You are herecontent / Bob Reuschlein: Three counts of high crimes and misdemeanors for Bush

Bob Reuschlein: Three counts of high crimes and misdemeanors for Bush

Capital Times
A letter to the editor
July 5, 2005

Dear Editor: The Iraq War Resolution passed the House on Oct. 10, 2002, and the Senate the following day after repeated assurances, public and private, to Congress that war would be a "last resort" and that President Bush would follow the terms of the resolution, first seeking U.N. Security Council approval. Both were lies, according to the Downing Street minutes of three months before. It is a crime to defraud Congress.

The 23 "whereas" clauses that precede the resolution text mention, in order of frequency: weapons of mass destruction 10 times, the U.N. Security Council nine times, terrorists seven times, 9/11 four times, Persian Gulf three times, weapons inspectors once, al-Qaida once (saying they had a base in Iraq and failing to say it was in the Kurdish-controlled area), and regime change once (the real reason). So the justification was mainly about WMD and the U.N.

The resolution indicates that Congress supports a new Security Council resolution and enforcement of the existing resolutions.

The use of force section grants authorization to the president under only two circumstances: to defend against the Iraq threat, later proven nonexistent, and to implement U.N. resolutions if Iraq refuses to promptly comply.

Unfortunately for Bush, who was hoping for a pretext to invade, Iraq was doing everything to comply when the war started, hence it was an illegal war of aggression for the purpose of regime change, without U.N. approval or any reasons of self-defense.

Furthermore, when the president used force, the resolution required a presidential determination that two conditions were being met. One was that "peaceful means" would not either relieve the Iraq "threat" or would not enforce Security Council resolutions. WMDs were proved nonexistent by U.N. inspectors before the war and U.S. inspectors after the war, so neither of these requirements was met.

Second, the president must show that this action is "consistent with continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists, their organizations and those nations, organizations and persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001." Since there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11, this presidential determination must also be fraudulent.

So the president's repeated assurances that he preferred a "peaceful resolution" of the crisis and considered war a "last resort" were frauds to get congressional support, and, in fact, this fraud worked on Sen. Herb Kohl, according to his reasons for his war vote. Further, the president violated the terms of the war resolution, fraudulently claiming that Iraq was a threat or was in violation of the U.N. resolution, and that the Iraq war was part of the war on the perpetrators of 9/11.

That makes for three counts of indictment for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Bob Reuschlein


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This letter is very misleading. Why can't you just stick to the truth? Why "fix" it to make it fit with what you want to say?

The actual text of the resolution is:

"acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"

Why did Bob "fix" this and omit words? Is it because the word "including" completely ruined everything he was trying to say?

The resolution also does not say that the president has to prove anything. All he has to do is submit his "determination" that:

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and "

plus the thing I quoted above. All he is required to do is provide that he has determined this.

You can argue about this night and day and not get anywhere because it is all a matter of opinion. This is why anti-war advocates were mad because Congress gave the president a "blank check" to go to war.

Now, there must be some reason why Bob is trying to deceive us.

I wonder what that could be.

Seixon, Congress was given false information to persuade them to enact the above-quoted legislation. So were the American people. That is the crime. Don't split hairs.

Seixon just can't admit he has been lied to by prince stupid. It's time to face the facts and realize the end is near for prince stupid. He will be impeached and once those proceedings have started the world tribunal will be asking for his head on that silver platter. Eventually he will be tried for war crimes. Already the whole world knows what half of America is just finding out. He lied his way to this war.

The truth will set us free but, it won't prince stupid.

Is there any possibility that the outcome of impeachment might allow us to eradicate the possibility that Jeb and/or Neil might try to run for any future power positions? Can we set a precedent wherein no one with any ties to this royal family (Cheney and Rove included) can hold any authoritative position in our government within the next two generations?

BeNT; I would hope this were the outcome , but The Bush's have been profitteering from wars for generations, unfortunately americans have a woefully short memory.

