Rep. DeFazio (D-OR) endorses Wexler letter for Cheney impeachment investigation

60 Comments

1. Cheney Impeachment: Courageous, But Not Surprising
   by Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman

   For the first time since the Bush administration took office, three members of the House Judiciary Committee, Robert Wexler (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), are calling for hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Richard Cheney.

   Their position, while courageous, is not surprising. What is surprising is that it took this long for members of Congress to invoke impeachment, and that even now, they do so against enormous political resistance and cyncial indifference from the media.

   No serious student of the Constitution would question that sufficient grounds exist to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The Constitution provides that an Executive who puts himself above the law and abuses the powers of his office may be impeached, a point confirmed in the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, for abuses such as illegal wiretapping.

   There is little serious debate about whether Bush administration actions — wiretapping without court approval (violating the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act), authorizing and facilitating mistreatment of detainees (violating US treaties and criminal laws), starting the Iraq war on a basis of lies, exaggerations and misstatements (an abuse of power) — meet the constitutional standard.

   So why hasn’t a majority of Congress supported it? Twenty members co-sponsored Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s resolution calling for the impeachment of Cheney, but bucked their leadership to do so. Democratic leaders took impeachment “off the table,” apparently fearing it could hurt their chances in 2008.

   Does the leadership defend the administration, contend that its actions are unimpeachable, or argue they don’t rise to the level of abuse for which Nixon was impeached? Remarkably, no. They publicly say there is no time, and that impeachment proceedings would distract the Congress from other work and divide the country.

   These arguments are laughable compared to the imperative to uphold the constitution. And even on their own terms, they are specious. Let’s take them one at a time:

   Insufficient Time

   In the case of Nixon, the House officially instructed the Judiciary Committee to act in early February, 1974; the Committee finished voting on Articles of Impeachment on July 29, less than six months later. No presidential impeachment proceeding had taken place for almost 100 years, so the Committee had to start from scratch, analyzing the constitution and developing procedures for the impeachment inquiry. Now the relevant legal spade work is done and a road map for proper impeachment proceedings exists, Congress could probably conduct them even faster than in 1974.

   Distracting Congress

   During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee conducted the impeachment inquiry. It didn’t deter the rest of the House and the entire Senate from getting their work done, even with a war on. Even the Judiciary Committee also worked on other matters during impeachment, just as the Senate did during its trial of President Clinton.

   Dividing the Country

   Nixon’s impeachment united the American people. The process was bi-partisan, demonstrating this wasn’t just a Democratic ploy to undo an election. The fairness of the process, the seriousness of purpose, the substantial evidence all gave the public a strong sense that justice had been done. This reinvigorated the shared value that the rule of law and preservation of democracy are more important than any president or party.

   Currently, this value is expressing itself in grass roots impeachment movements across America. The Vermont Senate, several state Democratic parties and many municipal governments have adopted resolutions supporting impeachment — more state legislatures would have acted except for pressure not to from Democrats in Washington. Multiple polls show a majority of Americans supporting the impeachment of Cheney (a November 13 American Research Group poll says 70% of Americans believe Vice President Cheney abused his office), and slightly less then a majority supporting the impeachment of Bush.

   The Democratic leadership tactic of stonewalling this widespread public sentiment is itself divisive, leading at least half the country to frustration, disaffection and shaken faith in our democracy. Only a sober, serious airing of evidence in hearings would heal the split.

   When Nixon’s impeachment process began, he had recently been re-elected with one of the largest landslides in history. No one made the calculation about whether impeachment was a political winner for Congress. Public opinion simply forced Congress’s hand after Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. After the House Judiciary conducted impartial hearings and voted on impeachment, Congress’s approval soared. Republicans were swamped in the November 1974 elections.

   Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. Regardless of outcome, they will help to curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administration: the Constitution means what it says — no president or vice president is above the law.

   Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman served on the House Judiciary Committee during Nixon’s impeachment. She co-authored the 1973 special prosecutor statute, and co-wrote (with Cynthia L. Cooper) the 2006 book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush.

2. Since you asked, here are some good things Bush has done.

   1. Appointed strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. This is good because if the insanity of left leaning judges continues. They will tear down the intuitions that made this country the light of the world that it is. One of the most disturbing trends I see from these liberal judges is when they cite foreign law in their decisions.

   2. Across the board tax cuts. Do I really need to explain why tax cuts are good? It’s such a no-brainer. Of course I will if you need me to.

   3. Stopped viewing terrorism as strictly a law enforcement issue, but as a foreign policy and military issue. This is what history will credit him for.

   I know Mikael will laugh at all this, but he is oh so dangerously wrong.

3. Mikael wrote:

   “…I hope you find something more productive to do with your time…”

   Right back at ya.

   “…He is indefensible.”

   And you are gonna have such the DT’s when he’s gone…

   -Mark

4. Peachie!

   You are getting a little cheeky!

   “Everywhere I go, hatred for Bush is in my face, there’s no escaping i”

   And with good reason. He is the worst President in American history by a landslide – no question. I know I asked, but I am not really that interested in hearing about Bush’s “achievements” as nothing would outweigh his pro-torture, preemptive warring, corporate ass-kissing, Constitutional liberties destroying, poor people drowning, gay-bashing, federal court fixing, election stealing, 9/11 truth suppressing, federal budget-busting trail of horror.

   Nothing.

   He is indefensible.

5. Mark,

   “I am still waiting to see any credible evidence that this is in fact a reality.”

   Obviously you have not read the evidence page on this website… not that I expect those facts would convince you.

   “Bush’s war of imperialsm”

   You are deep in denial. Read Project for a New American Century’s paper: “Rebuilding Americas Defenses”, which, like a Bush “Clean Air Act” is exactly the opposite of what it claims to be.

   “Association Fallacy”

   That is not the logical trail I followed. Bush was told there were no WMDs from many sources and instead he and Cheney, etc. went with the “maybe” from some sources and called it a “certainty” to Congress and the American people. He lied and many, many people died and are dying.
   I don’t make any assumptions, Mark, I have read and reread tons of material on the subject and written and published many paper as well. It is clear by the evidence that the war was not a reaction to 9/11 but instead a pre-planned war of choice and opportunity.

   “Judith Miller”

   That would be the same Judith Miller fired for those fabrications I presume?

   If those are your last words on it, then I thank you for your efforts here, but I hope you find something more productive to do with your time than defending war criminals on behalf of the 19% and shrinking Bush supporters. He is not worth it. Just eleven months left, then it will be “good riddance to bad rubbish”.

6. Mikael wrote:

   “…this site is devoted to holding the Bush Administration accountable for their criminality, lawlessness and comprehensive assault on the protections of our U.S. Constitution.”

   I am still waiting to see any credible evidence that this is in fact a reality.

   Your allegation that President Bush lied to further His “war of imperialism” is patently untrue, and in my opinion, Mikael, it is disgusting that you – and the Congress – have taken it to the extreme that you have. Most rational adults can see through the rhetoric and come to the same conclusion that I have. Please allow me to break it down for you so you can see the reality of the situation. I’ll keep my explanation simple so you can have a chance to catch up with the rest of the class.

   In your “evidence” against President Bush, your statement “…George W. Bush has intentionally misled the Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the war against Iraq…”, while compelling, is based on flawed logic.

   The assumption you make is thus:
   Bush said there were WMDs in Iraq, but there were no WMDs in Iraq, therefore, Bush lied. This is faulty logic known as an ‘association fallacy’ (look it up). That is akin to saying “Bill is a composer, and Bill thinks highly of Joe. Therefore Joe must read music.”

   Until we had boots on the ground to actually dig holes and look in all the secret bunkers, we couldn’t be sure that Saddam hadn’t reconstituted his WMD program, based on the track record of obstruction and noncompliance shown to United Nations weapons inspectors. The intelligence (our own, British, et al.) coming out of Iraq was wrong, no doubt about it. But hindsight is always 20/20. However, that does not equate to a lie by George W. Bush no matter how badly you want it to be true. My litany of quotes above – all from the time before Bush was elected – attest to that fact.

   Even the New York Times published a number of stories claiming to prove that Iraq possessed WMDs. One story in particular, written by Judith Miller helped persuade the American public that Iraq had WMDs in the build up to the 2003 war. All of the sources of information were either ignorant as to the real status of Iraq’s WMD program, or lied to achieve their own ends.

   Besides, that wasn’t the only justification for the invasion, and I’ll quote George W. Bush in that regard:
   “…what wasn’t wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country, he had used weapons of mass destruction, he had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, he was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country.”

   I grow weary of this argument, so those will be my final words on the subject. I hope I have provided a bit of clarity for you in this matter, although I have the feeling I have wasted my time.

   -Mark

7. You didn’t give me a link to CooperativeResearch, Mikael, you gave me two links to iacenter.org and truthout.org–both of which are decidedly left wing and anti-Bush. By your “logic”, I should not accept any link from you having to do with DU’s and melting children in Baghdad a la Hiroshima, unless it comes off Fox News. I see a double-standard here. You don’t want to hear anything positive about Bush if it comes from any source that tends to view him favorably.

   You don’t want to hear anything positive about him. You won’t even click on a link that you think will have something positive about him. How’s that for prejudice and open-mindedness? What are you afraid of? That what you read might be true? That, God forbid, that one little thing might bring down the whole anti-Bush movement you’ve got going?

   Everywhere I go, hatred for Bush is in my face, there’s no escaping it. But you see one little mouse, one little spider of pro-Bush sentiment in the corner, and you run screaming from it, lifting your skirts and jumping onto the highest chair for fear you’ll get cooties from it. Why do you fear such a little mouse?

   Not that I expect an answer, since you never answered my other question, either. Since you’re out the door, don’t let it hit you on the way out.

8. Thank you for the sourcing and the article. When you hit us with the 19% rating I thought you had perhaps posted a typo; according to the most recent Gallup data (January 4-6 2008)the President’s approval rating is at 34% while Congress’s is running 23%. It is amazing how much poll data can vary between sources during the same time period.

9. Peachie,

   CooperativeResearch is not a partisan site. It simply lists sequences of events as confirmed by multiple media outlets.

   The Washington Times is widely known to be a Radical Right propaganda site. There is no comparison.

   As for #37 let me just offer one challenge. I am out the door after that:

   “The Homeownership Rate Is Near Its Record High, And The Number Of Homeowners Is At Record Level. According to the Census Bureau, a record 75 million families own the home they are living in, and the homeownership rate, at 68.7 percent, is near its record high.”

   This is out of date. No mention of the predatory lending crisis brought on by the Bush Administration’s complete lack of oversight over any industry. Nor is the spiking foreclosure rate mentioned.

   With more time I could pick it apart piece by piece, but frankly, the 19% who still support Bush are of such little consequence that it is hardly worth the effort. They are completely blinded by partisan lockstep loyalty for whatever reason and there is little hope of their returning to sanity.

