Dick Cheney Age: 67 Occupation: Vice President of the United States Aliases: Big Time, Satan, the President Remarks: Goes hiding in “undisclosed locations” during times of crises. Shot friend in the face with a shotgun. Caution: Wanted for being the key architect of the Iraq War, which runs counter to the United Nations Charter’s prohibition on the use of armed force except in self-defense. Responsible for approving torture techniques and the illegal detention of prisoners in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law. Subverted democracy, ignored the Geneva Conventions and unleashed crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should be considered armed and dangerous.
George W. Bush Age: 62 Occupation: President of the United States Aliases: Dubya, the Vice President Remarks: Used family prestige to avoid combat in Vietnam. Won the 2000 presidential election even though he lost the popular vote. Considered a puppet of neoconservative strategists. Caution: Responsible for approving torture techniques against prisoners of war. Authorized the violations of rights of individuals under the American Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Should be considered armed but not dangerous.
Donald Rumsfeld Age: 76 Occupation: Former Secretary of Defense Aliases: Rummy, the Procrastinator Remarks: Forged a close relationship with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (provided him with intelligence, hardware and strategic advice). Had Hussein killed two decades later for crimes committed during Iran-Iraq War. Caution: Key architect of Iraq War. Authorized torture techniques at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. Breached Geneva Conventions by approving the extrajudicial execution of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives anywhere in the world.
John Ashcroft Age: 66 Occupation: Former Attorney General of the United States Aliases: Chicken Legs, the Surfer Remarks: Lost the 2000 Missouri Senate election to a dead man. Key supporter of the USA Patriot Act, which drastically curtailed the rights and freedoms of Americans. Caution: Authorized the use of abuse against prisoners of war in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law. Approved the use of waterboarding against terrorism suspects.
At issue is the US hypocrisy allegations in Russia criticism, well re-framed by the Democracy Now! crew at the end of the segment (in bold):
Rice Rejects Hypocrisy Allegations in Russia Criticism
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has escalated US rhetoric against Russia. On Thursday, Rice said the West should stand up to what she called Moscow’s “bullying.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Russia’s intimidation of its sovereign neighbors, its use of oil and gas as a political weapon, its unilateral suspension of the CFE Treaty, its threat to target peaceful nations with nuclear weapons, its arms sales to states and groups that threaten international security, and its persecution—and worse—of Russian journalists and dissidents and others. The picture emerging from this pattern of behavior is that of a Russia increasingly authoritarian at home and aggressive abroad."
Rice’s comments were her harshest to date since Russian troops invaded Georgia after Georgia attacked the breakaway province of South Ossetia. It’s widely speculated the Bush administration helped encourage the Georgian attack, which ended up backfiring for the Georgian government. The White House has been widely ridiculed over its protests of Russia’s response to the attack. Rice was questioned on accusations of Bush administration hypocrisy in light of its own invasion of Iraq.
Rice: “If you look at an Iraq that will not seek weapons of mass destruction like the Saddam Hussein regime, that will live in peace and security with its neighbors and that will give its own people a chance for democratic governance, I don’t think that that bears any resemblance to invading a small democratic neighbor whose only crime apparently was that it wished to be a part of the emerging transatlantic world.”
There were other differences: the Russia-Georgia conflict led to several hundred deaths; the US invasion of Iraq has led to the deaths of anywhere between hundreds of thousands to more than one million Iraqis.
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind joins us for part two of an interview on his new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism. Suskind reports that in 2003 the White House ordered the CIA to forge and disseminate false intelligence documents linking al-Qaeda and Iraq. While much of the attention on the book has focused on the forged letter, Suskind also reveals that the Bush administration and the British government knew prior to the war that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. We also speak to Rep. John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating some of the explosive findings in Suskind’s book. [...]
The CIA allegedly forged a letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein. It was backdated July 1, 2001 and stated 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta was trained for his mission in Iraq.
While much of the attention on the book has focused on the forged letter, Suskind also reveals that the Bush administration and the British government knew prior to the war that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
Ron Suskind interviewed Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, Britain’s secret intelligence service. Dearlove said that Britain received intelligence in the beginning of 2003 about Iraq’s lack of WMDs but the Bush administration buried the information.
Dearlove told Suskind: “The problem was the Cheney crowd was in too much of a hurry, really. Bush never resisted them quite strongly enough.” Ron Suskind joins us again here in the Firehouse studio. We are also joined on the phone by Congressman John Conyers, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. John Conyers has said his committee will review some of the explosive findings in Suskind’s new book, “The Way of the World.”
Obama will tell you that once he's leading the United States of America, all US troops in Iraq will return within 16 months (except for some to protect the embassy and diplomats), and there will be no US bases in Iraq. You wish...
From "The Independent"
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
By Patrick Cockburn Thursday, 5 June 2008
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.
The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.
America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.
The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.
The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.
Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."
Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.
The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.
Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.
The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.
The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.
The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.
VOICE OF CARLO BASILONE: US President George W. Bush launched what many say was a political attack against Democratic front-runner Barack Obama on Thursday when he addressed the Israeli Parliament. Though he didn't name names, the statement seemed to be directed at Senator Obama's willingness to meet with leaders of Iran and Syria, among others.
(CLIP BEGINS)
GEORGE W. BUSH, US PRESIDENT: Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they had been wrong all along. We've heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
(CLIP ENDS)
White house spokespersons denied that the Knesset remark was aimed in any way at Obama, but leading Democrats were furious and struck back at Bush.
