News Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy/Republican Lies

[russ_watters]

Christ, the archives in P&WA isn't even two complete pages.

Go to "user cp", click "options" and change the "default thread age cut off".

 

[russ_watters]

Hey Republican Bush supporters--You're getting screwed too! You know that don't you?

Could you be specific - what about that story is screwing me?

 

[SOS2008]

Today's Topic: Good Leak, Bad Leak

Go to "user cp", click "options" and change the "default thread age cut off".

Thanks for the info. -- but it seems a reflection of how this section of PF is viewed.

Could you be specific - what about that story is screwing me?

Aside from referring to a month-old quote, you won't be convinced of anything you don't see on your own. Moving on...

Following Bush's investigation of himself regarding WMD and concluding it was due to faulty intelligence, currently there are three major leak investigations: The leak of Plame's name, the leak of the NSA spying program, and the leak of "black sites" (torture prisons) abroad. So that simple minds can grasp the difference, let's play the "Odd One Out Game."

1) The leak of Plame's name by BushCo to cover up "fixing the intelligence" to invade Iraq against the best interests of the American people. An independent investigation is being conducted by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
2) The leak of the NSA spying program by our watchdog media to protect American citizen's right to privacy. The investigation instigated by the Bush administration is being conducted by the Justice Department.
3) The leak of secret torture prisons by a CIA official to protect human rights and America's reputation in the world. The investigation instigated by the Bush administration is being conducted by the Justice Department.

Which leak is different, and which are the same?

This isn't about liberal versus conservative, but the lack of Rule of Reason in our country. Enough of the abuses of this secretive Executive Branch that classifies everything, only to declassify cherry-picked information as benefits their personal agendas.

Medals should be given to Joe Wilson, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, Mary McCarthy, and all true patriots who place love of country first. And the TRUE TRAITORS Bush/Cheney who have committed treason, should be impeached.

 

[Astronuc]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President George W. Bush's public approval rating has fallen to 32 percent, a new low for his presidency, a CNN poll showed on Monday.

The survey also showed that 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job.

Bush's poll numbers have languished below 40 percent in the last couple of months, hit by growing public opposition to the Iraq war, his support for a now-abandoned plan for a Dubai firm to take over major U.S. port operations and American anger over gas prices now topping $3 a gallon at the pump.

Continuing fallout from the Bush administration's mishandling of the initial response to Hurricane Katrina has also hurt his popularity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/bush_poll_dc

 

[SOS2008]

How much does it take? Throw the "evil doers" out, throw them all out!

We have some catching up to do...

Phone-jamming case invokes images of Watergate

Democrats and Republicans here are locked in a legal battle over GOP operatives who tried to suppress voter turnout in a key 2002 U.S. Senate race by jamming Democratic get-out-the-vote phone banks on Election Day.
The case has national implications. New Hampshire Democrats, through a civil lawsuit, are trying to question Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, and White House officials about why one GOP official who was involved in the scheme called the White House repeatedly.

----------

Democrats say smoking guns abound in the case:

-A Republican operative who later was convicted in the case called Mehlman's former office in the White House nearly two dozen times.

-The RNC paid millions of dollars in legal expenses for the operative, though it was under no legal obligation to do so.

-Contributions were made to the state GOP by Indian tribes whom disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff represented and by former House Speaker Tom DeLay's political action committee in amounts that together almost equaled the cost of the phone-jamming scheme.

"There are some parallels to Watergate," Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman, said last week. "This is a third-rate, silly effort that definitely turns out to be rooted in the White House."

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/14444680.htm

We can add that to the long list of election fraud tactics. Hmm..what other evil doings might there be?

Friday, April 28, 2006 · Last updated 4:15 p.m. PT
U.S.: FBI sought info without court OK
By MARK SHERMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The FBI secretly sought information last year on 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal residents from their banks and credit card, telephone and Internet companies without a court's approval, the Justice Department said Friday.

It was the first time the Bush administration has publicly disclosed how often it uses the administrative subpoena known as a National Security Letter, which allows the executive branch of government to obtain records about people in terrorism and espionage investigations without a judge's approval or a grand jury subpoena.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_Patriot_Act_Records.html?source=mypi

3500 terrorists, wow, one on every corner. How many legal wiretaps were carried out? We are over run, save us, Help, Help! Come on people, it's not just foreign to domestic. That's the big lie. This month's big Republican lie.

And moving on...Things haven't been going too well for Scooter Libby, and how about Rove?

WASHINGTON Apr 26, 2006 (AP)— White House aide Karl Rove spent almost four hours at the federal courthouse Wednesday, during which he made his fifth grand jury appearance in the Valerie Plame affair.

----------

Wednesday's session is believed to be only the second time Fitzgerald has met with the grand jury examining questions left unanswered in the Plame affair. The only other day Fitzgerald was seen going before the new panel was Dec. 7.

----------

Rove's legal problems stem from the fact that it was not until more than a year into Fitzgerald's criminal investigation that the White House adviser told the prosecutor about his contact with Cooper regarding Plame.

Rove says he had forgotten the Cooper conversation, which occurred several days before Plame's identity was revealed by conservative columnist Robert Novak.

Rove and Novak, who is not related to Viveca Novak, also had discussed the CIA status of Wilson's wife.

Other unfinished business in the probe focuses on the source who provided Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward information about Plame, whose CIA identity was leaked to Novak in July 2003.

----------

Woodward says his source, whom he has not publicly identified, provided the information about Wilson's wife, several weeks before Novak learned of Plame's identity. The Post reporter, who never wrote a story, was interviewed by Fitzgerald late last year.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1893802&page=2

I think the leak not only involves Rove, but also Cheney (and who knows who else ). This is why the investigation is taking so long. As Novak said, the president knows who leaked her name. I hope they can get the evidence for this treasonous act.