Let's have you start out by telling us how Bush is profiteering from THIS war.

Oh, just another fun fact, the richest anti-Bushie out there: he is profiting from this war. George Soros. He's got his pockets filled with all kinds of stuff...

I will await the non-answer on how Dubya is profiteering from this war, since he isn't. I expect an attempt to "connect" Bush with those who are profiting from this war, such as Halliburton, yet there needs to be direct proof of Bush making money on the war. Money that goes directly to Bush from the result of this war.

Thanx, you're a peach.

The Bush Administration blossomed from the roots of a tax exempt non-profit organization, "The Project for a New American Century" also known as the PNAC. The problem with such privatized think tanks (more accurately "thug tanks") is that corporations and other private foundations can funnel millions of dollars into it under the guise of an NPO (non-profit organization). Frankly, this is how Al-Quaeda operates, with private funds funneled into it, so PNAC and Al-Quaeda (root organization Maktab al-Khadamat or MAK) both operate the SAME way--- privately-funded and outside the scope of any government. PNAC and Al-Quaeda are both NON-governmental organizations with tremendous amounts of power based on the original concept of being funded as if they were both CHARITIES ! How do you stop Jeb Bush, a bona fide member of the PNAC, and Neil Bush, another brother of Jeb Bush? You disband and disable the PNAC to start with, that's a beginning. And how do we legally disband the PNAC ? We have to get citizens groups together to demand that Prosecutors disband violent tax-exempt non-profit organizations under state and federal Racketeering Laws, such as RICO. That is how we do it without disrupting other NPO's from playing softball or going camping. If Prosecutors do not implement RICO against these violent think tanks, then the PNAC "thug tank" will keep Jeb Bush (or another one of his brothers) in power in the future.

---From the PNAC's website, in their own words---

September 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory

Enlightening letter isn't it? Can you imagine if another organization wrote that letter, would anyone take notice then? Or do you go un-noticed if your organization has founding members of brother JEB, Rummy, Wolfy, and other household names:

If a labor union wrote a Letter to the President inciting violence towards other sovereign nations, would they go un-noticed?

Maybe you should just outlaw the entire Republican party. Then everything will be real easy. Like a dictatorship. lol

You are nothing but a cheerleader and are too much of a coward to actual take on anything I said because deep down you know you can't because I am right, and you are wrong.

Bush tried for war crimes? Well then, will be the first time the commander in chief of an army that liberated 50 million people would be tried for such a thing.

I guess it is quite apparent Bush will make history, in one way or another. ;)

Yes, Congress was given false information. The problem is, so was the president. The director of the CIA told Bush that the case on WMDs was a "slam dunk". Now, if you were the president, and your director of intelligence said that something was a "slam dunk", what would you think?

The Congress viewed the same information as the president did, especially John Kerry and John Edwards who were on the Foreign Relations Committee.

It is not a crime to be wrong. It is a crime to lie.

The CIA got it wrong, thus the Congress and the president made their decisions based on wrong information. The CIA also got it wrong, apparently, during the Clinton administration, and this caused them to base many decisions on wrong information.

Now, of course, you want to claim that Bush lied, but that becomes very difficult when he was not the one creating the information. He was being presented information from the CIA, so was Congress. They all saw the same information, they all came to the same conclusion.

Yet then you want Bush's head, and no one else. Gee, how convenient.

Besides, Saddam Hussein needed to be removed as he was the problem in Iraq, not the WMDs.

And when Bob omits a word, nobody dies.

Wow, nice dodge.

Your characterization that Congress gave Bush a "blank check" to go to war is sadly mistaken. Any resolution with ANY contingencies does not constitute a "blank check"!

When you add the fact that the resolution passed was obtained by the use of false and misleading information, you really end up with a "bounced check"!

Here in Pennsylvania, we still have laws for passing fraudulent checks. Bush and company must be held accountable to all of the American people, including those of you who can not see the systematic dismantling this administration is doing to the country.