   Also, this site is devoted to holding the Bush Administration accountable for their criminality, lawlessness and comprehensive assault on the protections of our U.S. Constitution. The obvious fact that Bush is the single most incompetent President is a sidebar to that topic. It is significant, but not primary.

   I appreciate you challenging me on my assertions and will continue to converse, but my time is very limited right now so you may not get immediate answers to your questions. Thank you for your patience.

10. Mikael, the links you’ve provided me so far, calling them “truly independent” sources, aren’t really reliable either, let alone “independent”–they’re just as partisan as the WT, but at the opposite end of the spectrum.

    However, I’m still open-minded enough, still willing enough to consider both sides, to click on your links without dismissing them out of hand as “left-wing Bush-hating propaganda.” I can’t help thinking that maybe you’re not so open-minded, that you’re determined NOT to hear or read or even risk exposing yourself to reading or hearing something even remotely positive about Bush.

    In Comment #37, Mr. Logan provided a whole long list of Bush positives. You dismissed all of them by using an obscene word. Your point remains unconfirmed.

11. My point confirmed.

    Neither of you can name one good thing Bush has done.

12. The POINT Peachie was trying to make Mikael was that you said “name one good thing George Bush has done”. She supplied a link from the Washington Times which you sneeringly dismissed out of hand without even seriously reading as Reichwing propaganda because it’s owned by Sun Young Moon, which by caveat, you tried to switch the subject by attacking The Washington Times.
    So, in essence, you are calling Sir Bob Geldof a liar and George Bush has never done one good thing.

    Since Mikael believes everything the Washington Times prints is a lie, here’s some other links:

    This first one is from The UK Sun, hardly an organ of the “fascist right”
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article831812.ece

    And here’s one from The Manchester Guardian, another socialist media outlet.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/may/28/disasterresponse.famine

    How long before Bob Geldof is slimed by The Left as a lackey of the Bush Administration?

    How long before Mikael slimes Bob Geldof as a lickspittal of the Evil Bushitler?

    Not long I’m sure.

13. Peachie,

    Please repeat the question…

    Are you asking if an article from Sun Moon’s Ultra-Right wing paper the Washington Times can be considered a reliable source?

    I don’t think it is. Have you read it much? Do you trust it?

14. Mr. Smith…

    http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

    February 20, 2008

    Concerns over Economy Push
    George W. Bush’s Overall Job Approval to New Low

    George W. Bush’s overall job approval rating has dropped to a new low in American Research Group polling as 78% of Americans say that the national economy is getting worse according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

    Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush’s handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove.

    Among Americans registered to vote, 18% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 78% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 15% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 79% disapprove.

    A total of 78% of Americans say the national economy is getting worse and 47% say the national economy is in a recession. A total of 42% of Americans, however, say they believe the national economy will be better a year from now, which is the highest level for this question in the past year. This optimism does not spread to improvements in household financial situations as 17% of Americans say they expect their household financial situations to be better a year from now, which is the lowest for this question in the past year.

    The results presented here are based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews conducted among a nationwide random sample of adults 18 years and older. The interviews were completed February 16 through 19, 2008. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

    Overall, 19% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 77% disapprove, and 4% are undecided.

15. Mikael is always right Pinkie. Any newspaper with the banner word “Times” is a member of the vast right-winged conspiracy.
    “The New York Times” and “High Times” comes to mind for just two examples.
    Mikael, can atheists actually belong to a cult? Can you ask Jodin for us?
    I mean “Christianity” is a cult, isn’t it?
    “Mass Weddings”! The next thing you know it’s “Mass Murder”!

16. Mikael wrote:

    “They are going to continuously lick Mr. 19% Approval Rating Bush’s boots.”

    Is that the President’s current approval rating? May I ask if you have a source available?

17. Mikael, with all due respect, it’s no more partisan than the links you provided me. Will you answer my question?

18. Peachie,

    Before I even read your link I notice it is the Washington Times – a highly partisan right wing rag owned by a cultist who specializes in mass weddings. Can’t you do a bit better than that? They are going to continuously lick Mr. 19% Approval Rating Bush’s boots.

19. I’m sorry, Mikael, but I don’t think the links you gave me are “truly independent” sources–both struck me as being very partisan. I’m afraid I need something a little more fair and balanced before I can make an informed decision about such an important issue.

    Also, I couldn’t help eavesdropping on your exchange with Messrs. Smith and Huggs about one good thing Bush has done. Does this qualify in any way?

    http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/02/bob_geldof_in_rwanda.html

20. First, my apologies for the typographic error in your name in my last post; it was not intended as a jab or dig (I did manage to get it right in the actual body of he question). Now that I know that this is a sensitive issue I will make sure to double check my spelling thereof. You are of course welcome to spell my screen name however you wish.

    Mikael wrote:

    “(Your inability to spell my name correctly is indicative of a general lack of commitment to facts and flawed observational skills)”

    An interesting observation considering that all of the links provided in your reply to my question provide either (from the cooperativeresearch.org links) “Error 404 Page Not Found!” or (from the Sun-Sentinel website) “Sorry, the page you requested could not be found.” or (from the democraticunderground.com) “The information you requested cannot be displayed one or more input parameters has invalid syntax.” Also an interesting choice of sources; a quick shufti through the Cooperative Research History Commons site shows a preponderance of conspiracy theories that somehow seem to wend their tortuous way back to the Bush administration. And items on the Democratic Underground have shall we say a decided spin to them that lacks (in my opinion) creditable objectivity.

    Mikael continued:

    “What am I suggesting? I just laid the facts out for you to see. Is there a conspiracy theory rolling around in your little troll nut after reading the truth? That tin foil hat getting a little too tight? Black helicopters hovering over your house?”

    To answer your questions in the order of their asking:
    >I don’t know what you are suggesting. That’s why I asked the question.
    >No, I don’t have a conspiracy theory rolling around in my little troll nut, because I decided to (as you suggested in your original post on the anthrax, #38) check the facts that you were unsure of.
    >I don’t wear a tinfoil hat, so it isn’t getting too tight, but thank you for asking.
    >No. I’ve never seen a black helicopter.

    Mikael continued:

    “What the facts suggest is that someone or some group had a vested interest in assassinating, or at the very least intimidating the two Senators who headed committees (Democrats were in the majority in the Senate for a brief time due to Jeffords seeing the light and leaving the hopelessly diseased Republican Party) that were in a position to block Bush’s pending fascist legislation – Patriot Act I. As any investigator or journalist with integrity would do, I am laying out the facts and letting them speak for themselves. The next step is to lay out possible scenarios based upon motive and access. That is what investigators and journalists do – they discover a conspiracy, unearth all the facts available and then lay out possible theories as to how the conspirators committed the crime.

    “Then mindless trolls criticize them for their “conspiracy theories”.

    “The Ames Strain spores came from a top security U.S. Army location which could only have been accessed by someone(s) with clearance. The U.S. Army has been infiltrated and the security has been breeched. Don’t you think that might be worth investigating? Wouldn’t a president with a single brain cell in working order have made finding out who was to blame a top national security priority? Wouldn’t the GOP, who drone monotonously to be the party to be trusted for national defense and homeland security insist that this case be solved?”

    I am sorry that my request for a clarification of your statement in comment #38 appears to you that I am criticizing you for your “conspiracy theories.” Research and fact gathering are indeed important tasks for an investigator or a journalist. It allows the researcher to test the theory advanced and discard the bits that do not fit the facts available. There are some facts in the matter that escaped the researchers at the Cooperative Research History Commons and the Democratic Underground, and that weren’t available at the time the Sun-Sentinel stories ran. To quote from your synopsis above:

    “The Ames Strain spores came from a top security U.S. Army location which could only have been accessed by someone(s) with clearance. The U.S. Army has been infiltrated and the security has been breeched.”

    Unfortunately for this position, the Ames Strain has existed for a long time and has been handled by some less-than-top security facilities, including the Texas A&M University Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory that cultured the original strain from a cow that died in Texas in 1980 (which was under investigation in 2007 for long-standing breaches of security protocols)(The Lab, not the cow), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, where the culture was mistakenly sent by the Texas A&M lab and where it remained for four years. (Chemical and Engineering News, December 4, 2006: Volume 84, Number 49 pp. 47-54.) Furthermore, “The Ames strain of Bacillus anthracis used in the attacks is distributed throughout the world, making it difficult to track down a potential source.” (The Impact of Globalization on Infectious Disease Emergence and Control: Exploring the Consequences and Opportunities, Stacey Knobler, Adel Mahmoud, Stanley Lemon, Leslie Pray, Eds. Washington: The National Academies Press, 2006, p. 66.)

    And to quote from Mikael’s comment #38:

    “Yes. Military grade anthrax tracing back to an Army base in Colorado (I think… but check my facts) that was directed at both Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy – the two Democratic Party leaders who were in position at the time to block passage of Bush’s Enabling Act (Patriot Act).”

    The Ames Strain is not the product of bioweapons research; studies in weaponizing anthrax were cancelled in 1969: “The Army never developed the Ames strain as a weapon in its offensive biological weapons program, which President Richard Nixon ended in 1969. The gold standard B. anthracis microbe for U.S. bioweaponeers was the Vollum 1B strain.” (Ibid.) Nor was the Ames Strain found in the Daschle and Leahy letters military grade, according to the man who spearheaded the initial FBI investigation, microbiologist Douglas J. Beecher. He reports that “a widely circulated misconception is that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapon production. This idea is usually the basis for implying that the powders were inordinately dangerous compared to spores alone.” The anthrax in the letters was composed of spores purified to differing extents and without the silica or bentonite additives (these are fine-powdered substances used to “lubricate” the spores to prevent clumping and make them more suitable to airborne dispersal) found in weaponized anthrax. (“Forensic Application of Microbiological Culture Analysis To Identify Mail Intentionally Contaminated with Bacillus anthracis Spores” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, August 2006 Vol. 72, No. 8, p. 5304-5310.) And because I know that the FBI cannot be trusted to actually tell the truth in the eyes of some, I went the extra yard. His conclusions were echoed by Harvard University microbiologist Matthew Meselson. The Thomas Dudley Cabot Professor of Natural Sciences was one of several scientists asked to examine the micrographs of the spores taken from the Daschle and Leahy letters. He saw no evidence of weaponizing agents. He further stated that on a small scale it is not difficult to produce the 1 trillion spores-per-gram concentrations found in some of the more virulent anthrax-letter powders. In his opinion a skilled scientist possessing the Ames strain could have produced powders of that quality using “basic microbiological lab equipment and supplies.” (Chemical and Engineering News October 2, 2006 Volume 84, Number 40 p. 14.)

    Mikael continues:

    “Bush Administration hasn’t done anything to investigate that, now have they?”