In the meantime, my dislike for Pat Roberts grows with each passing day as he continues to block investigations into WMD intelligence and more recently warrantless wiretaps:

Friday, March 17, 2006
Kansas' Roberts puts politics first
By HELEN THOMAS

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has a true friend and protector in Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

----------

What it comes down to is that committee Republicans have succeeded in blocking an investigation that might reflect poorly on the president and his key advisers, who launched the Iraq war almost three years ago.

When Roberts adjourned a committee meeting rather than allow a vote on a wiretap inquiry, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. -- top Democrat on the committee -- said the panel was "basically under the control of the White House, through its chairman."

Republicans obviously have wanted to avoid a full-blown investigation of the root causes of the war, especially at a time when the president is embarked on another major round of speeches to explain the U.S. strategy for victory in Iraq -- and to muster more public support.

Roberts and cohorts have tried to save the administration from an expose of its spying activities, but the senator from Kansas comes up lacking compared with the late Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, who led a stunning investigation in 1975 into abuses and skullduggery by the intelligence community.

In an effort to block an investigation, Roberts has led the move to appoint a seven-member congressional panel to increase oversight on the wiretapping program.

----------

The prospect of the Republican-controlled Congress carrying out its oversight role over the White House is far-fetched, especially with Roberts as ringmaster.

Roberts, has made it clear when it comes to loyalty, the interests of party politics prevail over the country.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/263307_thomas17.html

Citizens of Kansas -- Would you please remove this man from office ASAP? Thanks! And then we can make some real progress in removing the top "evil doers."

 

[Gokul43201]

This was in the news yesterday :

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/ABC_Homeland_Inspector_General_says_we_0501.html

The former inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security says he was pressured to tone down criticism of security failures in the months before the 2004 Presidential election, ABC NEWS is reporting.

The following came as a release.

FROM ABC NEWS:


Clark Kent Ervin says he was confronted personally by then Secretary Tom Ridge “to intimidate me, to stare me down, to force me to back off, to not look into these areas that would be controversial, not to issue critical reports.”

 

[Astronuc]

That is consistent with the Bush administration to downplay the environmental hazards around the site of the World Trade Center (WTC) after the attacks.

Doctors have mentioned recently that they have seen more asthma and respiratory illnesses, and in people who have not had histories of such illnesses, in the population from that area of NY City.

So much for the common defense and general Welfare.

 

[SOS2008]

Ethics Shmethics - Congressional ethics bill is a joke

Kill This Bill
The House pretends to reform itself.
Wednesday, May 3, 2006; Page A22

"BOLD, RESPONSIBLE, common-sense reform of our current lobbying and ethics laws is clearly needed," House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) told his colleagues on the House floor last week. "We owe it to our constituents. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to this institution."

Very true -- which is why House members should reject the diluted snake oil that Mr. Dreier and the GOP leadership are peddling as bold reform. Their bill, which is expected to come before the House for a vote today, is an insult to voters who the GOP apparently believes are dumb enough to be snookered by this feint. The procedures under which it is to be debated, allowing only meaningless amendments to be considered, are an insult also -- to the democratic process.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201554.html

"Republicans in the U.S. House have decided that there's a bright side to high oil prices and continuing problems in Iraq: They distract constituents from getting too worked up about lobbying and ethics scandals.

Figuring the voters won't care, the GOP last week gutted the ethics reform bill that the House is scheduled to consider on Tuesday. Gone is any mention of an independent Office of Public Integrity. Gone is a permanent ban on accepting free plane rides and other gifts from lobbyists. Gone is extending the time that former members have to sit out before returning through the revolving door to lobby their former colleagues.

What's left of the House lobby reform bill is barely worthy of the name." - St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri), April 30, 2006, A race to the bottom

 

[SOS2008]

The most despicable presidency in history

George W. Bush and total disregard for the constitution -

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...4/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=3

The article provides specific examples -- keeping operations such as ''black sites" secret, legislation in regard to NSA spying, Abu Ghraib torture, etc. It also provides examples of Bush's signing statements.

In addition, Bush's presidency has been characterized by a vigorous defense of executive privilege, evidenced in such acts as signing Executive Order 13233, which suspends the release of presidential papers and tight control of Congressional inquiries.

George W. Bush and total disregard for the rule of law-

Bush places a high value on personal loyalty and, as a result, his administration has high message discipline. He maintains a "hands-off" style of management that he believes prevents him from being tangled by intricacies that hinder sound decision-making. "I'm confident in my management style. I'm a delegator because I trust the people I've asked to join the team. I'm willing to delegate. That makes it easier to be President," he said in an interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC in December of 2003. However, critics allege that Bush is willing to overlook mistakes [1][2] made by loyal subordinates, and that Bush has surrounded himself with "yes men".

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_administration

More like he places value on loyalty and a track record of willingness to push the envelope of the law. Many officials in Bush's administration were convicted of offenses in previous administrations. In addition to cronyism, these officials are recruited, promoted, and given medals.

In the meantime he refers to himself as the commander-in-chief, "war president" and "the decider" and what ever title he feels places him above it all, including the law.

 

[Astronuc]

Someone's rant in the local paper -

Everything Bush touches is disaster

Bush beats the odds. Whenever you do something about something, there are three things that can happen: It can get better, it can stay the same, it can get worse.

Each has a 33 1/3 chance of happening. So staying the same or getting better has a 66 2/3 chance of happening. Regardless of where the fault lies, where ever this guy is, things get worse. He owns the Texas Rangers, they finish last. He owns an oil company, it goes bankrupt. He gets allegedly elected president and voting will never be the same.

Osama bin Laden dead or alive, how about free as a bird? Lead the free world, lead it in being hated. Lead it in being alone. While he's president, two American cities are attacked and another drowns.

Surpluses disappear, defi-cits appear.

