the next administration. One thing for sure — Bush is not much of a planner for wars, natural disasters, and terror attacks — but he sure does plan years in advance to save his own hide.

Public - 12:18 AM - add eprops - add comments - edit it - email itr