Read, understand, don't just react.

I listed the "contingencies" you are talking about, and I proved to you that they were virtually of no weight because they didn't put the burden on the president to prove anything before he determined to go to war. All he had to do was provide a determination that was consistent with a few things. He didn't have to prove anything. Thus, a blank check.

Maybe you should read, and understand, and not just react.

The mere fact that you would come to a web site like this and try to make "opinion" out of fact shows that you have come to the same realization that others on this site have; that Bush lied, and he must pay the price. The difference between you and others on this site is that you don't want justice to be served because you know it will be very damaging to the GOP. It will take many years for the GOP to recover from this when it finally comes out into full light. The best thing the GOP could do right now is hang W and his buddies out to dry and show that the neocons are not and never will be representative of the vast majority of Republicans. Most Republicans (and yes, I am assuming you are one) voted the party line because it beat the alternative in their view. I wonder if this information had come out before last November if Kerry would now hold office.

I wish I could have so much faith in republicans that they will 'take a long time to recover'. Their rhetoric and propaganda is already laid out and played to the hilt. Whenever the truth of what bush is and is about is spelled out with the mountains of obvious evidence to back it up, then it is only dismissed as coming from 'bush haters'. The truth can be ignored because bush is a victim and that is exactly how bush's failures will be played in the media. There will be no recovery because for them there is nothing to recover from. Even when they acknowledge the truth they will blame it on the democracts, as though it is dems fault for speaking the truth. The absurdity, the hypocrasy of the arguement means little because they know very well the success of their efforts to keep their voters ignorant. They will trully beleive anything they are told before they will admit they are wrong.

From the PNAC website:

*Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world.*
Inconstant Leadership = Democratic Government.
Constant Leadership = Dictatorship.

Or am I mistaken???

I'm not a Republican, so basically your whole spiel is meaningless.

I came here to try and educate some of you (for the rest there is no hope) that the world isn't as black and white as this site, among others, try to fool you into believing.

If Bush lied, then Clinton, Kerry, and the whole kitten kaboodle must have lied because they were all operating from the same information. Either that, or the intelligence was just faulty, and thus everyone was just wrong.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Bushco planned this pre-emptive Iraq invasion years before Downing Street Memo or 911 :

That's funny, your link does not even mention Iraq once.
I'm sorry to inform you, but the Clinton administration is the one who made the plans for an invasion of Iraq. It is called contingency planning, and the USA had plans to invade Iraq ever since they left in 1991.

Bush, Clinton, Kerry, and every other big name in Washington wanted Saddam removed. The latter ratified a law, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, expressing that this was the official stance of the US Congress.

So you are partially correct, yet unfortunately your partisan bias makes you unable to see the truth. The memos associated with the DSM even prove that they were still contemplating whether they should invade, or use another method. How could they then have planned the invasion of Iraq years before when they were still deciding if they should invade, support a resistance, or some of the other things listed in the Iraq Options Paper?

Let me ask you, did you even read any of the Downing Street memos? It sure doesn't seem like it. Give it a try, and learn something.

OK, let's assume that Bush just made a "mistake", as the spin tells us... So, why are we still in Iraq? Why don't we fire Bush for his "mistake"? How much bigger and bloodier does his "mistake" have to get before he is considered completely incompetent for the job ?

Mr. Straight Face, I recommend that you do not play poker.

The reason we went to Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein and put Iraq back into the international community. Read your beloved Downing Street memos and learn something for once. I love using it against you guys, because you completely ignore about 99% of the information in them.

Why should we fire Bush? We went to Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. We have accomplished this task, and are now accomplishing our other task of putting Iraq back into the international community and ensuring that another Saddam Hussein doesn't take power there later.

The WMDs were never the problem, just like hunger is not the real problem in Africa. Saddam was the problem in Iraq, as poverty and dictators are the problem in Africa.