Intelligence for war, wrong. Energy prices, Iran, North Korea, Enron, Iraq, global warming, I don't care who's fault it is, be my guest, blame Clinton for providing a climate that spawned this catastrophe. I won't buy any stock in any company Bush is involved with — it's the kiss of death. Murphy's law is Bush's legacy.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.topplebush.com/photos295.shtml

http://www.topplebush.com/

THIS WEBSITE is committed to exposing and actively resisting the Bush Administration. Even though Bush has been irreparably damaged by Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, his administration's disregard for law, separation of powers, and lack of accountability must be stopped. We expose the incompetence, the politicization of almost every government function, the secrecy, the deliberate lack of transparency, the nonaccountability, and the disinformation in this administration - an administration that abuses the powers of crony capitalism to enrich itself, the GOP, and the wealthy, while dividing the rest of the nation on religion and wedge issues. We are an anti-Bush, anti-war, progressive site. We show only contempt for Bush and his enablers. This website features a unique and intelligent combination of anti-Bush humor, including our list of recent additions, a free newsletter, commentary, well-written articles, free anti-Bush music in mp3 format, the Bush Resume, free tools for progressive activists, and our growing list of candidates for 2006 who need your support. Also take a look at our funny and interactive Topplebush Projects.

Enjoy.

And - How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok (Paperback)
by Glenn Greenwald

 

[Gokul43201]

The issue about the signing statements (mentioned by SOS a couple posts ago) has gotten little mainstream press coverage, and is, in my opinion, arguably the most insidious abuse of the Constitution by this President.

For starters, he has more than twice the number of signing statements in these 5 years than the last 3 presidents made in 20 years. But that's hardly the tip of the iceberg - his signing statements are in a league of their own.

Rather than being explanatory remarks, it seems that they often are more like statements of exemption. For instance, when he signed the recent bill that outlawed torture of detainees, he coolly reserved the right to bypass the law under the powers given to him by congress to fight terrorism. The point of the bill was to close a loophole in the existing anti-torture law. The point of the signing statement was to open it back up and make it bigger.

Legal/Constitutional experts have been crying themselves hoarse about how these signing statements are a calculated attack on the system of check and balances with the sole aim of expanding executive power.

Many (if not all) of the signing statements can be found at the white house website (under http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ). I've read a bunch of them. And in my opinion, there are some paragraphs in them that don't take legal expertise to see that they are intended solely to recuse the executive from being accountable to congress or the judiciary. Whenever the language requires that the executive consult congress before making decisions or appropriations, this has been construed to require at best, a notification of select members of congress. Whenever a law is passed that intends to close a loophole, the President opens it right back up in his signing statement (claiming powers as commander in chief to act in the best shared interests of congress and the executive).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5159126
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5135077

(I think franz hit it on its head when he remarked - many months ago - about a pattern among recent Supreme Court nominees being strong advocates for expanded executive power)

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks Gokul! I've been trying to remember the term "Presidential Signing Statement". I heard that Bush had made 295 such statements, primarily to circumvent laws with which his administration disagreed. These actions also seem to by-pass/undermine the "Checks and Balances" imposed by the Constitution. Congress writes the laws and the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret them, not the president, if there is some question.

Interesting article about this -

The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration
By JOHN W. DEAN
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

 

[BobG]

Is this going to be another problem for the White House? Two lawyers, one from the White House and one from the Justice Department, reviewed John Roberts' memo on affirmative action as part of the vetting process. It has never been seen since, in spite of National Archives staff going through the reviewed files (there were quite a few) to see if it wound up in another folder. The Case of Roberts's Missing Papers

A copy of the investigation (the names are blacked out): Report of Investigation (John G Roberts' Missing File)

The memo wasn't classified (remember the Sandy Berger case?), so it's not quite as likely that the case will ever be resolved.

 

[Gokul43201]

Do we have any notes made by the two lawyers involved in the vetting process (anything indicative of the content of the files) ?

 

[Astronuc]

Now imagine what would happen if some of Hillary Clinton's records went missing? Oh, yeah, they did.

 

[SOS2008]

The issue about the signing statements (mentioned by SOS a couple posts ago) has gotten little mainstream press coverage, and is, in my opinion, arguably the most insidious abuse of the Constitution by this President.

The media does not like to cover issues that are too difficult for the general public to understand? As for the importance of the issue, the word "insidious" was precisely the word that came to my mind too--I almost used it in my post.

It is one thing to increase the power of the Executive, but it's entirely another thing to increase it to the point of eliminating power of all other branches. If the founding fathers wanted a monarchy they wouldn't have bothered to go through all the trouble to create multiple checks and balances. Bush/Cheney may as well spit on their graves. They are treasonous on so many counts it has become obvious it is a systematic attack on the fundamental premises the rest of us hold dear. Once again, what are our soldiers dying for? The real enemy of our freedoms is not foreign, but right here at home.

 

[SOS2008]

In the news today:

CONCORD, New Hampshire (Reuters) - A senior official in U.S. President George W. Bush's re-election campaign was sentenced to 10 months in prison on Wednesday for his role in suppressing votes in a key U.S. Senate race, a scandal that Democrats charge may involve the White House.

James Tobin, 45, one of three Republican campaign operatives convicted in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in a 2002 election, was convicted in December of two telephone harassment charges.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-05-18T002959Z_01_N17336879_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-REPUBLICANS-NEWHAMPSHIRE.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2

I was not familiar with this case -- "the first time one congressman had sued another in civil court, and it marked the beginning of a draining legal fight that has gone up and down the federal court system for the last eight years." It is a mix of issues, including current debate over the NSA spying program:

At issue is a "lobbying reform" bill, created by the Republicans and intended to erase the taint of scandal that has hovered over the Republican-controlled Congress for months. The bill, however, will do little to actually change the behavior of lobbyists like Jack Abramoff... Democrats have called the bill a "sham," while newspapers across the nation are calling it a "ruse," a "joke," and a "con."