    Yes, they have. I realize that any reports from the government itself would simply be dismissed out of hand as part of “the coverup” that seems to explain away information that doesn’t fit the template. But surely the Los Angeles Times doesn’t qualify as a Party Organ of the “hopelessly diseased” Republican Party:

    “The anthrax attacks triggered one of the costliest federal manhunts ever — starting a week after the Sept. 11 attacks, when letters containing anthrax began coursing through the mail, targeting members of the media and the Capitol Hill offices of Daschle and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

    “The FBI said it had conducted 9,100 interviews and obtained 6,000 subpoenas. It has hired psychologists, handwriting analysts and forensic analysts. It has spent millions on scientific studies to determine such information as the strain of the bacteria and the water used to prepare the lethal spores. And it has tracked a spate of anthrax ‘hoax’ letters; one such letter was received last week by The Times.
    …

    “‘Those cases get cold fast,’ said a law enforcement official who knows [Edward] Montooth. ‘A lot of terror cases overseas can be 10 to 15 years before the case develops to the point where we can get the defendants.’

    “Montooth replaced Richard Lambert, who headed the investigation from August 2002 through September 2006. Lambert said he decided to leave and called it a natural career progression. He now heads the FBI office in Knoxville, Tenn.

    “Lambert said he was ‘very confident’ the case would be solved. As the probe enters its sixth year, the FBI is urging patience, and notes that complex investigations often take years to resolve. It has compared the case to the Unabomber investigation, which took 17 years to solve, until the assailant renewed his campaign of terror and a relative turned him in.” (“Many Fear FBI’s Anthrax Case is Cold” Los Angeles Times, November 3, 2006.)

    Now then, I know that the Cooperative Research History Commons and the Democratic Underground are entirely objective, bipartisan sources, but I do doubt their scientific credentials. Given the information available from juried, peer-reviewed articles in long-established, reputable scientific journals that dispute their conclusions, I can’t help but question their conclusions and, by extrapolation, yours.

21. Meck Smyth,

    (Your inability to spell my name correctly is indicative of a general lack of commitment to facts and flawed observational skills)

    What am I suggesting? I just laid the facts out for you to see. Is there a conspiracy theory rolling around in your little troll nut after reading the truth? That tin foil hat getting a little too tight? Black helicopters hovering over your house?

    What the facts suggest is that someone or some group had a vested interest in assassinating, or at the very least intimidating the two Senators who headed committees (Democrats were in the majority in the Senate for a brief time due to Jeffords seeing the light and leaving the hopelessly diseased Republican Party) that were in a position to block Bush’s pending fascist legislation – Patriot Act I. As any investigator or journalist with integrity would do, I am laying out the facts and letting them speak for themselves. The next step is to lay out possible scenarios based upon motive and access. That is what investigators and journalists do – they discover a conspiracy, unearth all the facts available and then lay out possible theories as to how the conspirators committed the crime.

    Then mindless trolls criticize them for their “conspiracy theories”.

    The Ames Strain spores came from a top security U.S. Army location which could only have been accessed by someone(s) with clearance. The U.S. Army has been infiltrated and the security has been breeched. Don’t you think that might be worth investigating? Wouldn’t a president with a single brain cell in working order have made finding out who was to blame a top national security priority? Wouldn’t the GOP, who drone monotonously to be the party to be trusted for national defense and homeland security insist that this case be solved?

    So is the Bush Administration completely inept and/or asleep at the wheel or are they laying off this case for some reason?

    ~~~

    Here is a timeline for the anthrax attacks and the passing of the Patriot Act.

    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a10… “>October 2, 2001 (B) The “anti-terrorism” Patriot Act is introduced in Congress, but is not well received by all. < [url="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/patrio... ">Patriot Act 10/2/01] One day later, Senate Majority Leader and future anthrax target Tom Daschle (D) says he doubts the Senate will take up this bill in the one week timetable the administration wants. As head of the Senate, Daschle has great power to block or slow passage of the bill. Attorney General Ashcroft accuses Senate Democrats of dragging their feet. < [url="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/wpost1... ">Washington Post 10/3/01 (B)] On October 4, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman and future anthrax target Patrick Leahy (D) accuses the Bush administration of reneging on an agreement on the anti-terrorist bill. Leahy is in a key position to block or slow the bill. Some warn that “lawmakers are overlooking constitutional flaws in their rush to meet the administration’s timetable.” Two days later, Ashcroft complains about “the rather slow pace …over his request for law enforcement powers… Hard feelings remain.” < [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic... ">Washington Post 10/4/01] The anthrax letters to Daschle and Leahy are sent out on October 9 and difficulties in passing the Act continue (see http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timelin… “>October 9, 2001). Could Daschle and Leahy have been targeted by some person or entity who wanted to see the Patriot Act pass?
    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a10… “>October 9, 2001

    Senator Feingold (D) blocks an attempt to rush the USA Patriot Act to a vote with little debate and no opportunity for amendments. Feingold criticizes the bill as a threat to liberty. < [url="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/ap1010... ">AP, 10/10/01] One day earlier, in the story “Cracks in Bipartisanship Start to Show,” the Washington Post reports, “Congress has lost some of the shock-induced unity with which it first responded to the <9/11> attacks.” < [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic... ">Washington Post, 10/8/01] Also on October 9, identical anthrax letters are postmarked in Trenton, New Jersey, with lethal doses to Senators Daschle and Leahy. Inside both letters are the words: “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great” (see http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timelin… “>October 15, 2001). < [url="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-1013anthraxchronology.s... ">South Florida Sun-Sentinel 12/01]
    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a10… “>October 10-11, 2001

    The FBI allows the original batch of the Ames strain of anthrax to be destroyed, making tracing the anthrax type more difficult. Suspicions that the anthrax used in the letters was the Ames strain are confirmed on October 17. < [url="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/nyt110... ">New York Times, 11/9/01, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-1013anthraxchronology.s… “>South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 12/01] What possible excuse can the FBI have for allowing this destruction, especially when the Ames strain was already suspected?
    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a10… “>October 15, 2001

    Senator Daschle’s office opens the letter mailed October 9, containing a lethal dose of anthrax. Senator Leahy’s similar letter is misrouted to Virginia on October 12, and isn’t discovered until November 17. < [url="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-1013anthraxchronology.s... ">South Florida Sun-Sentinel 12/8/01
    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a10… “>October 16-17, 2001

    28 congressional staffers test positive for anthrax. The Senate office buildings are shut down, followed by the House of Representatives. < [url="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-1013anthraxchronology.s... ">South Florida Sun-Sentinel 12/8/01]
    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a10… “>October 24, 2001

    The House of Representatives passes the final version of the Patriot Act and other previously unpopular Bush projects: Alaska oil drilling, $25 billion in tax cuts for corporations, taps into Social Security funds and cuts in education. < [url="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/24/rec.attack.economy /">CNN 10/25/01] Republican Congressman Ron Paul states: “It’s my understanding the bill wasn’t printed before the vote—at least I couldn’t get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote.” It is later found that only two copies of the bill were made available in the hours before its passage, and most House members admit they voted for the Act without actually reading it first. < [url="http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&story... ">Insight 11/9/01] Two days later, the Senate passes the final version of the Patriot Act. Anthrax targets Senators Daschle and Leahy now support the bill. Bush signs it into law the same day (see http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a10260… “>October 26, 2001). < [url="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/foxnew... ">Fox News, 10/26/01] Were the anthrax attacks a deliberate plot to help pass the Patriot Act, and whip up public support?

    From: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=141×1719

22. Mikeal wrote:

    “Yes. Military grade anthrax tracing back to an Army base in Colorado (I think… but check my facts) that was directed at both Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy – the two Democratic Party leaders who were in position at the time to block passage of Bush’s Enabling Act (Patriot Act). Bush Administration hasn’t done anything to investigate that, now have they?”

    Exactly what are you implying or suggesting, Mikael?

23. Wow.

    I hope you are getting paid well to foist this bullshit on the internet.

    I have to get to work, but I may pick through it to see if I can find any truth in the spin at all, although I will mention this one thing:

    “Oh, and you mentioned National Security…have any attacks been carried out successfully since 9/11?”

    Yes. Military grade anthrax tracing back to an Army base in Colorado (I think… but check my facts) that was directed at both Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy – the two Democratic Party leaders who were in position at the time to block passage of Bush’s Enabling Act (Patriot Act). Bush Administration hasn’t done anything to investigate that, now have they?

24. Jesus Christ, man – take a deep breath.

    Here are a few facts:

    Since August 2003, More Than 7.2 Million Jobs Have Been Created – More Jobs Than The European Union And Japan Combined. January 2007 is expected to be the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth since recovery began in August 2003. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Including Benchmark Revision)

    Real Wages Rose 1.7 Percent In 2006. This means an extra $1,030 for the typical family of four with two wage earners.

    Real After-Tax Income Per Person Has Risen By 9.6 Percent – More Than $2,800 – Since President Bush Took Office.

    America’s Job Growth Has Been Broad-Based. Job gains were spread broadly across major sectors in 2006. Twenty-five percent of job growth within the service-providing sector was in health and education-related jobs. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics)

    During 2006, Employment Increased In All But One State.

    The National Unemployment Rate Remains Low At 4.5 Percent. This is well below the 5.1 percent average rate for 2005, and below the average of each of the past four decades.

    Jobless Rates Are Down Among Most Major Groups. The unemployment rate dropped for each of the four educational-attainment groups, falling most among those without a high school degree. The jobless rate in this group fell 0.7 percentage point to 6.6 percent during 2006, and has fallen 1.5 percentage points over the past two years. The unemployment rate fell sharply during 2006 among Hispanics and blacks (1.1 and 0.9 percentage points, respectively). (Bureau Of Labor Statistics)

    Hiring Rates And Voluntary Job Changes Are Higher Than Ever. In 2006, hiring in the nonagricultural sector (4.9 million per month) was at its highest pace since data collection began in 2001. The share of workers who left their job voluntarily was also the highest ever at 58.3 percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics)

    Workers Are Less Likely To Lose Their Jobs. The probability that a typical worker will get fired or laid off over the course of a month is now 1.1 percent, down from 1.3 percent in 2001. (CEA Calculation Based On Bureau Of Labor Statistics Data)

    Workers Are Finding Jobs Faster. The median duration of unemployment declined during 2006, from 8.5 weeks to 7.3 weeks, close to its historical average. The number of long-term unemployed (those out of work for more than 26 weeks) fell by 263,000 during the year. (Labor Department)

    More Opportunities Are Available For College Graduates. Employers reportedly plan to hire 17.4 percent more college graduates from the class of 2007 than they hired from the class of 2006. This is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases in college graduate hiring by employers. They also report starting salaries increased for most fields. (National Association Of Colleges And Employers)

    A Broader Measure Of Unemployment Is Also Down. The percentage of workers who are either working part-time but seeking full-time employment or who are unemployed has decreased from 8.6 percent a year ago to 8.0 percent in December, matching its lowest level in over five years. (U-6 Unemployment From Bureau Of Labor Statistics)

    The U.S. Economy Has Proven Resilient And Responsive. We lost nearly 1 million jobs in the three months following 9/11. Since then, the economy has added millions of jobs, and we now have more jobs than in 2000.

