BushCo crimes - lets do the world a favour

"And indeed "all of those people" should be charged. It would be a long list.
At the top would be the U.S. officials who, after arresting Arar in New York in September 2002 as a suspected terrorist, chose to send him to Syria to be tortured rather than lay charges"

"52 percent of Americans now believe the President deliberately distorted intelligence to make a case for war. In an Ipsos Public Affairs poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org and completed October 9, 50 percent said that if Bush lied about his reasons for going to war Congress should consider impeaching him. The President's deceit is not only an abuse of power; it is a federal crime. Specifically, it is a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States."

what happened to the format here?
It is so wide... that long URL is doing it ?
Solutions?

Bigger Than Watergate
Bush-Cheney Traitors Deserve Prison, Impeachment
By Ted Rall
11/01/05 "ICH " -- -- URBANA, ILLINOIS--To weigh the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame against historical standards, consider that no leader of the Soviet Union--including that master of ruthlessness, Josef Stalin--ever arranged for the name of a KGB operative to appear in a newspaper. Adolf Hitler had countless millions murdered, yet getting at a political enemy by endangering agents of the Sicherheitsdienst, the Nazi intelligence service, didn't cross his mind. In this respect, not even the worst tyrants have stooped to the level of George W. Bush.
Don't let the Republicans distract you. Treasongate isn't just about deposed vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby, who has been charged with five felony counts and faces 30 years in prison, or even deputy presidential chief of staff Karl Rove, who may soon be charged as well. The Libby charges clearly point to the real culprit: Dick Cheney, who told Libby about Plame's covert status in the first place. Cheney abused his security clearance to find out. "Libby understood that the vice president had learned this information from the C.I.A.," reads page five of the indictment.

Quote has been trimmed

Democrats Force Senate Into Iraq Meeting

By LIZ SIDOTI

11/01/05 "AP" -- -- WASHINGTON - Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that President Bush used in the run-up to the war in Iraq and accusing Republicans of ignoring the issue.

"They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why," Democratic leader Harry Reid said.

Taken by surprise, Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Reid demanded the Senate go into closed session. The public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, and the doors were closed. No vote is required in such circumstances.


Reid's move shone a spotlight on the continuing controversy over intelligence that President Bush cited in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Despite prewar claims, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and some Democrats have accused the administration of manipulating the information that was in their possession.

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted last Friday in an investigation that touched on the war, the leak of the identity of a CIA official married to a critic of the administration's Iraq policy.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session.

Libby resigned from his White House post after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.

Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."

A former majority leader, Lott said a closed session was appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons _ the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.

As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.

an aside: but have no clue as to why on earth Charles and Camilla would worry about "impressing" the americans. .....as not sure anyone cares what the current america thinks. (IF it even "thinks")If this is the beginning of an implosion.......so be it. Cause and effect....

Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

an aside: but have no clue as to why on earth Charles and Camilla would worry about "impressing" the americans. .....as not sure anyone cares what the current america thinks. (IF it even "thinks")If this is the beginning of an implosion.......so be it. Cause and effect....

Just doing their jobs, Ocean Breeze - if you can call shaking hands a job.

Senate Democrats Force Closed Session on Intelligence (Update1)
Nov. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats forced a closed session of the U.S. Senate today to call for an investigation into the Bush administration's use of intelligence about Iraq, a maneuver Republicans dismissed as a political ``stunt.''

Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid invoked a rule that requires a closed session on the Senate floor in which the galleries are cleared of visitors. Democrats threatened to use the tactic daily until Republicans convene hearings into the administration's use of intelligence surrounding the war in which more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers have died.

``Be prepared to face this motion every day until you face this reality,'' said Senator Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called the move ``an affront to the leadership of this grand institution.'' Typically, such sessions over intelligence matters occur only after the leaders in both parties agree, he said.

``The U.S. Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leaders,'' he said. Reid and Durbin orchestrated a ``pure stunt,'' Frist said.

Reid said the indictment Friday of I. Lewis Libby, vice President Richard Cheney's chief of staff, requires a full investigation that he said was promised by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts a year and a half ago.