The bill passes, 217 to 213. Boehner, who in the course of trying to tear down McDermott has risen to the powerful post of House majority leader, replacing the disgraced DeLay, is elated. "Trust between the American people and this Congress is very important, and this is the first major step in rebuilding that trust," he tells the New York Times.

Going back to 1996:

"Gingrich's secret conference call involved several members of the Republican House leadership, and as it happened, one of those leaders, Boehner, the congressman from Ohio," was on the call. A Florida couple "messing around with their police radio scanner and happened to pick up the call as the Republicans were talking about how to spin Gingrich's ethics charge." The couple "realized whom they were hearing and decided to make a tape for posterity."

Back to the present --

McDermott asks rhetorically: Does Boehner really want this lawsuit, and its connection to past Republican scandals, to resurface right around this fall's midterm elections? Does Gingrich, who McDermott believes is considering a run for president, really want the Supreme Court to be taking up a case tied to his ethics flap just in time for the run-up to the 2008 presidential elections?

The Republicans and Boehner thought they were avenging Gingrich when they started this lawsuit, McDermott says, but a sword cuts both ways.

"You got to be careful when you try to take vengeance. Because what goes around comes around."

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=34045

And to top it all off:

An aggressively annoying new phrase in America's political lexicon is "values voters." It is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives.

This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to . . . well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051701874.html

Though Mr. Wills and other such conservatives helped empower the current reign of indecency and propaganda ("Mission Accomplished," "A turning point," "Victory in Iraq," "War on Terror," etc.), golly gee wiz George almost has it right for a change. But as we remind the social conservatives of all the Republican scandals, let's replace Rove's Wal-Mart sounding term of "values voter" with correct terms like "sanctimonious theocrats" who turn a blind eye to the back-door Diebolds, Florida hanging chads, unexplainable Ohio exit polls, and gerry-rigged Texas precincts in their qwest to force their values on the rest of us.

Maybe the GOP will abandon the religious-right (or the other way around)? Naw.

 

[SOS2008]

And in the news today...

Hardball's Shuster: Rove Indictment Decision To Be Made "At Any Time"...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/22.html#a8389

Sen. Santorum #1 Recipient Of Lobbyist Funds... http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/003419.html

Prosecutor Says Libby Knew Plame's Identity Was Secret, Lied To Grand Jury... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101024_pf.html

 

[SOS2008]

FRONTLINE: THE DARK SIDE. Tonight at 9, PBS (WNET/Ch. 13).
Michael Kirk, as writer, producer and director, already has crafted two fine PBS "Frontline" documentaries on the war on terror: one on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, called "Rumsfeld's War," and one on "The Torture Question."

Tonight at 9, he and "Frontline" provide a third.

It's called "The Dark Side," and takes its title from a quote by Vice President Cheney in the wake of 9/11. Cheney said that the CIA, the Pentagon and other intelligence-gathering U.S. forces would have to "work from the dark side" to glean information and combat and defeat terrorism.

...According to "Frontline," when Cheney and others in the Bush White House pushed for an early connection between 9/11 and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, they were told bluntly, by the CIA and others, that the U.S. strike was the work of Afghanistan-based Al Qaeda.

...It's a complicated narrative, but Kirk tells it clearly. He makes it seem irrefutable that the battle to link 9/11 with Iraq eventually pitted Rumsfeld and Cheney, who backed that position, against former CIA Director George Tenet and others, who found no facts to support it.

The book on this subject continues to be written. With "The Dark Side," though, we're treated to the latest, and most impressively thorough, chapter.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/428045p-360963c.html

So that's why Tenet left? Impeach Bush/Cheney for their treasonous lies to the American people!

 

[Skyhunter]

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/428045p-360963c.html

So that's why Tenet left? Impeach Bush/Cheney for their treasonous lies to the American people!

Cheney would know the dark side.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ex-Aide To Bush Found Guilty
Safavian Lied in Abramoff Scandal

A federal jury found former White House aide David H. Safavian guilty yesterday of lying and obstructing justice, making him the highest-ranking government official to be convicted in the spreading scandal involving disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001626.html

 

[Skyhunter]

Rick Santorum found Iraq's WMD!

Oh, nevermind the DOD has denied his claim, damn.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/37966/

Sen Rick Santorum (R-Pa) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference yesterday to announce that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, only to have their claims flatly disavowed by the U.S. Department of Defense.

I guess ol Ricky is getting desperate back in PA.

Russ you live in Philly right?

What is your take on Santorum?

 

[edward]

Oh, nevermind the DOD has denied his claim, damn.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/37966/

I guess ol Ricky is getting desperate back in PA.

Russ you live in Philly right?

What is your take on Santorum?

He was back in the news today making the same claim on FOX. He must have convinced the DOD that they were wrong.

This is all spin to make the Iraq WMD issue look legitimate. And most likely it is meant to distract the public from what is going on in the middle east and with the soldiers charged with murder. (not Haditha related)

According to CNN the DOD had the information on the find of the WMD all along. It was kept classified for some reason. Santorum supposedly only recently discovered the report. It turns out the weapons were old artillery shells from the 1980's Iran Iraq war.

Santorum was on Fox news acting as if this was real news. Then ollie North took off on the same topic.

We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons… Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent”.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200601,00.html

Santorum used the term degraded as if it made the weapons more potent.

 

[Skyhunter]

Santorum was on Fox news acting as if this was real news. Then ollie North took off on the same topic.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200601,00.html

Santorum used the term degraded as if it made the weapons more potent.

From the article you linked.

A senior Defense Department official, however, made the following clarifications:

• These findings do not reflect a WMD capacity that was built up after 1991.
• These are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had.
• These are not the WMDs for which this country went to war.

He must have a very low opinion of his constituents to try and pull a publicity stunt like this. What an idiot.