    Fewer Workers Are Filing For Unemployment Benefits. The monthly average of initial unemployment insurance benefit claims was 318,000 per week in December, down more than 20 percent since August 2003. As a share of the labor force, this is below the historical average. (Labor Department)

    More Jobs Are Going Unfilled. The seasonally-adjusted rate of job openings (job openings relative to total jobs plus job openings) was 3.0 percent in November – its highest level since early 2001 – with employers reporting over 4.2 million job openings, an increase of 53 percent since August 2003. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics)

    Wages For Production Workers Are Growing Faster Than Inflation. Real hourly wages (base hourly wage rates plus commissions, overtime premiums, and bonuses) for production and non-supervisory workers (about 80 percent of the workforce) grew 1.7 percent over the past 12 months. The supervisory workers who tend to have above-average earnings are not included in this figure. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics)

    Recent Real Wage Growth Means More Buying Power For Workers. The wage growth translates into an extra $585 for the average full-time worker and an extra $1,030 last year for a typical family of four with two workers. (Council Of Economic Advisers Analysis Of Data From Bureau Of Labor Statistics)

    Wage Growth Now Is Stronger Than In The Previous Economic Expansion During The 1990s. The cumulative growth in real hourly wages during this economic expansion – from the recession until now – has also been 1.7 percent. At this same point in the 1990s expansion, wages had fallen by 0.4 percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics)

    Other Earnings Measures – Including Real After-Tax Income Per Person – Also Show Strong Growth. Real after-tax personal income per capita has increased $2,850 (9.7 percent) since the end of the 2001 recession, but at this same point in the previous economic expansion in the 1990s, it had grown just 6.7 percent. Real compensation per hour has also been growing faster in the current economic expansion. (Bureau Of Economic Analysis)

    Household Wealth Is At An All-Time High Of More Than $54 Trillion. According to the Federal Reserve Board, real median household net worth increased 12 percent from 1998 to 2004.

    Incomes Have Been Rising. According to the Census Bureau, real median family income increased over $500 (or 1.1 percent) between 2004 and 2005.

    The Poverty Rate Is Declining. The poverty rate decreased from 12.7 percent in 2004 to 12.6 percent in 2005. The poverty rate is now lower than in all but one year in the 1980s and 1990s, and is far below its most recent peak of 15.1 percent in 1993.

    Nearly Half Of All Families Holding Financial Assets Hold Stocks. In 2004, 93.8 percent of all families held some type of financial assets and 48.6 percent of them held stocks. (Federal Reserve Board)

    Consumption Has Been Rising Steadily. Real consumer spending rose at an annual rate of 3.4 percent in the first three quarters of 2006, supported by strong job gains and rising personal income. (Bureau Of Economic Analysis)

    Consumer Prices For Several Commonly-Purchased Goods Have Significantly Declined. Television sets are 55.4 percent less expensive than they were five years ago; toys – 25.8 percent; durable goods – 8.7 percent; appliances – 6.5 percent; and apparel – 4.0 percent. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

    The Homeownership Rate Is Near Its Record High, And The Number Of Homeowners Is At Record Level. According to the Census Bureau, a record 75 million families own the home they are living in, and the homeownership rate, at 68.7 percent, is near its record high.

    That’s 26 – I can go on if you’d like. Don’t believe everything you read on Media Matters, Mik.

    Oh, and you mentioned National Security…have any attacks been carried out successfully since 9/11?

    “…a war of aggression, a war of opportunity and a war of imperialistic conquest…”

    Phooey. President Bush did the right thing in creating a foothold for democracy in the Middle East. If left unchecked, Radical Islam would overrun the world, and you, Mikael, would be one of the first to be put up against the wall – you’re Christian, right?

    -Mark

25. So… now that we know for a fact that Saddaam didn’t have WMDs of any type (other than the 12 year-old and long since rendered inert gasses THAT WE HAD SUPPLIED HIM TO FIGHT IRAN!!!) don’t you wonder who was lying to all of these people to get them to believe that Saddaam had acquired them?

    I hope that you don’t believe the ridiculous “spirited off to Syria” stories that the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world spouted long before they flip flopped and endorsed Hillary over John McCain. There is no “there” there. We dominated his airspace and destroyed anything suspect consistently from the Gulf War on. Inspectors were messed with, but they had reasonable access. Don’t believe me, read what Hans Blix had to say after the invasion.

    This was a war of aggression, a war of opportunity and a war of imperialistic conquest.They got access to the oil. That was the goal. They are maintaining a presence there to protect the oil giants access to the oil. Half are US troops with scant armor and protection and drastically underpaid, half are Blackwater mercenaries who are held accountable to no law, are overpaid and heavily armed and armored. Checked the profit margins for EXXON/Mobil lately? They are doing just fine during this Bush-induced recession…

    …which brings to mind…

    Is there a single good thing that Bush has done in seven years? One? Just one?

    Economy? In the tank and heading south fast. Foreclosures crippling American families.
    National Debt? Bush inherited record surplus, now record deficit and spiraling out of control.
    Environment? Protections rolled back 20 years.
    Health Care? Yeah, right.
    World Opinion of US? Oh my God… could it have been handled any worse?
    National Security? Four major US Intelligence agencies agree we are much less safe due to Bush’ actions and policies.
    National Security? Clinton WH had over 100 mtgs about Osama, Bush zero despite Clinton transition team warnings.
    Did I mention that there are many more abortions performed every year now since Bush took office?
    Education? No teacher left alone to do their job.
    Civil Rights and Civil Liberties? Fascism is on the march.
    Separation of Powers? Bush issued more signing statements than all previous Presidents combined.
    Domestic aid? Ask Katrina survivors how well Bush has taken care of them.

    Name ten things Bush has done for the betterment of the country. I dare you. You don’t have to, of course, because if you think it is a dumb question you have every right to ignore it. I won’t hector you, that would be immature on my part.

    Other than fomenting an environment in which hatred of gays and blacks and neglect of the poor is the new standard, I mean…

    Okay…

    How about five things. Five good things Bush has done to make America better since 2000.

    Four?

    Do I hear three/ two?

    Okay… never mind. That isn’t a fair question. It is all the Bush haters’ fault. It is all a result of Bush Derangement Syndrome. In fact, I think it was dissidents that attacked us on 9/11 – on Bush’s watch. of course… did I mention National Security?

26. I’m not “blaming Clinton” – I’m merely stating the fact that the general consensus was that Iraq was a threat long before President Bush was elected. Here’s some more quotes from the lead up to the Iraq war. These people sound pretty convinced – based on their own opinions and evidence THEY THEMSELVES brought to President Bush’s attention:

    “There is no doubt that…Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” (Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL,) and others, – Dec, 5, 2001)

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” (Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002)

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” (Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002)

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” (Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002)

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002)

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” (Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002)

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” (Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002)

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002)

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002)

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction….[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime….He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction….So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real… (Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003)

    -Mark

27. Ah yes… the favorite argument for the abysmal failure of the seven year Bush legacy… “it was all Clinton’s fault”.

    “Clearly the assumption was that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and was most likely working on gaining a nuclear capacity…”

    Which is why inspectors were sent in. They found nothing because there was nothing. They were not kicked out by Saddaam, they were ordered out by Bush. The day after 9/11 Bush ordered that a connection be found tying 9/11 to Saddaam. No connection was found, so clearly Bush and his cabal made up evidence and reports as they went along. They played up any evidence that there were WMDs and ignored and suppressed all evidence that there wasn’t – which was the majority.

    It is often said that the U.S. was relying on foreign intelligence a well as our own, but a lot of the foreign intelligence agencies were reliant on our evidence for their reports – and our evidence was faulty at best, manufactured at worst.

    DIRECT LIES BY BUSH:

    In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn’t been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn’t requested it.

    On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team’s final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

    On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”

    The SOTU speech came months after Joe Wilson (overtly) and Valerie Plame-Wilson (covertly) had sought out any evidence of a uranium sale from Niger to Iraq as sent by request from Vice President Cheney to the CIA. There was no evidence of a sale because there was no sale. Intent on a war of aggression for profit, the Bushies ignored the report that they had requested because it wasn’t what they had wanted to hear. Thus Bush lied directly to Congress and the American people in that SOTU speech about “significant quantities of uranium from Africa”. Lying to Congress is by definition an impeachable offense – one of many by Bush.

    This of course, was followed by Cheney and probably Bush sending out four rats simultaneously: Libby, Armitage, Fleischer and Rove to commit high treason by outing an active CIA NOC agent during wartime.

    Any vote that followed the lies to Congress are irrelevant in retrospect because the truth was hidden from Congress and lies were told in the run up to war.

    etc., etc., etc…

    Don’t you hate it when the facts get in the way of your opinions?

28. You imply that President Bush “intentionally misled” and “intentionally conspired with others” to justify a war against Iraq, but fail to realize that Congress, beginning in the Clinton Administration, passed a series of resolutions, which are current law, outlining the threat to the region and the world coming from Saddam Hussein. In fact, during the ENTIRE Clinton Administration, this was an issue that led to sporadic bomb attacks on various Saddam Hussein military units.

    In 1998 the Congress passed resolution H.J. 54 that unequivocally makes the following statement: “Whereas Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.”

    This resolution was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the U.S. Senate, and it passed in the House by a vote of 407 to 6. It was signed by President Clinton and is now Public Law. That means that every senator and nearly every congressman who is now in the Congress, if they were in Congress in 1998, and are complaining about the “President” lying about there being “weapons of mass destruction” in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq are actually referring to Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush. If they were “lied to” it was by Bill Clinton — not George W. Bush who was governor of Texas in 1998.

    Among those who voted for that 1998 Resolution were the very same senators who today are trying to blame President Bush for US involvement in Iraq when they themselves voted UNANIMOUSLY for the 1998 resolution — two years BEFORE President Bush was elected.

    Until repealed, President Bush is REQUIRED BY LAW “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.”

    Furthermore, here are a few statements on the subject of Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction prior to President Bush’s election, portraying massive hypocrisy or, dare we say, simple lying by these folks about WMD in Iraq:

    Former President Bill Clinton: “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” (“US: Clinton Says Diplomatic Solution Preferable In Iraq,” AAP Newsfeed, 2/5/98)

    Former President Bill Clinton: “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” (2/17/98)

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Statement on U.S. Led Military Strike Against Iraq,” Press Release, 12/16/98)

    Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright: “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” (Madeline Albright, 2/18/98)

    Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright: “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” (Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, 11/10/99)

    Former Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Sandy Berger: “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” (Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, 2/18/98)

    Various Artists: “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” (Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others – 10/9/98)

    This one is from a bit later, after President Bush had been elected, but I think it’s my favorite:
    Representative Henry Waxman: “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” (Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), 10/10/02)

    Did you catch that “over the course of the past 11 years” part?

    Who exactly is it now that is lying to the public about Saddam Hussein and Weapons of Mass Destruction? The record is clear and is available in the Congressional Record and other official documents. There was apparent agreement among Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Senators Byrd, Reid, Kennedy, Levin, Kerry, Clinton, Rockefeller and current House Speaker Pelosi that those weapons existed in Saddam’s Iraq in 1998. So, how come they now accuse George Bush of lying if he agreed with them in 2002?