You solve problems by going to their root cause, a concept most left-wing people don't understand, and will never understand. The favorite method is to throw money at a problem and hope it goes away, instead of pulling the sleeves up and maybe making some sacrifices to actually solve the problem once and for all.

and that is exactly what the Downing Street Memo says, that's why they were so desperate to "fix" the WMD lies around the regime change policy. You cannot go in and kill people for democracy. That's why regime change is also immoral. And we did not change Iraq's regime for Iraquis...(too many are dead and injured from Shock and Awe for that to be the case.) We occupied Iraq for oil, Israel, and logistical bases for Bushco's imperialistic interests.

You're right...WMD's were never the problem, and Bush lied .

They were so desperate to "fix" the WMD lies, that they said in those very same memos that they believed in WMDs... lol. I like how you guys ignore all the parts of the memo that smother your ignorance, and play up all the other parts. Why you taking things so out of context? Want to explain why the Clinton administration used the same rhetoric about the WMDs? Did Bush brainwash Clinton from Texas? Oh man, you guys are hilarious.

The DSM shows that they wanted to get Saddam to goof up, so that they would have a more legal way to remove him. That's what the memos really show, and anyone with half a brain knew that's what they were doing all along. The USA decided in 1998, under Clinton, that the only solution to Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein, otherwise known as the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed unanimously in the Senate and signed by none other than Bill Clinton.

Regime change is immoral? How can you make such a generalization? I guess it is because Bush is doing the regime change. If it were Clinton, you would have had no problem with it, I can guarantee it. The difference between us is that I wouldn't have a problem with that either, because I am not a partisan hack like almost all of the people that are commenting on this site.

We didn't change Iraq's regime for Iraq? Really? Because of the casualties? Here's a little nugget for ya: if Saddam Hussein had just marched out from Iraq as Bush told him to do 48 hours before the war, and his soldiers didn't fight, there would not have been any real number of deaths to speak of. The only reason there was so much bloodshed is because Saddam's army fought, and because terrorists and insurgents are there popping off Iraqi civilians everyday. WE aren't the ones responsible for most of the Iraqi deaths, the insurgents and terrorists are. The Iraqi government reported that 12,000 civilians have been killed by insurgents and terrorists the last year alone! Again, blame America first, another one of your talking points.

We occupied Iraq for oil? Hm, that's odd, since we were getting oil from Iraq before the war, and are getting LESS oil from there now. Not only that, the oil is no longer in the hands of a dictator, but a representative government voted in democratically. How's it you make this war out to be about oil then? If that's your argument, then you are on the losing side of the morality of that argument.

Israel? Sure, why not. Everything has to do with Israel. 9/11. WWII. Everything. Everything is the Jews fault. That's also what a man called Adolf Hitler said. That is also what Osama bin Laden keeps saying. Gee, how odd, anti-Semites and Nazis seem to share your point of view.

Yes, Iraq was invaded in part because of Israel, but not for Israel. We want there to be peace in Israel. For that to happen, we can't have a dictator in Iraq funneling money to Palestinian suicide bombers. Get it? Geeeeez.

Keep sticking to your talking points, and I will keep burying you with information and facts. Hopefully some day you will crawl your way out of there a more informed and objective person.

"take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"

Doesn't this say 'persons who aided the 9/11 attacks'?

Even Bush has admitted that Iraq was not envolved yet, his 'loyal supporters' still believe he's done 'wonderful things'. What is it about this guy that makes people follow him? He makes the 'teflon don' look rough as sandpaper.

Bushco are a machine that are NOT public servants. Instead, they have brainwashed the willing with sophisticated orchestrated propaganda... the Neo-cons are a well-funded organized racket. It's not just his oil that's slick. Nothing sticks because the brainwashed willing have let go of their rights and placed their loyalty to Bushco instead of themselves. If you read some of their posts when they drift in here, they are even willing to donate their children to Bushco's "cause" even though they know the original "cause" (WMD /911) no longer exists (but they refuse to acknowledge that as lies). Bushco is using very primitive psychological principles in a sophisticated propaganda format. It's very similar to "cults". Pyramid schemes use these same types of methods that Bushco uses. Very well-known pyramid schemes have donated large sums of funds to Bushco as well.

