 |
Latest | Greatest | Lobby | Journals | Search | Options | Help | Login |
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
|
understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-15-06 10:49 PM Original message |
| Dear Gov. Dean -- Amplifying awareness of the Bush regime’s mendacity … |
|
16 January 2006 (# 42) Perhaps Bush’s most spectacular propaganda success is that he and Cheney, Rice and others convinced more than 60 % of all voters polled by Harris in October, 2004, that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida were partners in the terror business. The same poll revealed that Bush had convinced 41 % of all voters that Saddam was directly involved in supporting the 9/11 hijackers. One of the wonders of just how successful Bush, Cheney and the neoconsters were in their disinformation campaign is that a year prior to the poll, Bush and others adjusted the spin, but in a very clever way. While Bush disclaimed a link between Saddam and 9/11 he persisted in making the Saddam, al-Qaida connection. Here’s a report from Cox News Service journalist Scott Shepard on September 13, 2003: President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans. The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington. Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11. "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.” "And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties." Link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html When NBC and the Wall Street Journal polled Americans in November, 2005, at least 58 % of them had gotten it – Bush misled the Nation into war on Iraq. However, I think we have the opportunity to drive that number into the 80+ percentile by assiduously delivering a message that contains the fact that Bush and his minions were told in January of 2003 that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 and that attacking Iraq would likely strengthen those who would wage further terrorist attacks on the United States and its allies. Part of the messaging should be based on the systematic propaganda generated on behalf of the neoconsters by Laurie Mylroie. A study on Dr. Mylroie appeared in November, 2005, and it noted that most Americans had probably never heard of her. It also describes Dr. Mylroie’s affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute and with the Bush administration. One segment of the report suffices to establish context about Dr. Mylroie’s role in Bush’s propaganda endeavors: In February, 2003, Mylroie was featured for an interview on Canadian television where she discussed why Bush was going to war against Iraq and at the same time, emphasized the certainty of a Saddam-9/11 link. Shortly after the interview got underway, she stated: "Listen, we're going to war because President Bush believes Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Al Qaeda is a front for Iraqi intelligence… Contrary to what the Bush team is saying today, if Mylroie is to be believed during this February, 2003, interview, it doesn't sound like the CIA was claiming that there was a link between Saddam and bin Laden a month before the war began. On March 12, 2003, Mylroie wrote an article in the New York Sun titled, "Blind to Saddam's 9-11 Role," in which she wrote: "Iraq, along with Al Qaeda, was most probably involved in the September 11 attacks, and President Bush understands that. Already on September 17, six days later, Mr. Bush affirmed, "I believe Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now," as Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" discloses." Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm I’d urge you, Dr. Dean, to read the entire report on Dr. Mylroie. You’ll learn that she was not able to convince the 9/11 Commission of a link between Saddam and 9/11, but she, along with members of Bush’s administration including Powell, Tenet and Woolsey, were successful in a legal suit – something I assure you Bush, Cheney and all the neoconsters would not want to have become widely known. Here’s why: The lawsuit represents the one and only time that the truth or falsity of the Saddam-9/11 connection has ever been tested. In the end, the Judge in the case delivered a verdict in favor of the families based on specific claims by Mylroie and top administration officials (namely, Powell, Tenet, & Woolsey), that a definite link between Saddam and 9/11 did in fact exist. US District Court Judge, Harold Baer, entered a default judgment for the plaintiffs in January, 2003, …. Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm Note the date, Gov. Dean, January of 2003. On January 27, 2003, Larry Johnson wrote an extensive report on Iraqi terrorism, a report he shared with individuals like L. Paul Bremer. Mr. Bremer told Mr. Johnson that the report didn’t matter, that Bush was launching an attack on Iraq irrespective of what Saddam did or didn’t do. The report begins: The course of action the United States pursues against Iraq in the coming months holds profound implications for the war on terrorism. As the Bush Administration marshals U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf region and prepares to invade Iraq, it has devoted little attention to Iraq’s role in the war on terrorism other than to make unsubstantiated claims that Saddam Hussein has backed Al Qaeda. <clip> An invasion of Iraq will topple Hussein and eliminate Baghdad’s ability to develop or use weapons of mass destruction for the foreseeable future, but it will do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks. In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world—a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers—and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens. CLARIFYING IRAQ’S TERRORIST RECORD: There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. … According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. As reported in Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000, Saddam Hussein’s regime “has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993. Link: http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/01/setting_the_rec.html Mr. Johnson, a recognized expert on terrorism gained in years of service at the CIA and State Department was unable to convince any of the traditional media to publish this report. As he notes in an article published yesterday: Jerry (Bremer) responded by telling me I was missing the point. That it did not matter what Saddam’s record on terrorism was. We were going to war and he would be deposed. I tried to get the paper published but no one in the main stream media was interested. Link: http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/01/the_arrogance_a.html So, Gov. Dean, individuals with extensive