    And in addition to ALL of that, there is the disturbing shift in public opinion caused by Bush Derangement Syndrome. Take a look at this excerpt from this February 1998 Washington Post article:

    “Foreign leaders and diplomats may be urging restraint on the Clinton administration in the showdown with Iraq, but a growing chorus at home is calling for stronger measures than the air attacks currently being planned, with the objective of bringing down President Saddam Hussein. Prominent members of the foreign policy establishment and some leading members of Congress say they are convinced that air attacks aimed at coercing the Iraqis into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors would not succeed, and would result in too narrow a victory even if they did….In addition to a crushing bombing campaign or the possibility of ground troops, some advocates of tougher measures are suggesting seeking Iraq’s expulsion from the United Nations, indicting Saddam Hussein as a war criminal, or blockading the port of Basra to halt illicit oil exports – an action that would infuriate Iran, which shares the Shatt al Arab waterway with Iraq. Such moves, if made unilaterally, would almost certainly draw the ire of most of the United States’s U.N. partners and frame the crisis even more starkly as a conflict between Washington and Baghdad. But public opinion polls may indicate support for such a route. A Los Angeles Times poll published on Monday showed that by 68 percent to 24 percent, Americans favor airstrikes provided they are designed to remove Saddam Hussein from power, not just force him to accept the commands of the U.N. Security Council.”

    NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

    Is the case presented clearly enough for you? Your assertions that President Bush “intentionally misled” and “intentionally conspired with others” to promote His “war agenda” just don’t hold up to scrutiny. Clearly the assumption was that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and was most likely working on gaining a nuclear capacity long before George W. Bush was even elected.

    -Mark

29. Peachie,

    Coming from an Administration that history records having lied 935 times to us to go to war and has such an horrible track record of filling all government and court posts with blind loyalists, I am extremely hesitant to trust anything coming out of their offices. Sooo… the search for truly independent sources begins. Here is an interesting video:

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042007B.shtml

    and another article:

    http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/duupdate.htm

    DEPLETED URANIUM: USES AND HAZARDS

    Doug Rokke, Ph.D.

    (This paper is updated version of the paper presented in the British House of Commons; London, England; on December 16, 1999)

    WARNING: This paper contains information that may be disturbing because it reflects the harsh reality of environmental and health consequences of war.

    RECENT EVENTS.

    The emerging adverse health effects and deaths in NATO- KFOR and residents of the Balkans is an issue of great concern. Depleted uranium (uranium 238) has been implicated. Today, 10 years after warriors were exposed during combat in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait; civilians have been exposed in Vieques, Puerto Rico; Iraq; Okinawa; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Pudacah, Kentucky; and other sites we are seeing adverse health effects amongst this entire group. We also need to consider that the releases of numerous other hazardous materials occurred during the Gulf War and recent bombing in the Balkans which are probably contributing to the health effects that are being observed. Consequently, a thorough investigation and more important complete medical care which has been denied for so many years must be provided with immediate environmental remediation of all uranium 238 (DU) completed. Dr. Pekka Havisto of the United Nations in a published interview has recommended that all areas and equipment with uranium contamination be isolated and that it be cleaned. Although, Depleted Uranium training programs were completed; approved by U.S., Germany, Canada, Great Britain, and Australia military officials; and ready for distribution and implementation by January 1996 the commanding General for Italian forces in Kosovo verified on January 12, 2001 that the United States Department of Defense did not give them this training program and that they had not provided Italian soldiers with DU training as required for U.S. military personnel. The commanding General for Italian forces also verified that the U.S. DOD had not provided them with either a copy of the U.S. Army guidelines that specify proper handling and clean up of depleted uranium (uranium 238) contamination. United States and NATO officials continue to state specifically that there are no known adverse health effects in those of us in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Depleted Uranium Medical project. That is a lie as proven by our own medical records based on diagnosis of medical problems completed by our personal primary care physicians. In response to inquires by German and Swiss officials the United States Department of Defense as admitted during the middle of January 2001 that depleted uranium munitions were contaminated with plutonium, neptunium, and americium during the manufacturing process at Puducah, Kentucky and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Neither the DU team members nor anyone else were ever told of this contamination. A press report from January 10, 2001 reported that ‘Defense Secretary William Cohen had said earlier this month that DU was no more dangerous than “leaded paint,” and a U.S. Army briefer assured reporters it was safe enough to eat’. I do not know of any scientist or physician that would insinuate that either lead paint or uranium is safe to eat. Although numerous requests from the Iraqi government or their representatives attending medical conferences on Gulf War Illnesses for medical care and environmental clean up have been made united States Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs have rebuffed these requests.

    WHAT IS DU?

    Depleted uranium is a metal made from uranium hexaflouride which is the byproduct of the uranium enrichment process. Depleted uranium is actually the uranium 238 isotope. Natural uranium contains 99.2% by weight U-238 while DU contains 99.8% by weight U-238. Recent documents released by the U.S. Department of Energy provide evidence to suggest that a small proportion of other toxic heavy metals such as plutonium also may be present. U-238 emits alpha particles at 4.2 Mev and 4.15 Mev that cause significant internal ionization with consequent cellular damage. In addition daughter products emit beta particles and gamma rays that may cause further radiological damage. While DU may not be an external hazard it is an internal hazard and with consequent inhalation, ingestion, and wound contamination poses significant and unacceptable risks. Although, DU is 60 % less radioactive than natural uranium because U-234 and U-235 which emit gamma rays and beta particles have been removed Depleted uranium or uranium 238 is still very dangerous as an internal hazard because the alpha particle emissions are not reduced but proportionally increased. Also spent penetrators or parts of penetrators emit at 300 mrem/ hour and thus can not be touched or picked up without protection.

    WHAT ARE THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES?

    Depleted uranium or U-238 has an atomic mass of 238. Its half-life is 4.468 billion years. It’s natural occurrence is 2.1 parts per million. Uranium is silver white, lustrous, malleable, ductile, and pyrophoric. This makes DU an ideal metal for use as kinetic energy penetrators, counterweights, and shielding or armor. High density and pyrophoric (catches fire) nature are the two most significant physical properties that guided its selection for use as a kinetic energy penetrator.

    WHERE DOES DU COME FROM?

    Uranium hexaflouride is the non-fissionable residue or by-product of the uranium enrichment process during which fissionable Uranium 235 and Uranium 234 are separated from natural uranium. Depleted uranium is refined from Uranium Hexaflouride (UF6). The United States Department of Energy has so much UF6 stored at various sites that any use that increases disposal of this waste product is welcome. Consequently economic recovery may supersede health and environmental concerns.

    HOW IS DU USED BY THE MILITARY?

    DU is used to manufacture kinetic energy penetrators. Each kinetic penetrator consists of almost entirely uranium 238.

    The United States munitions industry produces the following DU munitions with the corresponding mass of uranium 238:

    7.62 mm with unspecified mass

    50 cal. With unspecified mass

    20 mm with a mass of approximately 180 grams.

    25 mm with a mass of approximately 200 grams.

    30 mm with a mass of approximately 280 grams.

    105 mm with a mass of approximately 3500 grams.

    120 mm with a mass of approximately 4500 grams.

    Submunitions such as the PDM and ADAM whose structural body contain a small proportion of DU.

    Many other countries now produce or have acquired DU munitions. DU is also used as armor, ballast or counter weights, radiation shielding, and as proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy as a component of road and structural materials. All of these current or proposed uses are designed to reduce the huge U.S. Department of Energy stockpiles left over from the uranium enrichment process.

    It is important to realize that DU penetrators are solid uranium 238. During an impact approximately 40 % of the penetrator forms DU oxides which are left on the terrain, within or on impacted equipment, or within impacted structures. The remainder of the penetrator (60%) retains its initial shape. Thus we are left with a solid piece of uranium lying someplace which can be picked up by children or adults. DU ignites upon impact. The resulting shower of burning DU causes secondary explosions, fires, injury, and death. DU fragments or oxides in the form of radioactive heavy metal contamination are also present. Simply: Who would want thousands of solid uranium penetrators or pencils of masses between 180 and 4500 grams lying in your backyard? Who would want any uranium contamination of any type lying in your backyard?

    HOW IS DU USED BY INDUSTRY AND DOE?

    The U.S. Department of Energy possesses about 728,000 metric tonnes of DU. Consequently, DOE has been investigating and advocating additional uses for DU to reduce its stockpiles. DU is stored at Pudacah, Kentucky; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Portsmouth, Ohio. DOE has proposed various uses for DU most of which support the nuclear industry. However, DOE has also proposed using DU to reinforce concrete and other building materials. DU is also used as aircraft ballast, as shielding, and in oil well drilling equipment. The potential of recycled DU contaminated metals reaching the consumer market in various products is also a concern.

    WHERE AND WHEN AS DU BEEN USED?

    Photographic evidence of destroyed equipment suggests that DU was first used during the 1973 Arab- Israeli war. Various written reports cite information that may have been obtained as a consequence of that use. Physicians using medical laboratory tests have verified an internalized exposure to DU in the individual who inspected that destroyed equipment. The Persian Gulf war was the first major use of DU in combat. Pilots flying aircraft fired approximately 850,950 rounds and another 9,640 rounds were fired by gunners in tanks for a total weight of 631,055 pounds or over 315 tons. Recent conversations with the individual who managed all DU rounds suggest that this figure may be to low and that the actual quantity should be 25% greater. Although warnings were issued to refrain from DU use the U.S. Marines fired DU munitions on three separate occasions during 1995 and 1996 while conducting operations in Okinawa and then did not tell the Japanese Government for some time. During 1995 the U.S. military also fired approximately 10000 rounds of DU munitions during battle in Serbia. Recently U.S. forces fired over 31000 rounds of 30 mm DU munitions during 100 missions into Kosovo or Serbia. DU munitions have been fired on ranges in Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, Maryland, and this past year on Vieques in Puerto Rico. The incident in Puerto Rico involved the deliberate use of DU in preparation for combat in Kosovo. Although DU use is prohibited except during combat, the Navy fired at least 258 rounds in Vieques. Navy personnel have reported that the Navy has been firing DU into Vieques for years but this was the first time they were caught. Vieques is currently a national and international issue with confirmed environmental contamination and documented adverse health effects similar to those already observed.

    WHAT DID WE FIND IMMEDIATELY AFTER ODS FRIENDLY FIRE AND COMBAT INCIDENTS?