A continuation to my "slick marketers" post... I forgot to mention the favorite tool of CULTS & PYRAMID SCHEMES to gain so many followers to complete submission to lies:
SWITCH-and-BAIT method. It is supremely used by Bushco and his Rovians:

1) BAIT- Get their attention
2) Lie & fool the ones that they trust first, for "psuedo-credibility" (depts. of govt. outside the "neo-con loop", Congress)
3) Get the masses to join the cause (their How-to methods could fill a manual)
3) Get them committed and obligated
4) Then SWITCH... Many people are too afraid by that point to admit they've been duped...some are ignorant of all behind-the-scenes mechanisms that led up to fooling them...some are confused by their loyalty to "the cause"...some will see that facts but cannot fathom that these "nice Christian folks" would lie to them.

It's one of the oldest scams in the book- BAIT 'N SWITCH

"...taking necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

This does not mean "the persons who aided the 9/11 attacks". I guess the schools are getting worse and worse these days, or something!

If that's what it meant, it would have said:

"...taking necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

See the difference? The first statements gives the 9/11 enablers as a sub-set of "terrorists".

I can't think of a simpler way to demonstrate it...

Saddam has not been proven to be involved with 9/11, correct. That is not the point, which you anti-Bushies continue to totally miss. I guess you will never get it, maybe 50 years from now you will understand what this war is about.

To Siexon--Bob Reuschlein did not quote the War Resolution of Oct. 2002, so he did not "fix" anything for any purpose or deceive us. Your man Bush is the person who repeatedly deceived Congress and the American people. Bush planned the invasion of Iraq in 2002, long before he briefed or consulted Congress. He lied about the threat posed by Iraq and he forced the UN inspectors out of Iraq on 3/19/03 to invade the country--in violation of international law.
Perhaps this list of impeachable offenses is ok with you. Perhaps you are unaware that Bush's war has led to a catastrophic disaster in Iraq that will burden our children & grandchildren with massive debt.
You have the chance to put up or shut up. Our overburdened military recuiters can not meet their quotas because of Bush's reckless war. You can immediately enlist in the Amry or Marines to fight in the war you support without question. If you are too old, send your kids. Fighting in Baghdad's 100+ degree heat may give you a clearer idea of the disaster Bush brought to Iraq and the USA.

If he didn't quote it, why did he use quotation marks?
Why are you lying to yourself to keep this lie alive?
Bush is not my man, he is Laura's man. You know nothing about me, so let's stop with the assumptions, OK?

Yes, Bush planned the invasion of Iraq in 2002. Hell, the Clinton administration drew up the plans for it back in his day. It's called contingency planning. Bush, upon entering office, said that he wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, just like every influential politician in the US wanted to as well. The question was: how?

The memos that Michael Smith has provided show us that the Bush administration were contemplating, still in 2002, which route they should take for removing Saddam Hussein. This became more urgent after 9/11 happened because they would no longer tolerate Saddam Hussein's existence in power any more. When the actual decision was made that they would invade? The memos do not show this at all. They show that the Bush administration was leaning towards invasion towards the summer of 2002, since it was the only option that they saw would guarantee the removal of Saddam's regime, and have the conditions they wanted in Iraq afterwards. The Iraq Options Paper talks about this extensively, I suggest you read it.

Bush did not lie about the threat posed by Iraq, he was wrong. Just like Clinton was before him. The Big Picture here is the threat Saddam would constitute in the future. Why leave a problem of today for tomorrow's generation to have to deal with when we can solve it now, especially when that problem will only grow with time?