(CLIPS BEGIN)
JOSEPH BIDEN, US SENATOR (D-DE): This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous, outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset, and make this kind of ridiculous statement. He's the guy that's weakened us. He's the guy that's increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States have—his intelligence community has pointed that out, not me. The NIE has pointed that out. And what are you talking about? You know, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: You know, we have a protocol, sort of a custom informally around here that we don't criticize the president when he is on foreign soil. One would think that that would apply to the president, that he would not criticize Americans when he is on foreign soil. I think what the president did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel.
REPORTER: Mrs. Speaker, you referred to refocusing—.
PELOSI: And I would hope that any serious person would disassociate himself from the president's remarks.
(CLIPS END)
PEPE ESCOBAR: A sitting US president addresses a parliament in foreign soil and compares a candidate of the opposing party to appeasers of Nazi Germany. What's significant is that this president, referring to Iran, was contradicted by his own secretary of defense. Robert Gates is saying the US should, and I quote, "develop some leverage, and then sit and talk to Iran, and not bomb Iran."
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.
As you know, Obama, Clinton and McCain have taken impeachment of Bush and Cheney off the table.
Nader/Gonzalez want to put it back on.
Our campaign will be impeachment central for this momentous election year.
No one should be above the law - especially chronic violators.
We're building a nationwide campaign to end the corrupt two party duopoly and pressure the complicit Democrats to do their sworn duty and impeach the two unaccountable outlaws in the White House.
Last week, I wrote to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers once again urging him to hold impeachment hearings.
This week, citizens from around the country are sitting in at Chairman Conyer's office on Capitol Hill demanding that he take action.
In that letter to Congressman Conyers, I pointed out the obvious:
Many prominent Constitutional law experts believe President Bush has engaged in at least five categories of repeated, defiant "high crimes and misdemeanors", which separately or together would allow Congress to subject the President to impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
In addition to a criminal war of aggression in Iraq, in violation of our constitution, statutes and treaties, there are the arrests of thousands of Americans and their imprisonment without charges, the spying on Americans without juridical warrant, systematic torture, and the unprecedented wholesale, defiant signing statements declaring that the President, in his unbridled discretion, is the law.
The sworn oath of members of Congress is to uphold the Constitution.
Failure of the members of Congress to pursue impeachment of President Bush is an affront to the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the people of the United States.
Tomorrow - Saturday, April 5, 2008 at 6 p.m. - I'll be giving a major address about the impeachment at the historic National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
If you are in the area, please join our rally in a call to bring Bush and Cheney to justice.
If not, please donate now whatever you can to fuel our 50-state put impeachment back on the table campaign, and tell your friends about votenader.org.
Thank you for your dedication to peace and justice.
From The Sunday Times September 16, 2007 Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil Graham Paterson
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
An former Soviet president, introducer of glasnost, is saying how it is:
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev criticized the United States, and current President George W. Bush in particular, on Friday for sowing disorder across the world by seeking to build an empire.
Gorbachev, who presided over the break-up of the Soviet Union, said Washington had sought to build an empire after the Cold War ended but had failed to understand the changing world.
"The Americans then gave birth to the idea of a new empire, world leadership by a single power, and what followed?" Gorbachev asked reporters at a news conference in Moscow.
"What has followed are unilateral actions, what has followed are wars, what has followed is ignoring the U.N. Security Council, ignoring international law and ignoring the will of the people, even the American people. " [...]
Bush is still dreaming about "winning" the War in Iraq; Bagdad looks more like a nightmare.
BAGHDAD (AP) - Suspected Sunni insurgents penetrated the Baghdad security net Wednesday, hitting Shiite targets with four bomb attacks that killed 183 people - the bloodiest day since the U.S. troop increase began nine weeks ago.
The most devastating blast struck the Sadriyah market as workers were leaving for the day, charring a lineup of minibuses that came to pick them up. At least 127 people were killed and 148 wounded, including men who were rebuilding the market after a Feb. 3 bombing left 137 dead.
General Wesley Clarke about the US plans for future wars:
About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in.
He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.”
This was on or about the 20th of September.
I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.”
So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan.
I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?”
And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
Wesley Clark about the Middle East and the America's interests in the Middle East:
The truth is, about the Middle East is, had there been no oil there, it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa. The problem is the opposite. We keep asking for people to intervene and stop [the wars in Africa].
There's no question that the presence of petroleum throughout the [Middle East] has sparked great power involvement. Whether that was the specific motivation for the coup or not, I can't tell you. But there was definitely -- there's always been this attitude that somehow we could intervene and use force in the region.
Poverty in the United States of America: It rose drammatically under George W(ar) Bush.
The number of Americans living in severe poverty has expanded dramatically under the Bush administration, with nearly 16 million people now living on an individual income of less than $5,000 (£2,500) a year or a family income of less than $10,000, according to an analysis of 2005 official census data.
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The Bush administration will provide $86 million to help security forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, expanding U.S. involvement in his struggle with Hamas, according to documents seen on Friday.
[...]
Hamas lawmaker Mushir al-Masri accused Washington of helping to mount a "coup'' against the Hamas-led government. ``We demand that President Abbas reject this American policy, which feeds the culture of divisions among the Palestinian people,'' he said.
We're building a nationwide campaign to end the corrupt two party duopoly and pressure the complicit Democrats to do their sworn duty and impeach the two unaccountable outlaws in the White House.