    I was assigned to the DU assessment team as the team health physicist and medic by directive of Headquarters Department of the Army in Washington, D.C. via a message sent to the theater commander during March 1991. What we found can be explained in three words: “OH MY GOD”. According to official documents each uranium penetrator could loose up to 70 % of it’s mass on impact creating fixed and loose contamination with the remainder passing through the equipment or structure to lie on the terrain. On-site impact investigations suggest that the mass loss is about 40% which forms fixed and loose contamination leaving about 60% of the initial mass of the penetrator in the solid or pencil form. Equipment contamination included uranium oxides, other hazardous materials, unstable unexploded ordnance, and byproducts of exploded ordnance. U.S. Army Materiel Command documents sent to us during ODS stated the oxide was 57% insoluble and 43 % soluble with at least 50% was respirable. In addition other radioactive materials were detected that could pose a risk through inhalation, ingestion, or wound contamination. In most cases except for penetrator fragments, contamination was inside destroyed equipment or structures, on the destroyed equipment, or within 25 meters of the equipment. After we returned to the United States myself and two others with assistance wrote the Theater Clean up plan which was reportedly passed up through U.S. Department of Defense officials to the U.S. Department of State and consequently to the Emirate of Kuwaiti. Today, it is obvious that none of this information regarding clean up of extensive DU contamination ever was given to the Iraqi’s. Consequently, although we knew there were and still are substantial hazards existing within Iraq they have been ignored by the United States and Great Britain for political and economic reasons. Iraqi, Kosovar, and Serbian representatives have asked numerous times for DU contamination management and medical care procedures but they have been continuously rebuffed by U.S officials. Although residents of Vieques, who are U.S. citizens, have also asked for medical care and completion of environmental remediation DOD officials have not responded. Dr. Bernard Rostker, Assistant Secretary of the Army, recently said that he did not see any reason why the United States should tell anyone where DU was used in Kosovo. Consequently military personnel and civilians have been exposed.

    HOW DID THE DU PROJECT GET STARTED AND WHAT WERE IT’S OBJECTIVES?

    The probable hazards were known before the use of depleted uranium munitions during the Gulf war as official documents substantiate. A United States Defense Nuclear Agency memorandum written by LTC Lyle that was sent to our team in Saudi Arabia stated that quote “As Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), ground combat units, and civil populations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq come increasingly into contact with DU ordnance, we must prepare to deal with potential problems. Toxic war souvenirs, political furor, and post conflict clean up (host nation agreement) are only some of the issues that must be addressed. Alpha particles (uranium oxide dust) from expended rounds is a health concern but, Beta particles from fragments and intact rounds is a serious health threat, with possible exposure rates of 200 millirads per hour on contact.” end quote.

    This memorandum, the reports that we prepared immediately after the Gulf War as a part of the depleted uranium assessment project to recover DU destroyed and contaminated U.S. equipment, the previous research, and other expressed concerns led to the publication of a United States Department of Defense directive signed by General Eric Shinseki to quote:

    “1. Provide adequate training for personnel who may come in contact with depleted uranium equipment.

    2. Complete medical testing of personnel exposed to DU contamination during the Persian Gulf War.

    3. Develop a plan for DU contaminated equipment recovery during future operations.”

    It is thus indisputable that United States Department of Defense officials were and are still aware of the unique and unacceptable hazards associated with using depleted uranium munitions. Consequently, I was recalled to active duty in the U.S. Army and assigned to the U.S. Army Chemical School located at Fort McClellan, Alabama as the DU Project Director and tasked with developing training and management procedures. The project included a literature review; extensive curriculum development project involving representatives from all branches of the U.S. Department of Defense and representatives from England, Canada, Germany, and Australia; and basic research at the Nevada Test Site located northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, to validate management procedures.

    The products of the DU project included three training curricula:

    Tier I: General Audience

    Tier II: Battle Damage and Recovery Operations

    Tier III: Chemical Officer / NCO

    Three video tapes:

    1. “Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness”

    2. “Contaminated and Damaged Equipment Management”

    “Operation of the AN/PDR 77 Radiac Set” and

    The draft DU and LLRM contamination management procedures including a United States Army Regulation: “Management of Equipment Contaminated with Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities” and an United States Army Pamphlet ” Handling Procedures for Equipment Contaminated with Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities”.

    Although, these products with approval of all participants were all completed and ready for distribution by January 1996, U.S. Army, U.S. Department of Defense, British, German, Canadian, and Australian officials disregarded repeated directives and did not implement or only have implemented portions of the training or management procedures. Unfortunately, only a few U.S. personnel have been trained. The training and management plan have not been given to all individuals and representatives of governments whose populations and environment have affected by DU contamination. These failures have been verified by U.S. General Accounting Office investigators and the report was published during March 2000.

    BASED ON ALL PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND THE DU PROJECT WHAT WERE THE RECOMMENDATIONS?

    The DU project and review of previous research reinforced the original conclusions and recommendations that we developed while still in Saudi Arabia and which are just plain simple common sense. These recommendations were / are:

    1. All depleted uranium contamination must be physically removed and properly disposed of to prevent future exposures.

    2. Radiation detection devices that detect and measure alpha particles, beta particles, x-rays, and gamma rays emissions at appropriate levels from 20 dpm up to 100,000 dpm and from .1 mrem/ hour to 75 mrem/ hour must be acquired and distributed to all individuals or organizations responsible for medical care and environmental remediation activities involving depleted uranium / uranium 238 and other low level radioactive isotopes that may be present.

    3. Medical screening of all individuals who did or may have inhaled, ingested, or had wound contamination to detect mobile and sequestered internalized uranium contamination must be completed.

    4. All individuals who enter, climb on, or work within 25 meters of any DU contaminated equipment or terrain must wear respiratory and skin protection.

    5. Uranium 238 contaminated and damaged equipment or materials should not be recycled to manufacture new materials or equipment.

    WHAT HAS OCCURRED?

    Visual evidence, personal experience, and published reports verify that:

    1. Medical care has not been provided to all DU casualties.

    2. Environmental remediation has not been completed.

    3. DU contaminated and damaged equipment and materials have been recycled to manufacture new products.

    4. DU training and education has only been partially implemented.

    5. DU contamination management procedures have not been distributed.

    The United States Army Materiel Command possesses the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license for depleted uranium. A health physicist assigned to the Office of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army Materiel Command told me during a conversation on November 8, 1999 that their office will not release the DU medical treatment protocols nor the DU contamination management and remediation procedures to all those who are affected by depleted uranium contamination. He has restated this decision in writing on behalf of commanding general. This decision ignores United States and international legal requirements.

    WHAT ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED, RECOGNIZED, TREATED, AND DOCUMENTED?

    The answer to this question is difficult. Deliberate denial and delay of medical screening and consequent medical care of not only U.S. friendly fire casualties who inhaled, ingested, and had wound contamination but all others with verified or suspected internalized exposure makes actually knowing what has occurred difficult. Although I, physicians, scientists, and other medical personnel recommended immediate medical care during March, April, and May of 1991 and many times since then the United States Department of Defense, the British Ministry of Defense, and consequently the United States Department of Veterans Affairs are still reluctant to provide thorough medical screening and necessary medical care. Dr. Bernard Rostker wrote to me in a letter dated March 1, 1999 that physicians and health physicists at the completion of the ground war decided that medical screening and care for uranium exposures was not required. Actual documents refute this! Today, individuals are sick and others are dead who were denied medical care even though I requested it in a letter dated May 21, 1997 which was sent to the Office of Surgeon U.S. Army Materiel Command and forwarded to Dr. Rostker by Dr. (LTC) Kelsey.

    Verified adverse health effects from personal experience, physicians, and from personal reports from individuals with known DU exposures include: (a) Reactive airway disease, (b) neurological abnormalities, (c) kidney stones and chronic kidney pain, (d) rashes, (e) vision degradation and night vision losses, (f) gum tissue problems, (g) lymphoma, (h) various forms of skin and organ cancer, (I) neuro-psychological disorders, (j) uranium in semen, (k) sexual dysfunction, and (l) birth defects in offspring.

    Today, serious adverse health effects have been documented in employees of and residents living near Puducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio; Los Alamos, New Mexico; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Hanford, Washington. Additionally employees at uranium manufacturing or processing facilities in New York, Tennessee, and the four corners area of southwest Colorado have repeatedly reported adverse health effects similar to those reported by verified Gulf War DU casualties. Iraqi and other humanitarian agency physicians are reporting serious adverse health effects in exposed populations. Today, verifying correlation between uranium exposures and adverse health effects, except in only in a few cases, may not be possible because of deliberate delays in screening. Health physics guidelines state that testing should be completed within 30 days not 8 years after exposures. Testing involves the collection of a urine, fecal, and throat samples. Eight years or so after exposures only a small fraction of the sequestered uranium or original dose will be detected. This fraction represents only the mobile or soluble portion that is in the body. Figure 1 shows the relationship between time of sampling and detection of internalized uranium. Two recent autopsys have revealed that sequestering is an observed phenomena and that the mobile fraction may or may not be representative of what is actually present. The current U.S. Army medical department guideline dated April 1999 requires immediate testing as always required by laws and regulations. However, this is still not occurring.

    Even when verified medical evidence attributing adverse health effects to DU exposures is available official recognition and documentation has been erratic at best. For example during 1994 and 1995 United States Department of Defense medical personnel at an U.S. Army installation hospital removed, separated, and hid documented diagnoses from affected individuals and other physicians. Some medical records were retrieved, but, probably too late for many individuals. Today, this practice continues and consequently exposed individuals are not receiving adequate and effective medical care. This includes individuals whose medical care has been requested many times. This will continue as long as the United States, British, Canadian and other governments are permitted to ignore the emerging evidence and deny medical care to all individuals who have been or may have been exposed to depleted uranium (uranium 238), other isotopes, and other contaminants created as result of the use of depleted uranium munitions. The criteria describing exposures were specified in a message from Headquarters Department of the Army dated October 14, 1993 (enclosure 2) . Exposures requiring medical screening within 24 hours of exposure and consequent care included:

    “a. Being in the midst of smoke from DU fires resulting from the burning of vehicles uploaded with DU munitions or depots in which DU munitions are being stored.

    b. Working within environments containing DU dust or residues from DU fires.

    c. Being within a structure or vehicle while it is struck by DU munitions.”

    These guidelines should be applicable to all exposed individuals and thus care should be independent of military or civilian status. Today, medical care has not been and is still not being given to all depleted uranium casualties as specified. Although, I am not a physician I have been involved in teaching and providing emergency medicine for over 20 years and thus the following recommendations are based on experience and common sense applications of emergency medicine and simple health physics principles. I also provided emergency medical care for some DU casualties in Iraq and Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War.

