The one piece of information from Risen’s book that has gotten all the focus is his exposure of the warrantless wiretapping by the NSA. But the rest of his book has one bombshell after another about the inner workings of the CIA and the Pentagon, and how Bush and Cheney were pressing the intelligence communities BEFORE 9/11/01 on Iraq. One quote out of the book is “They intended from day one to invade Iraq, and 9/11 was just a delayance.”

Chris Matthews revealed this past week that former Secretary of Defense Wlm. Cohen told him that in December 2000, right after the Supremes called the election, Cheney called Cohen and told him that he wanted a report from him on only one country. Iraq. Cheney wanted Cohen to brief him on everything that he knew about Iraq.

The Downing Memos, Richard Clarke, Former secretary O’neil, etc… have all revealed Bush’s push for war with Iraq pre 9/11. All of the reasons/justifications, from WMDs, to Al Qaeda ties, to Iraqi liberation have all gone up in flames and have been revealed as lies and yet he/she still gives the benefit of the doubt to the administration?

Any time any bit of real info gets leaked to the press ala, the secret torture camps in Uzbekistan, the Bush admin goes Ballistic, threatens jail time, and reasserts it’s lies.

Seixon ignores that America’s new policy of torture comes from the top, ala Bush reserving the right to ignore the McCain anti-torture law, Pre-attorney general Gonzalez arguments for the U.S. abandonment of the Geneva convention and the possible use of torture… ” “outrages upon personal dignity” and “inhuman treatment” are “undefined’ and that it is difficult to predict with confidence what action might constitute violations, and that it would be “… For greater detail I refer you to: http://www.lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm And yet, Seixon seems to be okay with a few lower level grunts being hung out to dry when the policy comes from the very top?

And, while Matthews may not be a fan of Bush’s admin, he is clearly a fan of Bush himself… “We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical, who’s not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who’s president. Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple. We’re not like the Brits.”
(5/1/03) ” You know, Tony, there is in the past, it‘s not always there, but sometimes it glimmers with this man, our president, that kind of sunny nobility. How does he bring it back because it hasn‘t been apparent for a while now.” (10/24/05) “Well, it’s probably the greatest gamble since Roosevelt backed Britain before World War II. The president deserves credit, if this gamble comes through — and it’s not clear yet. If his gamble that he can create a democracy in the middle of the Arab world and he does it, he belongs on Mount Rushmore.” (12/16/05) ” I like him. Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left — I mean — like him personally.” (11/28/05) and these are just the tip of the iceberg. Furthermore, what’s very interesting is that his praise and support and his claims that the president is popular and “liked” flew in the face of rapidly falling approval numbers.

Hey, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for “proof”, but to willfully disregard that proof when it’s right in front of your eyes? To disregard that the best “proof” is being jealously guarded by the liars and that they ignore every attempt to force the truth from them to include ignoring court orders?

I’ll admit to being an extrremely progressive Liberal, with an inherrent distrust of Bushco, but post 9/11 even I gave him them the benefit of a doubt, but then they liead about when what they knew and when they knew it, I mean come on… “Bin Laden determined to attack U.S.” is too vague to be acted upon? No one conceived of them using planes as weapons despite mulitple reports that said as much? Then they lied about yellow cake, they lied about aluminum tubes, they lied about a report from the head of the IAEA, they lied about links to Al Qaeda. Call me a cynic, but I detected a pattern of willfully misleading the public about matters of national interest which lead to an illegal war where quite likely 100s of thousands have died. we’ll never be able to wash the blood from our hands, and we’ve proven the muslim extremists worst arguments against us. If only they’d lied abut a blow-job they’d be impeached by now.

Before you even try don’t try to suggest that violating the U.N. sanctions made the war legal. You can’t use the U.N. to justify a war the U.N. itself opposed and said was not justified.

And just to rub salt in the wound, most of the Bushco lies leading up to the war could be found with research on the internet well before we launched this bloody campaign. Many of us knew it was built upon lies beofre the first bombs fell. How do we get our country back? How does our country get it’s credibility back? When will the Dems grow a spine? When will true conservatives reclaim their party from the neo-cons? Is it already too late?

The Downing Memos, Richard Clarke, Former secretary O’neil, etc… have all revealed Bush’s push for war with Iraq pre 9/11. All of the reasons/justifications, from WMDs, to Al Qaeda ties, to Iraqi liberation have all gone up in flames and have been revealed as lies and yet he/she still gives the benefit of the doubt to the administration?

Any time any bit of real info gets leaked to the press ala, the secret torture camps in Uzbekistan, the Bush admin goes Ballistic, threatens jail time, and reasserts it’s lies.

Seixon ignores that America’s new policy of torture comes from the top, ala Bush reserving the right to ignore the McCain anti-torture law, Pre-attorney general Gonzalez arguments for the U.S. abandonment of the Geneva convention and the possible use of torture… ” “outrages upon personal dignity” and “inhuman treatment” are “undefined’ and that it is difficult to predict with confidence what action might constitute violations, and that it would be “… For greater detail I refer you to: http://www.lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm And yet, Seixon seems to be okay with a few lower level grunts being hung out to dry when the policy comes from the very top?