knowledge like Mr. Johnson were told that facts didn’t matter because Bush was going to war irrespective of them. We have the records of a judge ruling for plaintiff against defendants including the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, bin Laden, Saddam and the Republic of Iraq because testimony from Powell, Tenet, Woolsey and Mylroie convinced him that Saddam was a participant in 9/11. I think we all should reflect on Mr. Johnson’s assessment of the situation we now confront: Jerry and others can try to rewrite history to rehab their reputations, but the facts on the ground in Iraq will not and should not permit that kind of delusional revisionism. We are not in the position we are today by accident. It was a deliberate choice. From George Bush to Medal of Freedom winners Jerry Bremer and George Tenet, choices were made where alternative information and expertise were ignored. This deadly combination of arrogance and hubris has produced a policy in Iraq that is killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians and is weakening U.S. influence and prestige in the Middle East. I think it is a time for humility, a virtue sadly lacking in Jerry Bremer’s new book. Link: http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/01/the_arrogance_a.html I agree. I think humility should guide our interactions with the international community for the next several decades as we strive to repair all that Bush and the neoconsters have destroyed. But, we will not have the opportunity to repair anything if we are not credible. That credibility will need to be earned by bringing Bush, Cheney, Powell, Tenet, and many others in Bush’s imperialistic regime to face the consequences of the laws they have violated. I urge you and the DNC to connect the dots – Judge Baer’s decision being the dot that when connected irrevocably establishes the Bush regime’s mendacity regarding the linkage of Saddam with 9/11, and the variety of ways he and his administration persisted in maintaining that linkage in the minds of the majority of Americans during the 2004 National Election process. Thank you for your continued leadership, Peace. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 08:16 AM Response to Original message |
| 1. Cumulative letter index: |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 01:59 PM Response to Original message |
| 2. Dear Gov. Dean -- "We the People ... Have No Clothes" |
|
17 January 2006 (# 43) My wife and I watched Vice President Gore's speech together. On more than one occasion we were moved to tears because of the content and cogency and passion of how he expressed it. I'm old enough to have heard Ike in Jan., 1961; JFK in Jan., 1961; MLKJr on more than one occasion. VP Gore's speech was the finest statement in defense of the Constitution and of America I have ever heard. And, in_deed, it is "We the People ..." who must come to the defense of our Constitution, of our Bill of Rights. We are the ones who must halt Bush's crimes and his systematic destruction of OUR Constitution. We must apply the law, comprehensively, to achieve the goals of holding Bush and his administration accountable and to restoring the balance of government essential to preserving our inalienable rights. I hope the DNC does everything possible to have VP Gore's speech shown in its entirety in as many places as possible, have the transcript printed and delivered to every American citizen. Each of us must recognize that we govern and we have no excuse if we allow the few to destroy the law and assume control of our fate. Thank you for your continued leadership, P.S. If you think that "We the People ... Have No Clothes: A Pamphlet for Every American Citizen" would be of any help, please feel free to distribute it: http://missionnotaccomplished.us/WTPv17n.pdf Peace. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| DemReadingDU
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-17-06 08:54 AM Response to Reply #2 |
| 3. my husband and I watched Gore's speech |
|
We were cheering him, and clapped at the end, just as if we were in the audience. It was a great speech. I'm looking to Gore to bring more of a leadership role back to the Democratic party in the months ahead, giving more speeches, and rallying the people.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-17-06 10:37 AM Response to Reply #3 |
| 4. We were doing the same thing. Actually, we were ... |
|
... cheering and crying at the same time!! An amazing speech ... he is a leader.
Peace. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-17-06 06:45 PM Response to Reply #2 |
| 8. Dear Gov. Dean -- Bush is not, Constitutionally, Commander-In-Chief … |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-17-06 07:03 PM by understandinglife
18 January 2006 (# 44) Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America, is explicit as to when a President becomes Commander-In-Chief and is equally explicit as to whom he is Commander-In-Chief: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States of America, is explicit that it is Congress alone that can declare war and to call the militia to service: The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Not to nit pick, but the US Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Mr. Bush is Commander-in-Chief in his imagination and for purposes of spin and deceit, but he is acting outside of the Constitution of the United States. Just because the Congress failed and continues to fail in its Constitutional role does not alter the fact that Mr. Bush has assumed an unauthorized mantle and used it recklessly – just what you would expect when the rule of law is discarded. And the “others did it” type of excuse, i.e., claim of "precedent," is bunk. Any ordinary citizen claiming to a court that because someone else stole a car and got away with it, should thereby serve as precedent for them being allowed to steal a car and not be punished, knows just how unlikely it is that the judge is going to say, “yep, got me on that precedent thing, have a nice day.” Why should it be any different for a President, or for a Congress? Try as I might, I can find nothing within the Constitution that says a President can disregard legislation. The Framers would likely be appalled at the notion that a President would be permitted to jot a note in the margins of a law proclaiming essentially “if I feel like it, I’ll adhere.” They’d be even more appalled that the Congress and the Courts would tolerate obvious kingly displays as decorating legislation with various colored sticky notes effectively rendering the law to a whimsical, when I feel like it option. Again, it’s like saying to a citizen here’s the law regulating where you can carry your gun, but you can delete the parts you don’t like and that’s cool. Our fellow citizens have been told that terrorism is real and they have 9/11 as a stark, here at home indicator of how real it is. They’ve been told we need to do everything we can to stop the terrorists from striking again. No one argues with that notion. But, wisdom would suggest that the process of protecting us from terrorists should not devalue our civil liberties, and should not render us more likely to be attacked. Mr. Bush has not acted wisely, and we now know that he has trounced our civil liberties and motivated a bunch of folk to attack us. What we need to help all Americans realize is that one of the laws Mr. Bush broke, and claims he’ll continue breaking, never needed to be violated to protect us from terrorists. In fact, that law has enabled thousands of surveillance actions prior to having a warrant. All that was required TO CONTINUE the surveillance was to tell a historically permissive FISA court who the bad guy is. Mr. Bush, in breaking the FISA law, refused to reveal the WHO, and that translates into YOU, my fellow citizen, whenever Mr. Bush decides he wants to snoop on you. Your 4th Amendment protection has been rendered to one of those Presidential sticky notes – in this case, “just do it because I say so.” Our fellow citizens need to realize that when you have a President who violates the Constitution, claims powers that he does not legally have, and Congress complies you’re on the fast track to tyranny. While many Americans will not take the time to listen to Vice President Gore’s historic and exceptionally important January 16, 2006, speech, they may find a simple question sufficient reason to become considerably more vigilant and active in ensuring that the 110th US Congress is comprised of representatives inclined to serve the people and the Constitution in stark contrast to the 108th and 109th Congresses. That question is: Do you realize that Mr. Bush now thinks he alone has the authority to take your gun away, snoop on anything you do or say, place you in prison and tell no one where you are, torture you or send you to someone who will? Whether we’re a full step or half a step away from tyranny is not the point. The point is if “We the People …” continue allowing Bush to violate the Constitution, national and international statutes the de facto status of America is unchecked lawlessness. And, a soon-to-be tomorrow we'll awaken to find that Mr. Bush's unchecked lawlessness will converge, as it always has in history, with unrestrained repression of any form of opposition. Thank you for your continued leadership, p.s. It might also be helpful to remind all Americans that if they are not in the Armed Forces or in a State’s militia (i.e., National Guard), Mr. Bush is NOT their Commander-in-Chief, he is only their President. Peace. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-17-06 06:49 PM Response to Reply #8 |
| 9. Cumulative letter index: |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-18-06 12:45 PM Response to Reply #8 |
| 11. Josh Marshall: "But as Andrew Sullivan notes here and elsewhere, the ... |
|
... president's understanding of the law or interpretation of it is irrelevant. Indeed, to imagine that this is not so turns the whole structure of our government on its head. Congress makes laws. The president has all sorts of power invested in him by the discretion he has in enforcing the laws. But what the laws are, what they mean, is entirely beyond his purview. <clip> This is the executive invading the territory of the Congress and to an extent also the judiciary. Now, I know I'm not the first one to say or realize this. There's a body of literature and debate about this theory of the unitary executive. But this bunkum about 'signing statements' is a good example, a good opportunity to point out how these theories are solecisms in the scheme of our constitutional structure. For all their chatter about originalism and the constitution, these folks are trying to import alien ideas into the fabric of our republican system of government. Link: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007465.php Link to Andrew Sullivan: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1149361-2,00.html "...import alien ideas ..." yep, and destroy the Republic in the process ... Peace. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-19-06 06:55 AM Response to Reply #2 |
| 12. Dear Gov. Dean -- Urge support for Murtha to deliver SOTU rebuttal |
|
19 January 2006 (# 45) David Allen (aka Skinner), owner and co-founder of Democratic Underground, created a "Topic Forum" for bloggers to express their support for having Congressman Murtha deliver the State of the Union (SOTU) rebuttal on February 6, 2006: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=369 I think you might find it interesting to read the responses that have already appeared in the first few hours since Skinner posted it. I urge you to express support, in whatever ways you consider appropriate, to having Congressman Murtha deliver the response to Mr. Bush's assessment of the status of our Nation and the laws on which it is meant to operate. As Jane Hamsher of firedoglake succinctly notes -- "Murtha would revitalize the SOTU rebuttal." I suspect he would also continue the revitalization of not only the Democratic party but of "We the People ...", i.e., our crucial role, as Vice President Gore reminded everyone on Monday, in restoring and protecting the Republic from lawlessness and avarice. Thank you for your continued leadership, Peace. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-19-06 06:59 AM Response to Reply #12 |
| 13. Cumulative letter index as of 19 January 2006: |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| troubleinwinter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-17-06 10:55 AM Response to Original message |
| 5. Very EXCELLENT piece, UL. Kick and Nominated!!! |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| troubleinwinter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-17-06 11:00 AM Response to Reply #5 |
| 6. Oooops, too late to nom., but another KICK!!! |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-17-06 07:04 PM Response to Reply #6 |
| 10. Thank you! |
|
:hi:
Peace. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| BelgianMadCow
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-17-06 06:25 PM Response to Original message |
| 7. pre-Dean vocal broadside tomorrow |
|
:kick:
"Thank you for your continued leadership" in advance |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:28 AM Response to Original message |
| Advertisements [?] |
 |
| Top |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
|
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC
