The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison
Nonviolent Struggle: 50 Crucial Points
George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes
Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea
A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict
Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential
A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush
The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law
United States v. George W. Bush et al.
The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush
The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens
The Case for Impeachment
Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney
George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying
Verdict and Findings of Fact
Impeach Bush: A Funny Li'l Graphical Novel About the Worstest Pres'dent in the History of Forevar
Pretensions to Empire: Notes on the Criminal Folly of the Bush Administration
The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America
The Two Things War Supporters Are Least Likely to Know
By David Swanson
There are still people alive in the United States who support the continued occupation of Iraq, and in many cases the same people are open to supporting an aggressive attack on Iran. While they inhabit a very different worldview from my own, they are able to recognize basic facts if made aware of them. If you should meet one of these war supporters, I would recommend making them aware of the two most jarring facts least likely to fit with their preconceptions. One of these facts became known to a certain segment of the population in February 2006, but remains unknown to most consumers of American news media. The other fact was just revealed this month and is certain to remain equally unknown.
1. FACT #1 Bush wanted to provoke Saddam Hussein into attacking Americans
On January 31, 2003, prior to the full-scale invasion of Iraq in March 2003, President George W. Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the White House. After their meeting, they spoke to the media and claimed not to have decided on war, to be working hard to achieve peace, and to be worried about the imminent threat from Iraq to the American people. They claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to al Qaeda and -- Bush implied but avoided explicitly stating -- to the attacks of September 11, 2001. They also claimed to already have UN authorization for launching an attack on Iraq. Here's the video:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01
Behind closed doors, however, other words were spoken. Blair advisor David Manning took notes that day. Here is what he wrote down. It has never been challenged by Bush or Blair.
http://afterdowningstreet.org/whitehousememo
Bush proposed to Blair a number of possible ways in which they might be able to create an excuse to launch a war against Iraq. One of Bush's proposals was "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them," Bush argued, "he would be in breach" of UN resolutions. In other words, Bush wanted to falsely paint US planes with UN colors and try to get them shot at. This is how he really thought about the horrible evil threat of Saddam Hussein: he wanted to provoke him.
Bush understood that the United Nations had not passed a resolution that would have legalized an attack on Iraq. He told Blair that "the US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.'' In other words, going to the United Nations was not actually an attempt to avoid war, but an attempt to gain legal cover for a war that would be launched regardless of whether that project succeeded.
Knowing this might open a few minds to the overwhelming evidence that each of the specific claims Bush and Cheney made about particular weapons was known by them at the time to be false:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments
2. FACT #2 Cheney and Gang Want to Manufacture an Excuse to Attack Iran
Journalist Seymour Hersh reports that at a meeting this year in the Vice President's office, soon after the incident in the Strait of Hormuz in which a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats...
"There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected."
Here's video of Hersh:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/sealtricks
Now, that idea may have been rejected, but which ideas were not rejected? Some pretty bad ones according to Scott Ritter's recent report on what the United States is already doing in Iran:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/35141
So, both Bush and Cheney (or at least the people Cheney meets with) treat wars not as last resorts but as desired outcomes of closed-door plotting and scheming of crazy keystone cops scenarios that would be laughable if not so potentially deadly. And these two facts reveal a whole different perspective on the motivations of the people controlling the largest imperial military force the world has ever known.
www.VelvetRevolution.us
falsely painting planes
I have brought this subject up here before and will probably be censored for it but this whole business of painting planes was also achieved on 9/11. What we saw were planes that were remotely controlled, the originals being swapped in between tower controls over the blue ridge. Operation vigilante guard made sure there was chaos in the air on that day so control towers could not detect the swapping of planes. They destroyed the decoy planes by bringing down the buildings with explosives. They covered up the explosives by shipping the steel to China to be melted just days after 9/11. Never to be seen again..evidence from a crime scene. It is worse than what you think, publishers of this web site. We are dealing with a criminal enterprise that has taken over our country in the name of cold hard cash and the quest for oil.