Libby

``The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions,'' Reid said.

Libby was indicted Friday and accused of lying to a grand jury and to FBI agents investigating who revealed the name of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame to reporters in July 2003 after her husband publicly criticized the Iraq war.

Under Senate rules, the special session can be brought to an end by a majority vote. Republicans control the Senate with 55 of 100 votes, and Frist indicated that eventually Republicans will try to vote to end the session and return to debate over a budget-related bill.

.S. DISCUSSES INVASION OF SAUDI ARABIA


WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The United States has raised the prospect of a military invasion of Saudi Arabia.

The response could include the deployment of three U.S. Army divisions backed by fighter-jets and airborne early-warning and alert aircraft. In all, the U.S.-led mission could include up to 300,000 troops.

The House Armed Services Committee was briefed on the prospect of a Saudi coup and U.S. response during a hearing on Oct. 26. The scenario was outlined by Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, who cited a Saudi coup as one of several threats to the United States.

"How should the United States respond if a coup, presumably fundamentalist in nature, overthrows the royal family in Saudi Arabia?" O'Hanlon asked. "Such a result would raise the specter of major disruption to the oil economy."

US steps up planning for a Cuba without Castro
Financial Times


Updated: 12:42 a.m. ET Nov. 1, 2005
US planning for Cuba's "transition" after the demise of Fidel Castro has entered a new stage, with a special office for reconstruction inside the US State Department preparing for the "day after", when Washington will try to back a democratic government in Havana.

The inter-agency effort, which also involves the Defense Department, recognises that the Cuba transition may not go peacefully and that the US may have to launch a nation-building exercise.

Experts Say US is Losing War on Terror
by David Morgan

WASHINGTON - U.S. terrorism experts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is losing.


(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially.

Steven Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University
Despite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States.

America's badly damaged image in the Muslim world could take more than a generation to set right. And Bush's mounting political woes at home have undermined the chance for any bold U.S. initiatives to address the grim social realities that feed Islamic radicalism, they say.

"It's been fairly disastrous," said Benjamin, who worked as a director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council from 1994 to 1999.

"We have had some very important successes getting individual terrorists. But I think the broader story is really quite awful. We have done a lot to fuel the fires, and we have done a lot to encourage people to hate us," he added in an interview.

Benjamin and Simon, a former State Department official who was also at the NSC, are co-authors of a new book titled: "The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting it Right" (Times Books).

Following on from their 2002 book, "The Age of Sacred Terror" (Random House), Benjamin and Simon list what they call U.S. missteps since the September 11, 2001, attacks on America.

The Bush administration presents the war on terrorism as a difficult but largely successful struggle that has seen the gutting of al Qaeda's pre-September 11 leadership and prevented new attacks in the United States over the past four years.

Bush said last month the United States and its allies had disrupted plans for 10 al Qaeda attacks since September 11, including one against West Coast targets with hijacked planes.

The White House describes Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism and says the building of democracy there will confound militant aims and help to propel the entire Middle East region toward democracy.

Benjamin and Simon's criticism of the Bush administration in Iraq follows a path similar to those of other critics, including former U.S. national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke.

"We may be attacked by terrorists who receive their training in Iraq, or attacked by terrorists who were inspired, organized and trained by people who were in Iraq," said Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University.

"(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially."

For Benjamin and Simon, the war on terrorism has cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and failed to counter a deadly global movement responsible for attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Indonesia, and Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

And not even al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, they say, could have dreamed the United States would stumble so badly in the court of Muslim public opinion.

"Everyone says there's a war of ideas out there, and I agree. The sad fact is that we're on the wrong side," said Benjamin, now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

U.S. fortunes could improve, the authors say, if Washington took a number of politically challenging steps, like bolstering public diplomacy with trade pacts aimed at expanding middle-class influence in countries such as Pakistan.

Washington also needs to do more to ease regional tensions that feed Muslim grievances across the globe, from Thailand and the Philippines to Chechnya and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a Muslim world of 1.2 billion people, as many as three-in-four hold negative views of the United States.