As for Iraq being a catastrophic disaster, I'm not sure how you, sitting in your chair in the USA, could assess such a thing. Perhaps it is because that is what you are told by the media, and you are all too willing to believe it. The Iraqis have voted and they want us to stay until they are ready. The Iraqis, in poll after poll, have demonstrated that the removal of Saddam was worth it, even though they acknowledge that security is still a huge issue. The hornet's nest in Iraq is the greater Baghdad area. Outside of this, Iraq has made huge progress. The electricity outside of Baghdad has grown enormously, while the electricity inside Baghdad has detereorated.

Instead of rhetorically wishing for our demise, maybe you should try to come up with better ways to figure out how we can make Iraq a success, and help the Iraqis better. Instead of playing partisan hackery politics, how about doing something that will actually help someone?

I will sign up for the military as long as you are also willing to put your life on the line for your partisan hackery. It is all too easy to tell others to put their life on the line, without being willing to do the same for oneself. I did not tell the soldiers that are there to do anything, they went there by signing up themselves. I am thankful for their sacrifice, while I pursue other interests.

If I had kids, I could not "send" them anywhere. When they are 18, they are legal adults, and I cannot coerce them to put their life on the line. I laugh every time any of you Michael Moore sheep gulp up this line, because it doesn't even make sense. People in the military have to sign up themselves, parents cannot force them to do it. Their standard of living may make signing up for the military the only feasible option, but there are no parents that can force anyone to sign up for the military.

It is incredible to me how many people still believe the lies of the pres. Every day I tell people about the proof of his lies and there are many who still think Iraq is responsible for 9-11. I feel there are many who don't want to believe America would send it's soldiers to die for a lie, America didn't.A liar did. Think about it, it is scary as hell to think that the man in charge of this much weaponry would start a war on a whim. I want all those responsible to face real justice,because what they have done wasn't an honest mistake it is treason, but I don't think the people in Congress will do the right thing for a long time . They can't admit they were Bushwacked into letting this loose on the world. We have a long way to go yet.As we all can see by the comments of Seixon and others with like comments , there are still people trying to rationalize this unbelievable amount of destruction. Most sane people can't accept that they put Bush in office and he would do something this evil. I try to enlighten as many people a day as I can please don't any of you stop either.

*Think about it, it is scary as hell to think that the man in charge of this much weaponry would start a war on a whim. *

It wasn't on a whim, it was Bush's overwhelming desire to pay off his debts and line the pockets of his corporate supporters! That's where the true nature of his actions began, that's what makes him a traitor to democracy - more so than just a traitor to a nation...

Gee, no one has even refuted the very fact that the writer of this article completely lied by omitting words. So instead, you change the subject and try to paint me as a neo-con sheep that believes in all the lame things that almost no one actually believes is fact.

There is no proof of Iraq being responsible for 9/11, nor has anyone in the Bush administration ever said so. Why does this keep coming up? Because 60% of the American population BELIEVE Saddam had something to do with it? Here's something that some people's minds just can't wrap their thoughts around: there is a difference between believing in something, and believing that it is a proven fact.

I don't see why it would be odd to BELIEVE that Saddam had something to do with it. He hates us. He has been talking it up over there for over a decade on how he wants to hurt us. Why shouldn't Joe American believe that he had something to do with it? Now, if you ask Joe American if he BELIEVES Saddam might have had something to do with it, 60% now say Yes (about, haven't checked the latest poll). Does that same 60% actually believe there is evidence or proof of this? Do they believe it is a proven fact? Not necessarily. There is a huge difference there, and the poll questions are made in that precise way so that partisan hacks like you can twist the meaning of the poll.

If Bush lied about it, why did the French, the Russians, the English, Kerry, Clinton, Gore, everyone, why did everyone else say the same thing, and believe the same thing as Bush? Did Bush have a magic 8-ball in the White House that told him that everyone was wrong, and that there were no WMD after all?