American on American and FALSE FLAG
The proposal to put false UN markings on a U-2 is literally a case of FALSE FLAG CONSPIRACY by these assholes. Just as was the proposal to build, equip and man with Americans a marauding gunboat posing as Iranians.
So I ask you: how much of a leap would it have been for the Vice Prick & Co. to have done exactly the same but using foreign personnel? Let's say, some crazy-ass Fundamentalist Wahabbi Arabs? Exactly.
Now, for "crazy-ass Wahabbi Arab" -well known, and accessible to Cheney/BushCo - substitute "Usamma Bin Laden". And, for American-arranged "gunboat", substitute "airliners on 9/11".
Anyone who can't see that this is just exactly what these pricks did to us - in order to justify all the horseshit which has followed - is just a fucking idiot.
And it is only a real confrontation of THIS TRUTH which can ever set us free. STRIKE 9/11/08!.
Semper Fi,
-Matty in Florida
WELL RIGHT ON MATTY
YOU GO MATTY. YOUR TELLIN EM ! STRIKE 9-11-08
American on American
The idea, as espoused by Nazi Germany is to use condemned prisoner as sacrifices. Send them on a Dirty Dozen caper. Two birds with one stone.
Bugliosi's airtight case> Bush's INTENT OF MALICE AFORETHOUGHT
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/spielberg5.html
"Bush Behind Bars?
by Dan Spielberg
In his new book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (Vanguard Press, 2008), Vincent Bugliosi, the man who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson for murder, argues convincingly that President George W. Bush's conduct in taking the U.S. military to war against Iraq under false pretenses in March of 2003 qualifies him to be prosecuted for murder in any state in the nation. The victims in the case would be all the soldiers from that state that were killed in the war against Iraq. He lays out his case in a devastatingly logical and methodical manner, weaving together all the relevant facts to paint the definitive portrait of just how reckless and criminal was the behavior of President Bush in his push for war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Famous for his true crime books, such as the book about Charles Manson that launched his literary career, Helter Skelter, Bugliosi shows us that he is still in fine form.
The legal definition of murder, as Bugliosi tells us, is "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." Under the law, for there to be a true crime committed the two elements of a prohibited act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea) must coexist in time. According to Bugliosi's legal argument, Bush's act in this case would be his sending U.S. troops to Iraq, resulting in the death of some 4,000 of them. The criminal intent that would need to be shown, malice aforethought, could be proven by demonstrating that Bush took them to war with "reckless and wanton disregard for the consequences and indifference to human life." The only legal defense that could be mounted against charges like this would be that Bush acted in defense of the nation. In order to prove that Bush did not act in defense of the nation in starting the war, knowing all too well that Saddam Hussein was no threat to this country, and had no role in the attacks of 9/11, Bugliosi takes us on a painful walk down memory lane.
He points out that one of the first references to Iraq made by the Bush administration after 9/11 was made on October 15, 2001, by then Secretary of State Colin Powell when he told the press "Iraq is Iraq, a wasted society for 10 years. They're sad. They're contained..." If that were the case, how were they supposed to be a threat to the world's strongest military power?
Bugliosi calls our attention to the fact that after Bush had started talking about the possibility of war with Iraq he said that his decision will be based on the "latest intelligence." What he never said, of course, is that on October 1, 2002, the classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate issued by the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies said that Saddam Hussein was NOT an imminent threat to the U.S. Not long after that, on the afternoon of October 7, 2002, then CIA director George Tenet delivered a letter to Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, saying "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical or biological weapons) against the United States." That evening Bush delivers a speech to the nation at the Museum Center in Cincinnati, Ohio in which he called Saddam Hussein a "great danger to our nation."
Then there is the infamous reference to Saddam Hussein's supposed quest for uranium in Africa in the President's 2003 State of the Union speech, which was based on documents which were believed to be forgeries by U. S. intelligence agencies. In October of 2002 George Tenet told Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley that the president "should not be a fact witness on this issue" and the reporting on it was "weak." ..."
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC...PNAC is Bush/Cheney's "Helter Skelter" !
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac