GW Bush

Bush is World"s #1 Terrorist

Saturday, April 28, 2007

jbcard's Xanga Site

jbcard's Xanga Site

Ex-C.I.A. Chief, in Book, Assails Cheney on Iraq

Evidence

By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times

WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

The 549-page book, “At the Center of the Storm,” is to be published by HarperCollins on Monday. By turns accusatory, defensive, and modestly self-critical, it is the first detailed account by a member of the president’s inner circle of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the decision to invade Iraq and the failure to find the unconventional weapons that were a major justification for the war.

“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bush’s decision to go to war. He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war.

A copy of the book was purchased at retail price in advance of publication by a reporter for The New York Times. Mr. Tenet described with sarcasm watching an episode of “Meet the Press” last September in which Mr. Cheney twice referred to Mr. Tenet’s “slam dunk” remark as the basis for the decision to go to war.

“I remember watching and thinking, ‘As if you needed me to say ‘slam dunk’ to convince you to go to war with Iraq,’ ” Mr. Tenet writes.

As violence in Iraq spiraled beginning in late 2003, Mr. Tenet writes, “rather than acknowledge responsibility, the administration’s message was: Don’t blame us. George Tenet and the C.I.A. got us into this mess.”

Mr. Tenet takes blame for the flawed 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s weapons programs, calling the episode “one of the lowest moments of my seven-year tenure.” He expresses regret that the document was not more nuanced, but says there was no doubt in his mind at the time that Saddam Hussein possessed unconventional weapons. “In retrospect, we got it wrong partly because the truth was so implausible,” he writes.

Despite such sweeping indictments, Mr. Bush, who in 2004 awarded Mr. Tenet a Presidential Medal of Freedom, is portrayed personally in a largely positive light, with particular praise for the his leadership after the 2001 attacks. “He was absolutely in charge, determined, and directed,” Mr. Tenet writes of the president, whom he describes as a blunt-spoken kindred spirit.

But Mr. Tenet largely endorses the view of administration critics that Mr. Cheney and a handful of Pentagon officials, including Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith, were focused on Iraq as a threat in late 2001 and 2002 even as Mr. Tenet and the C.I.A. concentrated mostly on Al Qaeda.

Mr. Tenet describes helping to kill a planned speech by Mr. Cheney on the eve of the invasion because its claims of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq went “way beyond what the intelligence shows.”

“Mr. President, we cannot support the speech and it should not be given,” Mr. Tenet wrote that he told Mr. Bush. Mr. Cheney never delivered the remarks.

Mr. Tenet hints at some score-settling in the book. He describes in particular the extraordinary tension between him and Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, in internal debate over how the president came to say erroneously in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.

He describes an episode in 2003, shortly after he issued a statement taking partial responsibility for that error. He said he was invited over for a Sunday afternoon, back-patio lemonade by Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state. Mr. Powell described what Mr. Tenet called “a lively debate” on Air Force One a few days before about whether the White House should continue to support Mr. Tenet as C.I.A. director.

“In the end, the president said yes, and said so publicly,” Mr. Tenet wrote. “But Colin let me know that other officials, particularly the vice president, had quite another view.”

He writes that the controversy over who was to blame for the State of the Union error was the beginning of the end of his tenure. After the finger-pointing between the White House and the C.I.A., he wrote, “My relationship with the administration was forever changed.”

Mr. Tenet also says in the book that he had been “not at all sure I wanted to accept” the Medal of Freedom. He agreed after he saw that the citation “was all about the C.I.A.’s work against terrorism, not Iraq.”

He also expresses skepticism about whether the increase in troops in Iraq will prove successful. “It may have worked more than three years ago,” he wrote. “My fear is that sectarian violence in Iraq has taken on a life of its own and that U.S. forces are becoming more and more irrelevant to the management of that violence.”

Mr. Tenet says he decided to write the memoir in part because the infamous “slam dunk” episode had come to define his tenure at C.I.A.

He gives a detailed account of the episode, which occurred during an Oval Office meeting in December 2002 when the administration was preparing to make public its case for war against Iraq.

During the meeting, the deputy C.I.A. director, John McLaughlin, unveiled a draft of a proposed public presentation that left the group unimpressed. Mr. Tenet recalls that Mr. Bush suggested that they could “add punch” by bringing in lawyers trained to argue cases before a jury.

“I told the president that strengthening the public presentation was a ‘slam dunk,’ a phrase that was later taken completely out of context,” Mr. Tenet writes. “If I had simply said, ‘I’m sure we can do better,’ I wouldn’t be writing this chapter — or maybe even this book.”