Or is he doing some one's dirty work?

Did he take Roves advice to too literally?

Buffoons like Santorum make it easy to see the Republican strategy for the mid-terms... Ride the war all the way to the polls. Not that it wasn't already obvious from Rove's speech, and the House's "non-binding resolution.

 

[Gokul43201]

You folks must be aware that Santorum is going to have to pull off something REAL BIG to win back his seat this November. All the recent polling numbers show him losing to the Democratic challenger, Bob Casey. And his approval rating has been on the slide for several months now.

Seeing that bigoted imbecile be re-elected would be a BIG downer for me!

Edit : http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11379.xml?ReleaseID=911

 

[Skyhunter]

You folks must be aware that Santorum is going to have to pull off something REAL BIG to win back his seat this November. All the recent polling numbers show him losing to the Democratic challenger, Bob Casey. And his approval rating has been on the slide for several months now.

Seeing that bigoted imbecile be re-elected would be a BIG downer for me!

Edit : http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11379.xml?ReleaseID=911

I knew he was unpopular, but Casey has not even won the primary and is already 13 points ahead.

Democratic State Treasurer Robert Casey Jr. leads Pennsylvania incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum 49 - 36 percent, with 12 percent undecided, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

 

[Skyhunter]

Santorum is a nut case.

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/04/santorum_fetusm.html

Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.

Gabriel was a 20 week old miscarriage.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't know if this is the right thread for this. I guess it does question Bush's trustworthiness.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/06/20/911pdb/index.html?source=newsletter

Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine"

We've known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." We've known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.

What we didn't know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

I guess going fishing is his idea of "moving heaven and earth", which was the expression he used when asked whether 9/11 could have been prevented.

http://irregulartimes.com/pdb.html

From the Aug 6, 2001 PDB

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

 

[edward]

At Santorum's request Negrponte was the one who declassified and released the document.
Now the turkeys are cherry picking old intel and trying to make it look current. Haven't we played this tune before?
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/NEGRPONTELETTER.pdf

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I guess going fishing is his idea of "moving heaven and earth", which was the expression he used when asked whether 9/11 could have been prevented.

Fishing? If it had been me, I would have rushed immediately to the WTC to see what I could do to prevent the attack.

 

[Skyhunter]

According to the letter it was Hoekstra that requested the document be declassified. Since he is chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that would make sense.

Santorum is catching all the flack, but Hoekstra seems to be the guy that started the whole fiasco.

 

[Skyhunter]

Fishing? If it had been me, I would have rushed immediately to the WTC to see what I could do to prevent the attack.

If it had been Al Gore, he probably would have started shaking the intelligence tree. Connecting some of the dots, like, oh Islamic fundamentalists wanting to learn to fly a jetliner, but not interested in landing it.

Sounds to me like Bush was waiting for it to happen so they could implement their PNAC plan that tied in so eloquently with Cheney's secret energy task force, and their plan to control the worlds remaining oil reserves.

There that is my conspiracy theory.

 

[edward]

That consiracy theory may not be far from the truth. It is apparent that Bush knew something was going to happen, but (Cheney/Rumfeld) who wanted an excuse to get troops into the Middle East, didn't think the terrorists could do us that much damage. They let it happen without bothering to look and see that that the attack was not going to be from a hijacked airliner coming from Europe. (they had norad actually prepare for that.)

This line of thinking reminds me of all the talk about Roosevelt knowing the Japanese were going to hit Pearl harbor. He obviously did know something was up, so he put his ships in a place that he thought was safe.

Big mistakes in both cases.

 

[Skyhunter]

That consiracy theory may not be far from the truth.

It sure explains why they studiously ignored the threat from Al Qaeda for the first 8 months of the administration.

 

[SOS2008]

At Santorum's request Negrponte was the one who declassified and released the document.
Now the turkeys are cherry picking old intel and trying to make it look current. Haven't we played this tune before?
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/NEGRPONTELETTER.pdf

All the right-wing nut jobs who watch Faux News have believed cherry-picked spin before, so I'll bet this will continue to work now. To my horror, during a recent conversation I realized my sister still thinks Iraq/Saddam was linked to 9-11, while many others remain completely oblivious to the issues in general. Here in Arizona people are so conservative that TVs in lobbies are tuned into Faux News. I can only cringe and spend the time thinking of ways to change the channel!

 

[SOS2008]

Unified Republican support of failed policy vs. claims of "cut and run"

Why are Democrats having so much difficulty holding Bush accountable for his myriad failures? I think it's because they've lost touch with the basic merits of accountability...

But then, some Senate Democrats got smart for a change. They recognized that the party out of the White House doesn't need a detailed strategy for ending a war, just a general sense of direction. When Dwight Eisenhower ran for president in 1952, his plan wasn't any more specific than "I will go to Korea." When Richard Nixon was asked how he would end the Vietnam War in 1968, he said he had a "secret plan"—and got away with it. So now 80 percent of Senate Democrats are united behind something called the "Levin-Reed Amendment." The details of it (begin withdrawal without a firm timetable for getting out completely; diplomacy with the Sunnis; purging the Iraqi military and police of bad guys) are less important than that they finally came up with something.

Of course parrying "cut and run" with "Levin-Reed" won't suffice. But Sen. Joe Biden's riposte to the GOP's symbolic roll-call votes—"The Republicans are now totally united in a failed policy"—is a start. This isn't rocket science. Unless things improve dramatically on the ground in Iraq, Democrats have a powerful argument: If you believe the Iraq war is a success, vote Republican. If you believe it is a failure, vote Democratic.

Isn't that irresponsible? Not in the slightest. It's only under Bush that criticizing the conduct of a war has been depicted as somehow unpatriotic. Lincoln was lambasted by opponents during the Civil War as was FDR during World War II. To take a lesser example, some of the same Sean Hannitys of the world who slam antiwar critics were blasting Bill Clinton's Bosnia policy in 1999 when U.S. planes were in the air over Belgrade.