    Medical care must be planned and completed to identify and then alleviate actual physiological problems rather than placing an emphasis on psychological manifestations and continued testing. Warriors, civilian employees, non-combatants, and enemy personnel are sick and deserve care for the complex exposures that have resulted in observed physiological effects. Medical care for known uranium exposures should emphasize (concern in parentheses):

    a. neurology (heavy metal effects)

    b. ophthalmology (radiation and heavy metal effects)

    c. urology (heavy metal effects and crystal formation)

    d. dermatology (heavy metal effects)

    e. cardiology (radiation and heavy metal effects)

    f. pulmonary (radiation, particulate, and heavy metal effects)

    g. immunology (radiation and heavy metal effects)

    h. oncology (radiation and heavy metal effects)

    i. gynecology (radiation and heavy metal effects)

    j. gastro-intestinal (systematic effects)

    k. dental (heavy metal effects)

    l. psychology (heavy metal effects)

    Many individuals with known exposures still had not received requested care as of March 8, 2000 according to the VA DU project patient manager. As of January 3, 2001 only 63 individuals (including myself) are receiving medical care from physicians assigned to the Baltimore Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs Depleted Uranium program. Today casualties with verified DU health related problems live on antibiotics and steroids to quell problems but treatment or cure has not been tried to restore health. It is impossible to get proper care and treatment. IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THOSE WITH VERIFIED EXPOSURES AND HEALTH PROBLEMS THEN YOU CAN SAY DU DID NOT CAUSE ANY ADVERSE HEALTH PROBLEMS. SO MUCH FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE WHEN A COVER-UP IS DIRECTED BY POLITICIANS TO LIMIT LIABILITY FOR NON-COMBATANTS, WARRIORS, AND OTHERS. The cover-up started with the infamous Los Alamos memorandum sent to our team in Saudi Arabia during March 1991. This memo told us to be sure no matter what we did or reported that we should only report information so DU could always be used. A letter sent to General Leslie Groves during 1943 is even more disturbing. In that memorandum dated October 30, 1943, senior scientists assigned to the Manhattan Project suggested that uranium could be used as an air and terrain contaminant. According to the letter sent by the Subcommittee of the S-1 Executive Committee on the “Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon” to General Groves (October 30, 1943) inhalation of uranium would result in “bronchial irritation coming on in a few hours to a few days”. This is exactly what happened to individuals who inhaled DU dust during Operation Desert Storm.

    The subcommittee went on further to state that “Beta emitting products could get into the gastrointestinal tract from polluted water, or food, or air. From the air, they would get on the mucus of the nose, throat, bronchi, etc. and be swallowed. The effects would be local irritation just as in the bronchi and exposures of the same amount would be required. The stomach, caecum and rectum, where contents remain for longer periods than elsewhere would be most likely affected. It is conceivable that ulcers and perforations of the gut followed by death could be produced, even without an general effects from radiation”.

    The twisted history of medical care of DU casualties took a unique and unprecedented turn on March 14, 2000 when representatives of the Italian government announced that they would begin providing medical care for Iraqis who had been exposed to depleted uranium as a consequence of deliberate actions by the United States and England and the continued refusal by U.S. and British officials to provide medical treatment protocols. In another twist on March 14 a French investigative journalist reported that “There has been lots of new things: – there are Belgium sick people from Kosovo…. same symptoms. – There are Italian sick soldiers from Bosnia – Some French soldiers from the Gulf are sick journalists are working on that.” This provides additional evidence of health related problems that must be addressed as previously cited in a U.S. Department of Defense press release dated July 27, 1999 which stated that ‘Some soldiers in the Balkans are coming down with the “Bosnian Crud,” a type of upper respiratory infection, according to an article in the July 9, 1999 issue of the “Talon,” the Operation Joint Forge newspaper for U.S. forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina.’ Today, NATO soldiers are reporting medical problems and some have died. Still medical care is denied or delayed for all uranium exposed casualties while United States Department of Defense and British Ministry of Defense officials continue to deny any correlation between uranium exposure and adverse health and environmental effects. They continue to contend that they can spread radioactive waste (depleted uranium) in anyone’s backyard without cleaning it up and providing medical care. Their arrogance is astonishing.

    WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT?

    The international community and all citizens of the world must raise a unified voice in opposition to future use of depleted uranium munitions and force those nations that have used depleted uranium munitions to recognize the immoral consequences of their actions and assume responsibility for medical care and thorough environmental remediation. Specifically:

    1. Depleted uranium munitions and the use of depleted uranium must be banned.

    2. All individuals who were exposed or who may have been exposed to any form of depleted uranium and its various integral contaminants or other contaminants created during combat, research, or training activities must receive a through physical examination and medical care to alleviate or cure the physiological consequences caused by inhalation, ingestion, or uranium wound contamination.

    3. All depleted uranium penetrator fragments, depleted uranium contaminated equipment, and depleted uranium oxide contamination must be cleaned up and disposed of at secure sites.

    Share this page with a friend

    International Action Center
    39 West 14th Street, Room 206
    New York, NY 10011
    email: mailto:[email protected]
    En Espanol: [email protected]
    Web: http://www.iacenter.org
    Support Mumia Abu-Jamal: http://www.millions4mumia.org/
    phone: 212 633-6646
    fax: 212 633-2889

30. Thank you for your response to my last post, Mikael, and the link. However, I have to admit I’m just a little perplexed. I sort of got the impression from your reference to Iraqi schoolchildren “melting into radiated mush” that Baghdad was no different than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The link is nearly 5 years old and presents the issue of DU as a theory, which strikes me as being quite a leap from Hiroshima. But I poked around a bit and found this link: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-107572.html

    (I’m sorry, I’m having trouble with the hyperlink today; must have my blonders on.)

31. Nice attempt at deflection, Mik. But you haven’t answered my question. If Bush went through all that trouble to lie to us, why didn’t he just lie to Saddam and save the trouble? Try your own opinion this time.

    -Mark

32. Getting a little hissy are we Mark?

    Do you always cross your arms and stomp your feet when you don’t get your way? Roll kicking and screaming in the grocery store aisle when Mommy won’t buy you candy?

    You throw up a ridiculous straw man argument and then whine when I refuse to take the bait and waste my time and energy debating a patently stupid insistence?

    Who is being naive? When did you start debating? Last week? Knock it off. It is pathetic.

    You ask for “something, anything” to back up my assertion that Bush lied us into war. Here are 935 HARD, COLD FACTS (not that I presume facts are anything you would recognize or acknowledge):

    from: http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

    The War Card
    Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War
    False Pretenses
    FOLLOWING 9/11, PRESIDENT BUSH AND SEVEN TOP OFFICIALS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION WAGED A CAREFULLY ORCHESTRATED CAMPAIGN OF MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE THREAT POSED BY SADDAM HUSSEIN’S IRAQ.

    By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith

    President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

    On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration’s case for war.

    It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose “Duelfer Report” established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq’s nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

    In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

    President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

    The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

    Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

    On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ ”
    In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn’t been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn’t requested it.
    In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear.”
    On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team’s final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
    On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”
    On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: “What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.” As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named “Curveball,” whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had “decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].”
    The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

    It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including when and where they occurred, go to the search page for this project; the methodology used for this analysis is explained here.

    In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

    The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, “independent” validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.

    The “ground truth” of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: “It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

    Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual “ground truth” regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who’s Who of domestic agencies.

    On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation’s allies on their way to war.

    Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government’s pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

    Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

    Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

33. “…Not really a question warranting a serious response. You don’t dictate my responses. I respond to what is worthwhile.”

    Let me get this straight…I pose a serious question to you, and when you can’t come up with an answer you merely say it doesn’t warrant a serious response? So much for an open minded debate. I truly think that the only one being naive is you, Mikeal. How can you honestly sit there and proclaim time and again that Bush lied us into war, then not back up your assertions with hard facts? Your so called “evidence” doesn’t prove anything, either. Just empty allegations based on faulty logic.

    Please, please present to me something – anything – that can back up your point of view, and I’m not talking about links to articles you once read – I mean your opinion. I know it’s hard to form an honest opinion when you don’t have your talking points in front of you, but try to give it your best shot.

    Once again, why didn’t he just dupe Saddam into doing what he wanted him to do? Simple question.

    -Mark

34. “Who exactly is the power behind Bush’s “tertiary” throne?”

    NeoCon ‘Project for a New American Century’s Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al. along with World Bankers, Big Oil and other Power Brokers. Bush will be out of the loop within the year, back to clearing brush on his ranch. They used him for what they needed him for.

    “why didn’t he just dupe Saddam into doing what he wanted him to do?”

    Not really a question warranting a serious response. You don’t dictate my responses. I respond to what is worthwhile.

    Clinton’s are closely tied in with much of the same cartel. They aren’t even close to being the liberal, progressive stalwarts the rabid right tries to paint them as. Hillary was on the board of WalMart for 6-7 years during WalMart’s time as the worst American company regarding labor rights in recent history. She never lifted a finger. And she is supposed to be a Democrat? Please.

35. “…to do AIPAC’s bidding…”

    “…Project for a New American Century who had aimed at taking over Middle Eastern assets…”

    “…part of the NeoCon agenda…”

    Make up my mind. Who exactly is the power behind Bush’s “tertiary” throne? And you say that “…the lie that was the only way to get access to the oil and to [attack] surrounding Arab states”, but you never answered my question – why didn’t he just dupe Saddam into doing what he wanted him to do? He could have covertly funded another Iraq-Iran war and been done with it. Also, why did Bill Clinton spend all that time bombing various Iraqi military units if it was an Israeli plot and part of the NeoCon Agenda? Is Bill Clinton now part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? You’d better not let Hillary hear about that.

    -Mark

36. “Why not drill in ANWAR?”

    It would take ten years to gain access to the oil in Alaska, during which time the same amount of money, time and effort devoted to alternative energy resources would yield much more sustainable results.

    The expected yield from the area is relatively insignificant and won’t make a significant dent in our dependence on oil imports. Again, investing in a spectrum of alternative energy resources is a wiser long-term solution.

    Those who tell you differently either stand to benefit from the action, or are influenced by the marketing campaign by those who stand to benefit from it. In either case, the benefits are far outweighed by the liabilities.

    Also, there is no way to guarantee the environmental protection of the area. The EXXON Valdez incident would inevitably be repeated by the SS Condoleezza Rice or SS Scooter Libby incident. Laugh it off, but the damage from the EXXON Valdez still harshly inhibits growth of animal life that fish feed upon, thus driving them away from the area and hurting that single corporate concern – business profits.

37. Why not drill in ANWAR?

38. “…Bush just wanted to throw men into the meat grinder for some oil that he could’ve just lied us into? ”

    Throwing men (and women) into the meat grinder was just one part of the collateral damage from the lie that was the only way to get access to the oil and to do AIPAC’s bidding in attacking surrounding Arab states. Iraq is first, Iran will be second if the imperialistic NeoCons get their way.

    Doesn’t the fact that there are nearly as many mercenary soldiers in Iraq employed by Cheney cronies sound even the slightest alarm? Try comparing the rates of pay for the mercenaries and our soldiers. Try comparing the quality of armor and transportation between U.S. Army and Blackwater Soldiers.

    Bush was just the electable “Johnny-come-lately” who was willing to play the role as the facade of the Project for a New American Century who had aimed at taking over Middle Eastern assets for years before Bush v. Gore. In some ways he is a tertiary concern, yet he had and has the authority and with that comes the responsibility for the actions of his Administration.