Because anti-U.S. rhetoric often appeals strongly to impressionable youth, Benjamin and Simon believe many of today's young Muslims will harbor grievances against the United States for the rest of their lives.

The authors believe there is little prospect for fundamental improvement in U.S. policy under Bush "There are resource constraints, there are constraints in the realm of trade, there are political constraints," said Simon.

"These are not the kinds of circumstances that favor bold new policies that require spending political capital that it turns out the White House just doesn't have," he added

The White House Criminal Conspiracy
Elizabeth de la Vega
Legally, there are no significant differences between the investor fraud perpetrated by Enron CEO Ken Lay and the prewar intelligence fraud perpetrated by George W. Bush. Both involved persons in authority who used half-truths and recklessly false statements to manipulate people who trusted them. There is, however, a practical difference: The presidential fraud is wider in scope and far graver in its consequences than the Enron fraud. Yet thus far the public seems paralyzed.
In response to the outcry raised by Enron and other scandals, Congress passed the Corporate Corruption Bill, which President Bush signed on July 30, 2002, amid great fanfare. Bush declared that he was signing the bill because of his strong belief that corporate officers must be straightforward and honest. If they were not, he said, they would be held accountable.
Ironically, the day Bush signed the Corporate Corruption Bill, he and his aides were enmeshed in an orchestrated campaign to trick the country into taking the biggest risk imaginable--a war. Indeed, plans to attack Iraq were already in motion. In June Bush announced his "new" pre-emptive strike strategy. On July 23, 2002, the head of British intelligence advised Prime Minister Tony Blair, in the then-secret Downing Street Memo, that "military action was now seen as inevitable" and that "intelligence and facts were being...

Quote has been trimmed

an aside: but have no clue as to why on earth Charles and Camilla would worry about "impressing" the americans. .....as not sure anyone cares what the current america thinks. (IF it even "thinks")If this is the beginning of an implosion.......so be it. Cause and effect....

How America Became a Pariah
The indictment of "Scooter" Libby moved me to reflect on the changes in the nation and myself over the four years since the horrific events of 9/11. Like most Americans I was devastated and angered by the attack and wanted revenge against all those responsible for the atrocity. Although I didn't vote for him I applauded my president's leadership in identifying and pursuing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I felt a rush of patriotic fervor and joined millions of my countrymen in proudly raising the flag at my house every morning.
Almost a year later in the summer of 2002 Bush and his spokespersons began a campaign to drum up support for a preemptive attack against Iraq, a country having no connection to the 9/11 attack. The saber rattling rhetoric culminated in the State of the Union address of January 2003 when Bush dropped the 16-word bomb concerning Iraq's supposed acquisition of uranium from Africa. We would later learn from Joseph Wilson that this was a monstrous lie and Bush knew it. Sensing that war was looming, millions of people around the world demonstrated and pleaded for the president to let the U.N. inspectors complete their search for weapons that until that time had not been found.
On March 19, 2003, defying world opinion and in flagrant violation of international law, George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States of America, launched an unprovoked war of aggression...

Quote has been trimmed

Canada arrest the President of the US!

Oh please. Stop being so foolish.

i just like the idea of cluster****s -

Tomgram: Failing upward, Bush-style
[Note to Tomdispatch readers: Three weeks ago, Nick Turse wrote a dispatch, The Fallen Legion, Casualties of the Bush Administration, about government officials who resigned or retired in protest, or were forced over a cliff by this administration. It was, in essence, a proposal for a Wall of Honor. At the time, we realized that it should be accompanied by a Wall of Shame. This, then, is the first of two linked pieces that attempt to apportion a little of the shame and honor. Look for Nick Turse's accompanying piece tomorrow.]
Bush's Wall of Shame
By Tom Engelhardt
The motto of this administration might easily be: "failing upward." Of course, that's not hard when those leading the country into catastrophe are also making the appointments and bestowing the honors. Somewhere in this world of ours there should be at least one Wall of Shame (and perhaps an adjoining Wall of Cronyism) for an administration which has heaped favor, position, and honors on those who have blundered, lied, manipulated, and broken the law (not to say, cracked open the Constitution and the republic). Here is just a sampling of the band of culprits who might appear on such a wall and but a few of the things for which they might be held accountable:

Quote has been trimmed

In the Name of Democracy
American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond
By Jeremy Brecher, Jill Cutler and Brendan Smith
11/07/05 "ZNet" -- -- Brandon Hughey was a private at Fort Hood when he discovered that his army unit was about to be sent to Iraq. The eighteen-year-old from San Angelo, Texas, was desperate-not because he was afraid to go to war, but because he was convinced that the Iraq war was immoral. He considered solving the problem by taking his own life. Instead, he got in a car and drove to Canada. He explained, "I would fight in an act of defense, if my home and family were in danger. But Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. They barely had an army left, and [UN Secretary-General] Kofi Annan actually said [attacking Iraq was] a violation of the UN charter. It's nothing more than an act of aggression. You can't go along with a criminal activity just because others are doing it." If, as the Bush administration has maintained, the United States is fighting in Iraq to protect itself from terrorism, free the people of Iraq from tyranny, enforce international law, and bring peace and democracy to the Middle East, then war resisters like Brandon Hughey appear deluded if not cowardly and criminal.
But what if Private Hughey is right? What if the U.S. operation in Iraq is "nothing more than an act of aggression?" What if it indeed constitutes "criminal activity"? What, then, is the culpability of President George...

Quote has been trimmed

November 7, 2005

IRAQ: ITALIAN TV ALLEGES U.S. USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN FALLUJAH

Rome, 7 Nov. (AKI) - A documentary to be aired on Tuesday by Italian state satellite TV channel RAI News 24 alleges that US troops used chemical weapons during their assault on the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah in November last year. The documentary - 'Fallujah - the hidden massacre' - uses witness accounts from former US soldiers, Fallujah residents, video footage and photographs, to support its claim that contrary to US State Department denials, white phosphorous was used indiscriminately on the city, causing terrible injuries to civilians, including women and children.

"I heard the order being issued to be careful because white phosphorous was being used on Fallujah. In military slang this is known as Willy Pete. Phosphorous burns bodies, melting the flesh right down to the bone," says one former US solider, interviewed by the documentary's director, Sigfrido Ranucci.

"I saw the burned bodies of women and children. The phosophorous explodes and forms a plume. Who ever is within a 150 metre radius has no hope," the former soldier adds.

"A rain of fire came down on the city, and people targeted by the different coloured substances began to burn. We found people dead, with strange injuries, with their clothes intact," a biologist from Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq al-Deraji tells Ranucci.

The evidence in 'Fallujah - the hidden massacre' claims to show the US forces did not use phosphorous in the legitimate way - to highlight enemy positions - but dropped the substance indiscriminately on the city, and on a massive scale. The documentary also shows the terrible damage wrought by the US bombardment of Fallujah, and the carnage to civilians, some of whom lay sleeping.

Equally disturbingly, a document in the report claims to prove that the U.S. forces have used the MK77 form of Napalm - the chemical used with devastating effect on civilians during the Vietnam war - on civilians in Iraq.

"I had gathered testimonials on the use of phosphorous and Napalm in Iraq from several refugees from Fallujah, and wanted to tell the world about it, but my kidnappers would not allow me to," said Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, held hostage in Iraq earlier this year, during the documentary.

The use of white phosophorous and Napalm is prohibited by UN conventions. Moroever, the United States signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997

US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah

by Peter Popham, The Independent [London, UK]

Nov. 8, 2005

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumors have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.

On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."

The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: "The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons."

In December the US government formally denied the reports, describing them as "widespread myths". "Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used 'outlawed' phosphorus shells in Fallujah," the Usinfo website said. "Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.

"They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.

In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.

"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 meters is done for."

Photographs on the website of RAI TG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Center of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, color close- ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelized or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-colored substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."

The documentary, entitled Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.

Meanwhile, five US soldiers from the elite 75th Ranger Regiment have been charged with kicking and punching detainees in Iraq.

The news came as a suicide car bomber killed four American soldiers at a checkpoint south of Baghdad yesterday.