We'll see this summer if Democrats begin to get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say, "This isn't about us. It's about them." We'll see if, when Karl Rove wants to talk about Iraq, the Democrats respond with three familiar words: "Bring it on."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13531829/site/newsweek/page/2/

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting book on the use of language in politics.

'Talking Right': Why the Left Is Losing, Linguistically
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5536444

Fresh Air from WHYY, July 6, 2006 · In his new book, Talking Right, linguist Geoff Nunberg examines the parlance of the American political right. Conservatives, Nunberg notes, have been remarkably effective at creating a language through which to convey their agenda. The subtitle of his book illustrates what he's getting at: "How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show."

Nunberg, who teaches at the University of California-Berkeley, is a researcher at the Center for the Study of Langauge and Information at Stanford University. He is also the author of Going Nucular and The Way We Talk Now.

Are the Democrats simply tone deaf? That impression was hard to escape when the party floated a new slogan in the fall of 2005 that was aimed at the 2006 midterm elections: "Together, America can do better." Or more accurately, a newly augmented slogan—in 2004, John Kerry had used "America can do better," without the "together" part. According to the congressional newspaper The Hill, Democrats had chosen the slogan to address the party's "messaging problems" after testing it in focus groups along with a number of alternatives. "We know the majority of people agree with us on the issues," one Democrat was quoted as saying, "but this effort is an acknowledgment that we need to communicate better."

Excerpt from book.

It's clear that the Republican party is much better a propaganda than the Democratic party.

Nunberg's website - http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/

 

[edward]

Another bush lie

Before the invasion of Iraq the American people were assured by Bush that they need not worry about the expense. They were told Iraqi oil could pay for rebuilding the country and establishing a new government.

It was alll a lie.

Before the war, US officials engaged in a delicate balancing act. They sought to counter the pervasive belief in the Middle East and Europe that the war was all about oil, while vaguely telling the US taxpayer not to worry about the cost.

Behind the scenes, however, senior figures in the administration - including Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary, Douglas Feith, in charge of Pentagon postwar planning, Vice-President Richard Cheney, as well as the CIA's George Tenet - were being advised by former officials, experts and corporate bosses that the badly dilapidated Iraqi oil industry in no way represented a financial lifeline.

"With all the information available, it seems that those in charge chose not to know," commented James Placke, a senior associate at Cambridge Energy Research Associates who took part in "Iraq: The Day After", a report produced by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a prestigious think-tank, shortly before the war. "Like other aspects of Iraq, those making policy believed what they wanted to believe about oil, without reference to the facts," Mr Placke told the Financial Times.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0116-10.htm

 

[SOS2008]

Before the invasion of Iraq the American people were assured by Bush that they need not worry about the expense. They were told Iraqi oil could pay for rebuilding the country and establishing a new government.

It was alll a lie.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0116-10.htm

If we look at history we see several patterns. First:

When American presidents prepare for foreign wars, they lie. Surveying our history, we see a clear pattern. Since the end of the nineteenth century, if not earlier, presidents have misled the public about their motives and their intentions in going to war. The enormous losses of life, property, and liberty that Americans have sustained in wars have occurred in large part because of the public's unwarranted trust in what their leaders told them before leading them into war.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=134

There are many motives for deceiving the American public about the invasion of Iraq, with oil being only one possible reason. Once again, historically Bush, et al, knew that "war presidents" tend to be reelected. Four out of four presidents whose reelection campaigns were conducted during wartime were reelected. And so,

Though major combat is over in Iraq and Afghanistan, George W. Bush likes to describe himself as a "war president." No doubt that's partly because he and his campaign team think that such an image will help him get re-elected. When we recall Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War or Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, we impart to them a heroic aura, imagining Americans muting political rivalries and rallying behind the president and the war at hand.

http://hnn.us/articles/4368.html

"President Bush is defining himself as a war president. It is endemic to everything he says and does and that's the overriding definitional tone," said Mike Frank, a government expert from the Heritage Foundation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/12/politics/main599984.shtml

Of course as one of these articles point out, being a war president does not ensure reelection--it just helps. So Bush and his brain Rove did far more, including unethical smearing of the opponent, etc. The core Bush supporters most certainly perceived Bush "as a Roosevelt or Lincoln, or as a Truman or Johnson." One such supporter made a memorial with Bush's likeness along with several such great presidents, and no doubt wanted him added to Mount Rushmore. ( How disrespectful!)

Of course the rest of us, such as James Moore, the author of "Bush's War For Reelection : Iraq, the White House, and the People" have always known Bush's character was far from that league. He is nothing but an arrogant, reckless, and shallow man who expects the American people to *just trust him* and turn a blind eye to the naked aggressions of his administration.

Because of reelection we have had to endure another term of Bush**t. I know many people were duped, but I hope they regret what they have done, and most of all I hope a lesson has been learned.

 

[edward]

I know many people were duped, but I hope they regret what they have done, and most of all I hope a lesson has been learned.

I know people who still believe all of that Bush**t, take my sister in law, please.

 

[Astronuc]

Attorney General Says President Decided to Deny Security Clearances to Investigators
By MARK SHERMAN, AP

WASHINGTON (July 19) - President Bush personally blocked a Justice Department investigation of the anti-terror eavesdropping program that intercepts Americans' international calls and e-mails, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday.

Bush refused to grant security clearances for department investigators who were looking into the role Justice lawyers played in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency listens in on telephone calls and reads e-mail without court approval, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Without access to the sensitive program, the department's Office of Professional Responsibility closed its investigation in April.

"It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?" Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee chairman, asked Gonzales.

"The president of the United States makes the decision," Gonzales replied.