Mr. Tenet has spoken rarely in public, and never so caustically, since stepping down in July 2004.

Asked about Mr. Tenet’s assertions, a White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, defended the prewar deliberations on Thursday. “The president made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein for a number of reasons, mainly the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s own actions, and only after a thorough and lengthy assessment of all available information as well as Congressional authorization,” the spokesman said.

The book recounts C.I.A. efforts to fight Al Qaeda in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Mr. Tenet’s early warnings about Osama bin Laden. He contends that the urgent appeals of the C.I.A. on terrorism received a lukewarm reception at the Bush White House through most of 2001.

“The bureaucracy moved slowly,” and only after the Sept. 11 attacks was the C.I.A. given the counterterrorism powers it had requested earlier in the year.

Mr. Tenet confesses to “a black, black time” two months after the 2001 attacks when, sitting in front of his house in his favorite Adirondack chair, he “just lost it.”

“I thought about all the people who had died and what we had been through in the months since,” he writes. “What am I doing here? Why me?” Mr. Tenet gives a vigorous defense of the C.I.A.’s program to hold captured Qaeda members in secret overseas jails and to question them with harsh techniques, which he does not explicitly describe.

Mr. Tenet expresses puzzlement that, since 2001, Al Qaeda has not sent “suicide bombers to cause chaos in a half-dozen American shopping malls on any given day.”

“I do know one thing in my gut,” he writes. “Al Qaeda is here and waiting.”

David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington, and Julie Bosman from New York.

A28: Nationwide Impeachment Protests April 28, 2007

A28: Nationwide Impeachment Protests April 28, 2007


Visit:

http://network.a28.org/

Thursday, April 19, 2007

IMPEACH BUSH and CHENEY !!!

The Bush Crime Family:


Bush Senior
Bush son
Cheney
Rove
Rumsfeld
Wolfwitz

If we had a truly democratic goverment,

Bush and Cheney would have been impeached by now.

Only in US this can happen:

The people is against the Iraq war, and against all the corruption perpetrated by he Bush Crime Family with the help of the Supreme court judges anf the help of the US Attorney general: The "Gonzo man" from Texas and a puppet of Bush.

GW Bush the Anti-Christ himself must go along with all his fellow tugs.

"The Bush Crime family is responsible for the death of about 600,000 civil Iraq citizens".

Bush is not a Christian, he is an alcoholic and a drug addict.

Bush's only interest in life is to steal the oil from the Middle-East (Iraq and others) and to bankrupt America. The US debt is the highest ever. Bush wants to end with social security, medicare, healthcare. He wants to destroy the American middle class and poor people. He favors the Corporations and Pharmaceutical Companies.

Call your Senator and House Representative and ask for impeachment Proceedings to start.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

'Three Years Ago Today' ...by Cindy Sheehan

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007
'Three Years Ago Today' ...by Cindy Sheehan

Three years ago today I was a "normal" American mother with four children, a marriage of almost 27 years and a boring 8 to 5 job. On April 3, 2004, I went to a nearby mall and bought a new outfit for work and two CDs: Evanescence and White Stripes. I was dreadfully worried about Casey, but I didn't know that my world was about to be turned upside down.

Three years ago today, my oldest son was deployed to a war zone in a conflict that never should have happened and because of the illegal invasion and immoral occupation, was soon to be killed. My oldest daughter, Carly, was excited about transferring to university soon; my 2nd son, Andy, was doing well as a surveyor's apprentice; and my youngest daughter, Janey, was on spring break in her senior year of high school.

Three years ago today, if I thought about my marriage at all, being so distracted by my worry for Casey, I would have imagined Pat and I growing old(er) together with a passel of grandchildren we could spoil surrounding us. I always dreamed of 2 daughters-in-law and 2 sons-in-law to increase our happy family. Unfortunately, our marriage was a victim of King George's war of terror. I never understood why marriages break up after the death of a child, until I experienced it. After surviving so many other stressors, Casey's death was the proverbial straw that broke our marriage's back.

Three years ago today, the light green spring suit that I bought for work became the suit I wore on the sunny-surreal day that we buried Casey. The men looked so handsome in their new dark suits and the girls also looked beautiful in their new outfits which part of the "death benefit" purchased. Casey looked so peaceful in his dress greens; lying in his coffin like he was asleep. He was asleep---asleep forever at the age of 24 before he could marry that daughter-in-law for us or have those grandchildren. Asleep forever before he could finish college and become an elementary school teacher. Asleep forever before he could become a permanent Deacon in the Catholic Church. Unnaturally asleep forever before three of his grandparents and his mother and father.