And, while Matthews may not be a fan of Bush’s admin, he is clearly a fan of Bush himself… “We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical, who’s not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who’s president. Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple. We’re not like the Brits.”
(5/1/03) ” You know, Tony, there is in the past, it‘s not always there, but sometimes it glimmers with this man, our president, that kind of sunny nobility. How does he bring it back because it hasn‘t been apparent for a while now.” (10/24/05) “Well, it’s probably the greatest gamble since Roosevelt backed Britain before World War II. The president deserves credit, if this gamble comes through — and it’s not clear yet. If his gamble that he can create a democracy in the middle of the Arab world and he does it, he belongs on Mount Rushmore.” (12/16/05) ” I like him. Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left — I mean — like him personally.” (11/28/05) and these are just the tip of the iceberg. Furthermore, what’s very interesting is that his praise and support and his claims that the president is popular and “liked” flew in the face of rapidly falling approval numbers.

Hey, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for “proof”, but to willfully disregard that proof when it’s right in front of your eyes? To disregard that the best “proof” is being jealously guarded by the liars and that they ignore every attempt to force the truth from them to include ignoring court orders?

I’ll admit to being an extrremely progressive Liberal, with an inherrent distrust of Bushco, but post 9/11 even I gave him them the benefit of a doubt, but then they liead about when what they knew and when they knew it, I mean come on… “Bin Laden determined to attack U.S.” is too vague to be acted upon? No one conceived of them using planes as weapons despite mulitple reports that said as much? Then they lied about yellow cake, they lied about aluminum tubes, they lied about a report from the head of the IAEA, they lied about links to Al Qaeda. Call me a cynic, but I detected a pattern of willfully misleading the public about matters of national interest which lead to an illegal war where quite likely 100s of thousands have died. we’ll never be able to wash the blood from our hands, and we’ve proven the muslim extremists worst arguments against us. If only they’d lied abut a blow-job they’d be impeached by now.

Before you even try don’t try to suggest that violating the U.N. sanctions made the war legal. You can’t use the U.N. to justify a war the U.N. itself opposed and said was not justified.

And just to rub salt in the wound, most of the Bushco lies leading up to the war could be found with research on the internet well before we launched this bloody campaign. Many of us knew it was built upon lies beofre the first bombs fell. How do we get our country back? How does our country get it’s credibility back? When will the Dems grow a spine? When will true conservative reclaim their party from the neo-cons? Is it already too late?

Rumsfeld and Bush keep marketing the war. At a recent press conference, Rumsfeld threw in the tactical comment that the insurgents were so despicable that they were even putting bombs in the bellies of dead babies, so that when relatives came to claim them that they’d blow up more people.

Bombs in dead babies??? Even if that is true, how low can he get in trying to manipulate the public’s emotions (and shut off their brains with the shock)??? Very low indeed. It doesn’t get lower.

If Colin Powell were a man of real character, and had real integrity, he would have stood up and shouted: This is wrong, and I am not going to be a part of it.” It would not have been easy, and yes, he may have been pilloried, but it would have been the mark of real courage and the right thing to do. He ain’t no Rosa Parks.

Now, he is as responsible as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for the debacle that is Iraq, and the hundreds of thousands of deaths it precipitated.

Traditionalists — Born 1900 to 1945
Sometimes referred to as the World War II generation, traditionalists have worked longer than any of the other generations. Experiencing two world wars and the Great Depression taught most members of this generation how to live within limited means. Traditionalists are loyal, hardworking, financially conservative and faithful to institutions. Many are approaching retirement or are retired and now working part-time jobs.

Baby boomers — Born 1946 to 1964
When the baby boomers entered the work force, they felt compelled to challenge the status quo, and they’re responsible for many of the rights and opportunities now taken for granted. Their boundless optimism led many to fight for change. Because of their large numbers, they faced competition from each other for jobs. Baby boomers all but invented the 60-hour workweek, figuring that demonstrated hard work and loyalty to employers was one way to get ahead. Their sense of who they are is deeply connected to their career achievements. As a whole, this generation is politically adept when it comes to navigating political minefields in the workplace.

Generation Xers — Born 1965 to 1980
Generation Xers are technologically savvy, having ushered in the era of video games and personal computers during their formative years. But witnessing skyrocketing divorce rates, their parents being laid off after years of dedicated service and challenges to the presidency, organized religion and big corporations instilled a sense of skepticism and distrust of institutions. Because they don’t expect employer loyalty, they see no problem changing jobs to advance professionally.

In contrast to the baby boomers’ overtime work ethic, generation Xers believe that work isn’t the most important thing in their lives. They’re resourceful and hardworking, but once 5 o’clock hits, they’d rather pursue other interests.

Millennials — Born 1981 to 1999
Many in this generation are still in school, but the oldest millennials are recent college graduates just now entering the work force. These are kids who’ve had access to cell phones, pagers and personal computers all their lives.

Millennials are eager to learn and enjoy questioning things. They’re confident and have high self-esteem. They’re collaborators and favor teamwork, having functioned in groups in school, organized sports and extracurricular activities from a very young age. They reject the notion that they have to stay within the rigid confines of a job description. Expect them to keep their career options open. As opposed to generation Xers who change jobs, millennials are more likely to make entire career changes or to build parallel careers.

It was his testimony at the U.N. about WMD facilities that gave me my only point of pause and doubt about Bush as Powell was someone I respected. I won’t make that mistake again.

http://www.peacetakescourage.com/3years.html

Please, people. The attack upon Iraq was not and has not ever been about oil. If oil had been the overiding consideration, the nearest place and with abundance too, would be Venezuela. It’s all about ‘a shitty little country called Isreal’ according to the French Ambassador to Britain.