Can you tell me why Clinton was using the same rhetoric back in the 1990s? Why Kerry was using it right before the war?? Are they all brainwashed puppies that Bush somehow zombified? If not, why did they all say the same thing as Bush about the WMDs???????

Have any of you even asked yourselves that?

Why did the director of the CIA tell Bush that the case on WMDs was a "slam dunk"?? Why does the Downing Street Memo state quite blankly that they were planning militarily around the possibility that WMDs woudl be used?? Why would they do that if they knew there were no WMD?

You guys are ignoring your own "smoking gun". lol

If you are trying to enlighten anyone, maybe you should start with yourself. Go back and read everything the Clinton administration was saying about Saddam and then pinch yourself after realizing that they were talking the same talk as Bush was, and that the reason for this is because the CIA had faulty intelligence all along.

Or if you believe that Bush somehow timewarped back to the 1990s and nuked the brain of Clinton and brainwashed him into all this, please state your theory. Did he use a Men In Black wand too? Did he also use it on Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and just about every other influential politician in Washington DC?

Or is it possible, just for a second think about it, that they all thought the same thing because they all had the same information from the CIA, that turned out to be faulty?

Looks like some of you need to read your beloved Downing Street Memo again, as it undermines the whole "Bush lied" mantra, on the WMD aspect, at least.

If anyone is interested in an objective look at the facts that Michael Smith, and the Downing Street Memo gang are withholding from you, check out my blog.

This administration is a case study for government deception. It will be the case study for generations of crooked government and lying, corrupt politicians. Nixon will come out looking like an angel compared to these neocons. They lied to the nation to provoke a war.

Impeach them all.

Having grown up during Viet Nam from beginning to end, including Nixon's era, I remember leaving high school in the BiCentennial year of our great nation and thinking "things could not ever get that bad again". We learned our more-than-a-decade lesson from Nam, and our 6 year lesson from the Nixonians, and here it is 1976 and a BRAND NEW DAY- America is back! I had never felt that high about America since John Kennedy was alive. So 25 years of various controversies go by, some life and death situations such as Waco, Grenada, and other extreme leftist or rightist controversies such as abortion of innocents and homophobic hate crimes, but America was still INTACT, despite the disagreements of what was politically correct or incorrect. We all knew we were in this America together, despite our sometimes highly-charged differences.

Then these Neo-cons come along and they don't just start controversey, they DESTROY the fabric of our nation. These chicken-hawks who are in love with money and take sadistic pleasure in war, they go beyond the scope of the Jeffersonian ideal of America. These Neo-cons reach down into their gut (because they have no souls) and vomit their greedy violent "shock and awe" upon the earth and lie about why they murder tens of thousands of innocents. Then they take away WE THE PEOPLE's rights and tell us we are not patriotic if we don't let them do it to us!

I was really mad at Nixon for covering up that Watergate burglary and doing "dirty tricks" and all. I was really mad at Nixon for keeping us in a war that he did not start. But he pales in comparison to this Bush regime, the worst in American history. Nixon tried pretty darn hard to make friends with China. I have no doubt that Nixon is in heaven, and wishing this never happened to our nation, and I say that as an American, not as a Democrat.

Nixon is an angel.

Thank you for you comments re: Nixon the angel.

I didn't live through the Nixon years-- its only alive in books and in frank commentary. Thanks for the perspective. After looking at the long, beautiful, and certainly troubled history of this country, can one say that neocons are the worst ever?

Yes. History will judge the neocons and their soul-less cabal including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Condi, Rove, Perle, and their gee-hunky-dory-cheerleader W as the worst administration in the history of the nation.

Keep after the DSM. Impeach.

There is no doubt that this administration is the worst in the history of the United States of America. The only thing that can begin to restore any standing that America held in the eyes of the world is to impeach Bush and his merry men. They must be held accountable, and the world must see that as a nation we have been misrepresented by lying, egomaniacal, oil and money hungry fools.