Three years ago today, I disagreed with the occupation of Iraq and with King George, but I never raised my voice; wrote a letter; or marched in protest. I didn't believe that my voice could have one slight bit of effect on the discourse in this country. After all, King George had called millions of people around the world who marched in protest of the impending invasion, a focus group. What would he call one more voice? A flea? I bought into the propaganda that one person can't make a difference and spent my entire adult life protecting my own family and circling the wagons around my own children and our comfort. Three years ago today, I didn't know that my tunnel vision was going to cost Casey his life and my family our comfort and would end up tearing us apart.

Three years ago today, I didn't know that the term "broken heart" wasn't figurative, but literal. I didn't know that the pain of child-birth was a cakewalk compared to the pain of child-death. I didn't know that a person could scream so long and so loud without having a heart attack or stroke. I didn't know that a person could even survive such psychic shock. I didn't know that a person could actually become a stronger person after such a debilitating pain; a pain that just becomes a constant dull agonizing ache.

Three years ago today, Casey was alive and didn't know that it was his last day on this earth. Casey and seven of his buddies, including Mike Mitchell whose family has become intertwined with ours in grief and resolve to end this devastating war, were unaware that Bloody King George had numbered their days and their numbers were soon to be up.

To me, three years ago today is a lifetime away, but yet seems so close. To me, the world was a vastly different place three years ago today. Today is another beautiful Northern California day. Sun shining, birds singing, neighbors living their lives not even aware that the paradigm shifted for the Sheehans on April 04, 2004. But today, the air is less sweet and even though the birds still sing as though Casey were alive, their songs don't sound the same to me.

How many families in Iraq and America will be affected by George's war of terror today or tomorrow? How many are in a state of shock, disbelief and pain today because of yesterday? How long are we the people going to allow Congress and King George off the hook for this unremitting and unrelenting pain and destruction?

Today, tomorrow, yesterday, and forever, I will miss and mourn Casey.

My son, my friend, and my hero.

April 3rd, 2007 11:56 pmUS troops will pay if war funding blocked: Bush

April 3rd, 2007 11:56 pm
US troops will pay if war funding blocked: Bush

(AFP) -- President George W. Bush lashed out at US lawmakers Tuesday, warning that a fight over war funding will only hurt US troops in Iraq and scolding Congress for going on holiday despite unfinished business.

If Congress does not approve a war funding bill in coming weeks, "the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones," Bush told reporters.

"The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front line also means that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," Bush warned.

"And others can see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people."

Bush renewed his vow to use his presidential powers to veto a bill which ties funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable to end the US presence in Iraq.

Monday, Senate Democrats raised the stakes in the bitter fight, unveiling a new bid to cut off nearly all funding for the Iraq war after March 31, 2008 if Bush vetoes the bill they plan to submit to the White House.

The date was set as a goal for withdrawing most combat troops in the 122 billion war budget bill passed by the Senate.

The measure, co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Russ Feingold, would permit funding only for operations against Al-Qaeda, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and protecting US personnel and installations.

But Bush hit out at US lawmakers for being irresponsible, and urged Congress to make good on its pledges of support for US troops.

"Congress's most basic responsibilities (are) to give our troops the equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and to protect our nation. They're now failing in that responsibility," he said.

"Now they have left Washington for spring recess without finishing the work. Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq."

Democrats plan to officially unveil the new legislation on April 10 when the Senate returns from its Easter break.

Senator Hillary Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for the 2008 presidential election, urged supporters to petition Bush to drop his veto threat.

"The American people have had enough of the president's failed strategy in Iraq," read the message on Clinton's presidential campaign website.

"Join Hillary in telling him to listen to the will of the people and to Congress, withdraw his veto threat, and begin phased deployment of the troops out of Iraq."

Reid said Monday he would aim to bring the bill back before Senate if the president were to veto it, and Feingold told supporters via email: "Our bill funds the troops, it just de-funds the war."

It is a high-stakes poker game. Democrats who swept to power in November's election still lack the large majorities in the two-chamber Congress needed to overcome a Bush veto, and they are depending on widespread fatigue over the war to keep the public on their side.

The White House is also playing to the public, declaring that Congress is giving the enemy a timetable to take over.

Negotiators in Congress are spending the current recess reconciling the House and Senate versions of the budget bill so a compromise version can be sent to Bush's desk for signing.

The House version of the war budget contains a withdrawal deadline of August 31, 2008.

Vice President Dick Cheney warned on Monday the United States faced defeat in Iraq if Democrats succeed in imposing withdrawal.

"When members of Congress speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines, or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy to simply watch the clock and wait us out," he said.