Later, at the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said the eavesdropping program is reviewed every 45 days by senior officials, including Gonzales. The president did not consider the Justice unit that functions as a legal ethics watchdog to be the "proper venue," Snow said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060719/wl_afp/usattackspolitics_060718223324

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush blocked a Justice Department probe into a secret program to tap international phone calls and electronic communications of US citizens, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales confirmed that Bush put a halt to an enquiry by department lawyers into the National Security Agency (NSA) program, which involved wiretaps without court warrants.

Meanwhile, two US lawmakers challenged the Justice Department on Tuesday to explain what rights the administration had in tapping phones and allegedly leaking information about sensitive investigations to the media.

Why does this seem like obstruction of justice - a coverup perhaps?

 

[BobG]

Attorney General Says President Decided to Deny Security Clearances to Investigators
By MARK SHERMAN, AP


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060719/wl_afp/usattackspolitics_060718223324
Why does this seem like obstruction of justice - a coverup perhaps?

This is standard practice for the most highly classified programs, as is limiting the number of Congressmen that are allowed to know and provide oversight of those programs. It's not some new policy created by Bush.

That said, the question is whether a handful of Congressmen can hear a briefing on a program like the electronic eavesdropping program and evaluate it when they are not allowed to consult with any outside sources. Protecting national secrets is important, but I don't think Congress is really providing oversight when they lack personal expertise, can't consult with someone who might have expertise, and can't even get clearance for an independent investigation of the program.

In this instance, it's the policy for programs like this that's the problem; not Bush, personally.

 

[Astronuc]

Bob, I agree.

The problem I have with the US administrations is the propensity to use the 'National Security' tag to hide illegal and immoral activities. And it's all administrations to varying degrees.

Of course, any person conducting criminal activities doesn't want to be discovered.

 

[Astronuc]

From Those Wonderful Folks Who Gave You ‘Axis of Evil’
By FRANK RICH, NY Times, July 16, 2006

AS American foreign policy lies in ruins from Pyongyang to Baghdad to Beirut, its epitaph is already being written in Washington. Last week’s Time cover, “The End of Cowboy Diplomacy,” lays out the conventional wisdom: the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, upended by chaos in Iraq and the nuclear intransigence of North Korea and Iran, is now officially kaput. In its stead, a sadder but more patient White House, under the sway of Condi Rice, is embracing the fine art of multilateral diplomacy and dumping the “bring ’em on” gun-slinging that got the world into this jam.

The only flaw in this narrative — a big one — is that it understates the administration’s failure by assuming that President Bush actually had a grand, if misguided, vision in the first place. Would that this were so. But in truth this presidency never had a vision for the world. It instead had an idée fixe about one country, Iraq, and in pursuit of that obsession recklessly harnessed American power to gut-driven improvisation and P.R. strategies, not doctrine. This has not changed, even now.

And of course, the reputation of the US has been greatly diminished around the world.

Another great line from Rich -

The Bush era has not been defined by big government or small government but by virtual government.

with virtually non-existent leadership.

One more from Rich

“Before long, Congress will be leaving on its summer vacation,” Bob Schieffer of CBS News said two weeks ago. “My question is, how will we know they are gone?” By the calculation of USA Today, the current Congress is on track to spend fewer days in session than the “do-nothing Congress” . . . in 1948. No wonder its approval rating, for Republicans and Democrats together, is even lower than the president’s. It’s not only cowboy diplomacy that’s dead at this point in the Bush era, but also functioning democracy as we used to know it.

 

[Astronuc]

National Guard Readiness
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5640843

Weekend Edition Sunday, August 13, 2006 · The war in Iraq is taking a toll on the Army National Guard's readiness. The plight of the Arkansas National Guard offers an illustration: It was forced to leave millions of dollars of equipment in Iraq.

This is so unbelieveable! The US Military has a shortage of equipment, some of which has worn out or been destroyed in Iraq.

The General in charge of the Guard has apparently reported this to the Armed Services committee in Congress.

When questioned by the same committee, Rumsfeld's response was something like "I don't believe he [the General] said what you [the committe] said he said". The next part of the broadcast is the General's comment in which he says the Army has an equipment shortage, and it's worse for the Guard. Rumsfeld is so in denial!

This is right up there with Bush's statement to the effect "we are doing all we can to support the troops," when in reality the administration was NOT - the troops lacked necessary armoured vehicles and proper body armour. And that is after three years in which to prepare!

And there are people who still support Bush??!?

 

[edward]

The assertions made by Astronuc about insufficient armor and worn out equipment have been proven and verified numerous times with credible links in previous threads.

What is new is that the lack of equipment has filtered back to the national Guard units at home. The link to NPR above makes that fact perfectly clear.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06111.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

U.S. soldiers lack best protective gear
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-12-17-turley_x.htm
By Jonathan Turley, 2003-12-17

I recently received a note from one of the few husbands who knows just what his wife wants as a holiday gift. The Army sergeant (who asked to remain anonymous) e-mailed me from Iraq asking my help in finding him a store to buy body armor for his wife.
Both the sergeant and his wife are serving in Iraq, and both have seen action. But, like thousands of U.S. soldiers, his wife was not given the vital ceramic plates for her Kevlar Interceptor vest to protect her from bullet wounds. Instead, he said, she had to scavenge to find plates left behind by Iraqi soldiers — plates of inferior quality that do not properly fit her vest.

The Pentagon confirms that at least 40,000 of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq don't have basic Kevlar Interceptor vests or the ceramic plates needed for full protection.
. . .
I first assumed that Murphy's unit was a mix-up. Then I called retailers and manufacturers of body armor and was told that they had been deluged by such orders from the families of soldiers.

Soldiers in Iraq still buying their own body armor
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm
The Associated Press

Soldiers headed for Iraq are still buying their own body armor — and in many cases, their families are buying it for them — despite assurances from the military that the gear will be in hand before they're in harm's way.