WHAT IF , the Cuban exiles that broke into Watergate, what if those very same Cuban exiles had hijacked planes and flew them into buildings , instead of just burglarizing a building? What would Woodward and Bernstein & the American people have thought about back then?

Are "WHAT IFS" an exercise in futility, or do they exercise our "grey matter"?

I too lived thru & protested Nixon & Viet Nam, and while I still wouldn't call him an angel , after this administration I do understand your thoughts. I didn't think this could happen again. These cowards are the most dangerous threat to face democracy yet. If you have time go to there is a poster depicting facisim , with it are 14 traits common to facist regiems, it is quite disturbing.

I agree Impeach them all!

I have to thank all the people for there love of America!
Having such an uncaring,cruel and sadistic government, it makes me smile to read people still love my country!

but don't scream this word only online- protest for it in the street...

It is highly unfortunate that the Bush neocons have misused/abused the trust of people who only wanted the right thing to bedone. I was opposed tp this war from the beginning. Bush's intentions at every point have been clear. WAR. The funny thing is that he doesn't believe in personal sacrifice, none of them do, he wants to ride the coattails of those that do.

Karl Rove is Dr. Strange-rove:

Dr. Strangerove speaks:

"Our invasion..
no... liberation of Poland....
no... Iraq
has made der Vaterland
no... America safer from auslander
no, terror
in blitzkrieg... no, shock and awe
fashion and fascist... no, corporate
interests propagandize
no.. report the "Arbeit macht frei"
no, state of the Vaterland
no, nation
How can you schwein..
no... Americans
Ask why I "heil"...
no...protect, mein Fuhrer
no... emperor
no... puppet W
who I allein
no.. alone
keep in Power
by Krieg! Krieg! Krieg!
by undemocratic fascist
no... Florida 2000 and Diebold-Ohio 2004
you who doubt me wil PAY...
no, see, and I will FIND you and HUNT you...
no... I will be Innocent in my trial for protecting Vaterland
no... Bushland from evil
no, Plame/Wilson, Abu Ghraib, Niger yellowcake, Downing Street memos
Who dares meddle in my plan to annex Iraq and Saudi Arabia and THE WORLD ha ha ha!
Spread fasci--...
no, spread W-democracy around the Vaterglobe...
no.. world

America, I own you...
no! Serve you.

It will be mine mine mine!
W is my puppet! Ha ha! I pull his strings! He is my puppet my puppet my...
no.. my leader, yes my leader, and

I allein
will control the world.

This book proves that the Bush administration,had plans for Iraq well
before Bush"s election in 2000. It was mapped out at the first cabinet meeting much to the surprise of O'Neill, Powell and even
General Shelton. They were kept out of the loop by Cheney,Rice,Bush,Rumsfield,Rove,Wolfowitz,and the other war hawks.
Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies shows that they were
ignoring intelligence on terroism from the CIA and FBI because they
were fixated on a war with Iraq. These are good reads to see the minds
of these people. Scarry stuff! This war was planned well in advance.
How have we americans let ourselves be so dupped by these people?
These are dangerous people pursuing their own agenda not America's!
1750 young americans have died and thousands are wounded and maimed
for life on the whim of a president to go to war to remove a two bit
dictator who didn't even attack us on our soil. These people need to be brought to justice and the sooner the better. Wake up America before it is too late! Jim Norton Charlotte, NC

media consolidation
pentagon funds and "institutional memory"

the pentagon owns washington and has launched this whole gop think tank "revolution" with step by step plans to get control of the Policy and Budget Process.

anybody who can't pretend to "be duped" will be "reeducated," especially if the Dems do well in 2006.

it's all over.

Then enlighten us... why are we in Iraq?

Who else could possibly warn us that Bushco is worse than Nixon than
John W. Dean? His book, "Worse than Watergate" tells about the "think tank" and their global fixation . See PNAC's "R.A.D. white paper" written September 2000, a full year before 9/11 :'pnac'

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.