The New Pearl Harbor
Topic: State Of The Union
Check out the first clip on this page, The Project For The New American Century. While you're at it check out all the clips. These clips show the dangerously violent and ignorant men that are shaping our foreign policy.

"Hijacking Catastrophe" demonstrates that the Downing Street Memo isn't a "smoking gun" at all but rather an obvious byproduct of the mental masturbation that these clowns have been fantasizing about well before 9/11 and it's about damn time the American public knew that their government has sold them a deadly bill of goods.

P.S. I watched "Hijacking Catastrophe" on LinkTV and it is one powerful documentary. I not only highly recommend it, I highly recommend LinkTV which is a phenomenal resource for anyone that realizes that the majority of the world is outside of our borders. When you find LinkTV be sure to check out Amy Goodman on "Democracy NOW!"

Takedown
Topic: Bush
The Downing Street Memo is causing Democrats (and some Republicans) to finally wake up. The Downing Memo is going mainstream, creating further revelations and discussions and is forcing pieces of the lie into clear view. Like this, State Dems In Wisconsin, Nevada, Etc.: Impeach Bush

---

Here is a clip from Liberty News that is good but the ending is phenomenal. If you don't have the time, the patience or the focus to watch the whole clip skip to "23:10" entitled "Battle For America." The sentiments uttered in this clip should be the battle cry for liberals the world over.

Remember, we are not victims, we do the hard work of democracy, we have history on our side and we have never surrendered. So put that in your "dove liberal" pipe and smoke it because the battle for America has just begun. I love it!

Comin' Out Amidst The Whitewash
Topic: Iraq
"This is how the takedown of an American President begins..."

More information is leaking out about this administration's plans for "regime change" in Iraq. It's too bad that the mainstream press doesn't get off of it's ass because they could probably dig up a whole slew of evidence before September 11th to show that this administration had violent military action against Iraq at the top of its priority list.

It is good to see that at least the Washington Post decided to start covering the Downing Street Memo on it's front page, Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan, albeit in a way that demonstrates that they have an excellent ability to miss the greater point. Hey Washington Post, why not try a headline like this,

"NEWSFLASH: Secret British Memo Vindicates Liberals Everywhere: THE PRESIDENT LIED US INTO WAR"

The Sunday Times in Britian reported that Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’. Read the full document that the article references here, "Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action," which comes out of a meeting in Crawford between Blair and Bush on April 6, 2002 and is just full of juicy tidbits like,

"Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point."

And...

"US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law."

But wait, there's more...

"Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq."

Incidentally, in the press conference during the meeting that lead to the memo, Bush stated unequivocally that his goal in Iraq was "regime change," which is ironic because as I remember it, the "excuse" that this administration gave the world for the Iraq war, at least the one they gave alot more often and alot louder, was WMD (notice the "WAS"). Or was it was because Iraq had ties to Al-Queda? No that's definitely not true. Oh that's right, it was to bring freedom and democracy there. No that's not true either. I don't know it's just so confusing. I wish this administration would make up its mind already. (Press Conference: Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush)

Hopefully the U.S. press realizes that there are volumes of evidence waiting to be found that point to the conclusion that George W. Bush and company lied us into war not over WMD but for yet unreported motivations.

Downing Street Memo
Topic: Iraq
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

Put Downing In The Mainstream
Topic: Iraq
SIGN THE PETITION TO FORCE OUR ELECTED LEADERS TO INVESTIGATE THE VALIDITY OF THE DOWNING STREET MEMO:

TELL OUR LEADERS TO DO THEIR JOBS!

Downing In The Mainstream
Topic: State Of The Union
Look, I know the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power and frankly I'm tired of hearing that as an excuse to allow our President to lie to us. The Downing Street Memo, the authenticity of which hasn't been disputed by the British government, details the minutes of a very high level governmental meeting in which the British were certain that the Bush administration was setting up the intelligence to make a case for war in Iraq and come hell or high water they were assured that we were going to war.

I just want to get a couple of things straight about what went on before the start of the war. First of all, nutcases like myself from all around this nation and the world were screaming that Iraq did not possess WMD. We repeatedly asked the question of how a country with such debilitating sanctions imposed against it by the world community to the point of causing death to untold numbers of people could create sophisticated weapons programs. We asked why the inspectors on the ground were continually unable to find any shred of evidence pointing to Iraq building up its weapons programs. We asked why Hans Blix was so adamant about the non-existence of WMD in Iraq and why George Bush was so impatient with the inspections that were successfully proceeding. We asked how a country that we walked all over in 1991, who wasn't a threat to us when it was at full strength could ever be a threat to us after the sanctions. We questioned the reasoning behind attacking a country that had absolutely no connection to 9/11 or American directed terrorism.

So please don't tell me that it is with hindsight that I am now aware of these things. I said it then, I say it now and I said it all along. We all said it. Me and billions of my closest friends.

I say this not to rehash the past but to point out that we cannot move forward until we address these major issues. The world won't let us, karma won't let us and the insurgents certainly won't let us.

Let's face the facts.

There has been something that I've wanted to get off my chest for quite some time. I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING. I don't want your vote, I'm not peddling a product or service and frankly I don't even care if you like me. So why don't you believe me? I'm really not a kook. I do my homework. Maybe I have facts wrong at times but I ask you who's more likely to lie to you, The Indy Voice or a career politician? What would I have to gain by lying to you? What would a politician have to gain?

The fact is that I was right then and I'm right now. Trust me, I don't derive any satisfaction in telling you that this country went to war based upon false pretenses made up by an adminstration who had an ideology to further, campaign contributors to pay back and a divisive reelection to face. War solved all those problems for George W. Bush and it's about damn time this country was patriotic enough to face the truth.

So why is there just only brief mentionings (like this) of the Downing memo in the mainstream media? Why shouldn't everyday citizens of this country be aware of what poli-geeks like myself have been aware of for a month? Why isn't it front page news? Isn't there something wrong with a media that refuses to inform its citizens and a country that acts like it doesn't want to know about evidence that points to their President lying when he took us to war? If the memo's factual incorrect or a forgery shouldn't we at least have that discussion? Shouldn't we at least investigate the possibility?

Why isn't Downing in the mainstream?

---

This is an absolutely fabulous clip that puts the flag atop the mountain of evidence:

Don't Believe Me? Ask Condi Rice and Colin Powell

Washington, We Have A Problem!
Topic: State Of The Union
This is how the takedown of an American President begins. First it was the Downing Memo which clearly showed that this administration was intent upon using violence and not pursuing diplomatic avenues in Iraq. Now the President's pick for U.N. ambassador has been shown to have illegally succeeded in stopping Jose Bustani from sending chemical weapons inspectors to Iraq prior to the start of the illegal and immoral war.

Why might a member of the Bush administration attempt to stop inspectors from checking to see if Iraq was in possession of huge caches of chemical weapons? The answer isn't that the administration was afraid what the inspectors would find, this administration was scared to death of what they wouldn't find.

Not finding WMD didn't stop this administration from attacking Iraq but the Bush administration didn't want more and more evidence that their case for war was a steaming pile of bullshit. In the words of the article chemical inspectors finding nothing "might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war." So Bush sends in his right hand man in all things evil, the good ole' chickenhawk himself, John Bolton (Bolton Said to Orchestrate Unlawful Firing)

If the law doesn't catch up with this administration, history will.

Turning The Corner?
Topic: Iraq
As you read this article I ask that you put familiar names to the dead, like John, Colleen, Nick, Ashley, Michael or Bill and conjourn up the images of what this would look like if it happened in your hometown. Think about you and your neighbors children, your nephews and nieces, and your grandkids in the place of children in this situation. Death Toll at 825 Since New Iraq Gov't.

Keep in mind that this carnage has taken place since February 1st 2005 in a country that has the same population as New York state. Remind yourself that this has been going on for over 2 years and there is no end in sight.

Memorial Day
Topic: State Of The Union

me?mo?ri?al (m-mor-l, -mr-)

adj.
1. Serving as a remembrance of a person or an event; commemorative.
2. Of, relating to, or being in memory.

day

1. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity.

PEACE TAKES COURAGE

Self-Defense?
Topic: Iraq
I pray to God that this stuff finally catches up to this administration, U.S. AND RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war.

Apparently when our forces were only "entitled to use force in self-defence where such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems," someone ordered our military in 2002 to drop bombs at twice the rate dropped in 2001, not in response to any perceived threat or actual attack and "six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war."

If you don't believe that the Bush administration had Iraq in it's sights well before 9/11 and was going to war no matter what transpired you simply must remove your head from your ass.

P.S. The most unfortunate part about all this overwhelming hard evidence that proves that the Bush administration lied about everything regarding Iraq is that you'll probably only hear about it on The Indy Voice and a few other "liberal" sites. The "mainstream" media is too busy reporting on the important things like Michael Jackson and the runaway bride and the "conservatives" are too busy blaming liberals for everything evil in the world which is an utterly amazing accomplishment for a group that while receiving slightly under 50% of the popular vote has neither the money, the power or the voice, not to mention control of our 3 branches of government on their side to accomplish all this evil.