    Attacking Iraq wasn’t a matter of national security. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Attacking Iraq wasn’t a retaliatory reaction to 9/11, it was part of the NeoCon agenda that came in with Bush’s hanging chad election ‘victory’.Saddam and Al Qaeda had no substantial relationship. Secular Baa’thist Saddam and religious zealot Osama hated each other. Zero 9/11 terrorists participated came from Iraq.

    It is astounding that so many people still are fooled by such remarkably mediocre attempts to sway American opinion.

39. OK, now you’ve got me curious…if Bush is such a good liar as to have lied the entire free world into believing his B.S. and going to war with the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, why didn’t he just dupe Saddam into doing what he wanted him to do? You actually believe Bush just wanted to throw men into the meat grinder for some oil that he could’ve just lied us into? Or better yet, why didn’t he just lie us into drilling in ANWR and stay home?

    -Mark

40. Mark Logan, You are not who I am referring to. One person has already been banned from the site and there are two who are on probation and will lose their posting privileges by agreement of our editorial staff if they continue their behavior. You are not one of them… yet.

    Mack, There are dozens of investigations ongoing and/or already concluded. They don’t need to start, they are already well underway. Why the evidence and testimony revealed in combination of all of these hasn’t resulted in impeachment is inexplicable.

    Anyone who attempts to portray the Bush Administration as anything but lawless is indeed mindless. The facts are there for all to see and very well documented on this site and many others.

41. Mark Logan–I probably am mean-spirited and I do kind of look like a troll, but “mindless?” just because I posted something that disagreed with the thrust of this site? Surely not. Probably just a slip of the empassioned typing fingers of our host…after all, insulting and derogatory attacks will not be tolerated in these discussions.

42. MARK wrote:

    “We need Constant Hearings into ALL the crimes of Bush. Eventually, we will find evidence that will make more and more people demand Impeachment. Impeaching Bush will not be easy! It will take time and lots of work! United we stand, For Impeachment!”

    MARK, you’ve got about 11 months to accomplish your massive investigation and hard work. Better get hopping. And why stop there? After we poilish off Bush and Cheney and Rove, we can start investigating all the big contributors to their political campaigns…I’ll bet they’ve been up to no good as well. For that matter, anybody who contributed to one of their campaigns prabably deserves prosecution for being accessories before the fact. And the voters! Everybody who cast a vote for Bush should serve hard time in prison and be barred from the political process forever.

43. Honest debate? We “mindless, mean-spirited trolls” post our side of the debate and you call us names and laugh at us, Mikey. Honest men who use facts to justify their actions aren’t threatened by honest debate.

    -Mark

44. “Could you please give me a source of information for your allegation that Iraqi schoolchildren are being melted into radiated mush? That sort of implies that Bush is using nuclear weapons, and if he is, I’d like to know.”

    It isn’t just Bush, it is standard practice of the U.S. military to use depleted uranium in weapons. It was used during the Gulf War and the incidence of various cancers and birth defects are way up. American troops are also showing a very high percentage of damage from exposure to the carcinogens (stuff you won’t hear about on FAUXNews, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.).

    “• Ingestion of DU from contaminated water and food, and from soil, will be highly variable and may be significant in some cases: for example, children playing in areas where DU shells have impacted.”

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3627-depleted-uranium-casts-shadow-over-peace-in-iraq.html

    And I apologize if I offended you. There are some mindless, mean-spirited trolls who slither on and off these pages and you caught me in the midst of dealing with a couple of them. I treated you as if you were one of them. It is now apparent that you intend to engage in honest debate which is why these comment threads exist.

45. Oh, I can stand the heat just fine, Mikael. Bush thinks he’s doing what’s right, you think you’re doing what’s right.

    Could you please give me a source of information for your allegation that Iraqi schoolchildren are being melted into radiated mush? That sort of implies that Bush is using nuclear weapons, and if he is, I’d like to know.

    I’m trying very hard to be nice and civil here, Mikael. I’d hate to think I’m coming across like one of those hateful, narrow-minded, mean-spirited, intolerant neocons. I’m truly open to being enlightened by your point of view, but not if I’m going to be sneered at for every innocuous little thing I say. That’s hardly the way to win over converts, which are sorely needed if Bush is ever to be brought to justice.

46. Peachie,

    I was simply laughing at the ridiculous statement that Bush has always done what he thinks is best for the country rather than what is popular. Every single Bush decision is made to benefit corporate cronies and special interests. He places absolutely no value in any other human beings – unless of course they aren’t born yet, and then he feigns interest to sway the uneducated and ill-informed evangelical Christian vote.

    Once they are born, he doesn’t lose any sleep over presiding over military action that leads to Iraqi schoolchildren melting into radiated mush in their parent’s arms. All for profit, power and to kiss AIPAC’s ass.

    And no, I didn’t contradict myself.

    If you can’t stand the heat, you may consider staying out of the kitchen.

    … oh and Chubster… stay on topic, let go of the 7th Grade immaturity and your posts won’t be deleted.

47. Mikael, I was merely pointing out that you contradicted yourself in your statement, and for that you mock me.

    Do you welcome debate, or is only one point of view allowed here?

48. …”maybe Congress is doing what it thinks is best for our country and the world, instead of what’s popular.

    I do know that’s what Bush has always done.”

    BWAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!

    Good one! Tell me another!!!

49. Mikael wrote:

    Since 70% of the American public thinks America is headed in the wrong direction, believes the Iraq War was a mistake and don’t support President Bush, yet Congress has done little or nothing to change the direction the nation is headed in, end the war or hold Bush/Cheney accountable for their crimes, Congress fully deserves their low rating.

    As for betting – I’m not interested – I just am fighting for what is right despite any and all odds. This isn’t an attempt to do what is popular, it is an attempt to do what is best for our country and the world.

    ~
    Hm, maybe Congress is doing what it thinks is best for our country and the world, instead of what’s popular.

    I do know that’s what Bush has always done.

50. We need Constant Hearings into ALL the crimes of Bush. Eventually, we will find evidence that will make more and more people demand Impeachment. Impeaching Bush will not be easy! It will take time and lots of work! United we stand, For Impeachment!

51. “Democratic controlled House and Senate”

    The Senate – with Lieberman and other DINO Senators voting with Bush and against democracy consistently and Cheney holding the tie-breaking vote – is actually in GOP control in every crucial vote. Anything meaningful that actually gets voted through is negated by Emperor Bush’s signing statements (more than all previous Presidents combined) or is vetoed.

    Since 70% of the American public thinks America is headed in the wrong direction, believes the Iraq War was a mistake and don’t support President Bush, yet Congress has done little or nothing to change the direction the nation is headed in, end the war or hold Bush/Cheney accountable for their crimes, Congress fully deserves their low rating.

    As for betting – I’m not interested – I just am fighting for what is right despite any and all odds. This isn’t an attempt to do what is popular, it is an attempt to do what is best for our country and the world.

52. And the Democratic controlled House and Senate has a 12% approval rating.

    The lowest ever.

    Period.

    Pelosi and Reid will do nothing for impeachment. Wexler’s bill will go nowhere. Get used to that fact. Deal with it. Embrace defeat. Raise the white flag of surrender.

    Maybe if you get an investigation into Pelosi’s dealings with American Samoa and the miniumum wage, the labor exploitation in her family’s businesses, like the vineyards and hotels or Reid’s illegal real estate deals and kickbacks you could get some leaders who actually care about the Diebold puppet vote fixer Wexler’s house bill. LOL

    Care to wager it never makes it to the floor for a roll call?

53. Again…

    Most bills and resolutions suggested in Congress are initiated by a single sponsor and one, two or perhaps three or four cosponsors. Any that number in double digits are rare. Of course, what is most important is whether or not it gets a full hearing in committee or is sent to the House floor with a recommendation – neither of which has happened… yet.

    Bush is, as you said, a fumbling lackwit. It is Cheney and Rove who have been far more central to the manipulations and puppeteering – or so it would appear.

    That criminality has reigned in the Bush Administration has long since been in question. It is only through open hearings that we will find the full extent of the truth of what has actually taken place. When every tiny piece of evidence is withheld and every witness plays the “executive privilege” card, impeachment is clearly the only way the truth will come to light.

54. Okay, will the number of people who actually voted in the 2004 presidential election satisfy your parameter that “A more intelligent analysis of the statistics available would consider the percentage of Americans that generally participate in the Democratic process rather than the total number of Americans alive today”? According to the Census Department, 126,000,000 people voted in the 2004 presidential election. That ups the figure to a whopping 1.8%…I continue to fail to be impressed.

    Please, if you are going to attribute statements to me, don’t use partial quotes–I extend the same courtesy to you when I pull a section out of one of your posts or comments. I did not state the Bush was either an evil mastermind or a a fumbling lackwit. I was curious as to which you think he is. From the content of the site it seems you can’t make up your mind.

55. Basic fact understood by the more informed:

    Most bills and resolutions suggested in Congress are initiated by a single sponsor and one, two or perhaps three or four cosponsors.

56. A more intelligent analysis of the statistics available would consider the percentage of Americans that generally participate in the Democratic process rather than the total number of Americans alive today (Duh).

    A quarter million signatures in less than two months on a petition that was shut out by the corporate media and advertised almost exclusively on YouTube is quite a lot actually. Name another petition that has gotten so far, so fast?

    Sad but true fact that if a couple dozen constituents phone call a Representative on a particular issue it is considered worth noting.

    “Bush the evil mastermind of a mass deception of the American public and architect of the New American Imperialism…”

    I don’t remember anyone ever saying that before you just claimed it to be true… but now that you have suggested it… Silly me… I thought it was Cheney and Rove…

    “a fumbling lackwit who is so much in the dark that he can’t even read a newspaper”

    That’s our Pretendident!!!

57. I find it interesting that the Wexler letter has a grand total of fifteen signatures. There are, according to house.gov, currently 529 sitting members of Congress. Wexler has managed to convince 2.4% of Conrgress to sign a letter regarding impeachment, and at least one of them, DeFazio, isn’t actually calling for an impeachment, but rather an “aggressive investigation” of the Vice President’s performance. It’s also just kind of sad and pathetic (particularly given the glowing reports of the Great American Public’s tremendous outpouring of support for the Brattleboro Council on a separate thread) that Wexler’s website “that allows anyone to sign the impeachment petition” has thus far garnered 227,000 signatures. This out of a nation of 300,000,000 citizens. According to these numbers, .075% of the People want to see an impeachment.

58. So…is Bush the evil mastermind of a mass deception of the American public and architect of the New American Imperialism, or is he a fumbling lackwit who is so much in the dark that he can’t even read a newspaper? If the former, why post a quote indicating the latter? If the latter, why get in a lather to impeach him?

59. Just seven years so far, unfortunately eight in all most likely, but the Bush regime and all their lobotomized loyalists are perfectly personified in the following Macbeth monologue:

    …”Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,
    Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
    To the last syllable of recorded time,
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    ”Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing…”

    “I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.” — George W. Bush – Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

60. …”Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,
    Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
    To the last syllable of recorded time,
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    ”Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing…”

    Nothing indeed.

Comments are closed.