Pentagon grilled on body armor shortage
BY GLENN THRUSH, WASHINGTON BUREAU
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usarm124584554jan12,0,5263685.story
January 12, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Army announced yesterday plans to distribute 230,000 side-protecting armor inserts to troops in Iraq over the next year amid growing criticism that the Pentagon has delayed life-saving upgrades to body armor.

Last year, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's Office found that 80 percent of the Marines who died of torso wounds from March 2003 to June 2005 in Iraq may have lived if their vests contained additional protection for the sides, arms and neck.

That report, leaked to news outlets last week, prompted Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) to summon Pentagon brass to Capitol Hill yesterday to explain delays and material shortages in military armor programs.

Iraq Troops Now Have Body Armor
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_armor_060804,00.html
Associated Press
June 8, 2004

COLONIAL HEIGHTS, Va. - The Army's top supply commander said Monday that all American troops in Iraq are now equipped with bullet-resistant vests, after a shortage that led many soldiers to pay for costly body armor themselves.

As late as March, some soldiers headed for Iraq were still buying their own body armor, despite assurances from the military that the equipment would be available before they were in harm's way.

GIs Lack Armor, Radios, Bullets
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/31/60minutes/main652491.shtml
Oct. 31, 2004

But the 343rd isn't the first outfit to be put in harm's way without proper equipment, and commanders in Iraq acknowledged that the unit's concerns were legitimate, even if their mutiny was not.

With a $400 billion defense budget you might think U.S. troops have everything they need to fight the war, but that's not always the case.

Why it took soldiers to put Rumsfeld on the defenseThe Pentagon press corps has been missing in action,
so Army grunts stepped into do its job.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/12/10/kuwait/index.html

December 10, 2004 | Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's rude reality check on Wednesday -- broadcast worldwide during a town-hall-style Q&A session with surprisingly blunt Army reservists in Kuwait -- generated headlines in part because it's so rare for Army grunts to challenge the Pentagon leadership in public. But the critical give-and-take also made waves and jolted the secretary because Rumsfeld is simply not accustomed to facing this type of tough questioning, certainly not from the deferential press corps that covers him and the Pentagon on a daily basis. Instead, many reporters in the clubby world of the capital continue to hold Rumsfeld in unusually high regard, considering he's the point man for the deeply troubling U.S. strategy in Iraq.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles, and why don't we have those resources readily available to us?" was the blunt question that Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team put to Rumsfeld, who was visiting soldiers at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, on the eve of their deployment into Iraq.
. . .
But Rumsfeld's headmaster-style pushback, so effective in dealing with timid reporters inside Pentagon briefing rooms, did not stem the flow of tough questions, as troops peppered him about the Pentagon's "stop loss" program, which forces volunteer troops to serve longer than expected. "Settle down, settle down," Rumsfeld said at one point, trying to regain control. "I'm an old man and it's early in the morning. I'm gathering my thoughts here."

I saw that interview.

In January 2006, a Pentagon study revealed that at least 80 percent of marines killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body may have lived if they had been provided additional body armor that shields the sides of the torso. Such additional side armor had been available since 2003.¹⁶

Both the Marine Corps and the Army have now moved to provide the additional side armor. As of January, the Marines had delivered 9,000 sets and expected to have enough for its entire force by April 2006.¹⁸ (That's 3 yrs into a war for which there was 3 yrs to prepare). The Army had provided a limited amount of side armor starting in November of 2003 but did not order enough for all of its soldiers in Iraq. It placed an emergency order for side armor in January 2006.¹⁹ Additional body armor could have saved lives in Iraq, according to a Pentagon report.

16 ‘Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows,’ New York Times, January 6, 2006
18 ‘More Body Armor Is On the Way for U.S. Troops,’ Washington Post, January 12, 2006
19 ‘Pentagon Acts on Body Armor,’ New York Times, January 21, 2006

from http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/pdf/2006-3-8-truman-committee-final.pdf

I'll concede that the Democrats are probably very subjective when it comes to Bush and his policies, particularly Iraq, but the body of evidence supports the concerns expressed in the previous document.

Lastly for the vets who have born the brunt of Bush's war.
http://optruth.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=258&Itemid=66

Bush and his cohorts started planning an invasion for Iraq in 2000, before he was president. He became president Jan 20, 2001. According to the Paul O'Neill, then Secretary of Treasury, Iraq was the first item mentioned at the first Cabinet meeting. That left two years to prepare.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, termed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" by the US administration, began on March 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Freedom
Most troops were sent without effective armor, as the above articles mention, despite Bush's repeated assertions that his administration was doing everything they could to support the troops.

The young men and women of the US military certainly deserve better than that.

 

[mathwonk]

I read the other day that the administration was proposing to change the US law on war crimes to shield people from prosecution who have participated in abu ghraib type incidents.

I was shocked to see how similar this administration has become to fascist dictatorships throughout the world. changing the rules retroactively to pretend we are not guilty of what people considered as war crimes a few years ago, this is worse than embarrassing.

I am equally amazed that there are people who support this regime, but I have learned there are always people who will support anything, and even more who will support an atrocity if it is defended in the name of patriotism.

 

[Skyhunter]

So for 3 years the pentagon has been telling Congress and the press that the body armor shortage is being, or has been addressed.

While the pentagon obfuscated, perhaps as many as 2000 fatal wounds would not have been fatal had the soldiers been wearing full and proper body armor. Two thousand dead needlessly.

Last year, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's Office found that 80 percent of the Marines who died of torso wounds from March 2003 to June 2005 in Iraq may have lived if their vests contained additional protection for the sides, arms and neck.

How can anyone support this?

The cost of modern warfare is to high. In other words the benefits are not worth the premium that is paid. Not just in the lives of the young men and women in our military, but the rampant destruction of the places where people live. Most costly of all to America is the additional hatred and animosity directed our way.